scholarly journals Prompt Release of Detained Foreign Vessels and Crews in Matters of Marine Environment Protection

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heiki Lindpere
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
Environment Protection ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
State Party ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Flag State

Article 292 of the United Nations 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention) reads:1. Where the authorities of a state party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another state party and it is alleged that the detaining state has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining state under article 287 or to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, unless the parties otherwise agree.2. The application for release may be made only by or on behalf of the flag state of the vessel.3. The court or tribunal shall deal without delay with the application for release and shall deal only with the question of release, without prejudice to the merits of any case before the appropriate domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew. The authorities of the detaining state remain competent to release the vessel or its crew at any time.4. Upon the posting of the bond or other financial security determined by the court or tribunal, the authorities of the detaining state shall comply promptly with the decision of the court or tribunal concerning the release of the vessel or its crew.

The Proceedings Concerning Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
State Party ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
The Law ◽  
Two Parameters ◽  
Fair Chance ◽  
Flag State

AbstractThe proceedings for the prompt release of vessels set out in Article 292 of the Law of the Sea Convention are independent from domestic as well as from other international proceedings. The dispute consists in a disagreement between the parties when a ship flying the flag of a State Party has been detained by another party in violation of the provisions of the Convention for prompt release of vessels upon posting of bond or other financial security. These provisions are Articles 73(2), 220(6) and 220(7), and 226(b) and (c). It is argued that the prompt release proceedings can be resorted to also when the vessel has been detained in contravention to a provision of the Convention prohibiting detention. This might make the proceedings relevant for detention in violation of the 1995 Convention on Straddling Fish Stocks. The proceedings start with an application for release, which may be submitted by the flag state or on its behalf, and have to meet two requirements: reaching a decision expeditiously and ensuring that both parties have a fair chance to present their case. The case will in principle be heard by the full Tribunal even though it may be expedient to formulate rules that permit a Chamber to hear it, without jeopardizing the applicable principles. A hearing is the fulcrum of the proceedings. The decision of the Tribunal-which seems to meet the requirements of a "judgment"-brings the proceedings to a close. The decision shall be final. The detaining state is bound to release the vessel promptly as soon as a bond or other financial security has been posted by the flag state. The decision is also binding as to the reasonableness of the bond or security. In determining whether a bond or security is reasonable two parameters seem essential: the value of the vessel and the amount of the damage or of the monetary penalties claimed. Other elements may, however, be relevant. They may be different according to which rule of the Convention concerning prompt release has been violated. An administrative phase comes after the decision on prompt release. It concerns the utilization of the bond or security.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee: The Conjunction of the Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise de La Fayette
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Environment Protection ◽  
Agenda 21 ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Multilateral Environmental Agreements ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article outlines the work of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization in implementing measures to protect the marine environment and to conserve natural resources called for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and international environmental law, in particular as set forth in Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration, both products of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. In so doing, the paper examines IMO's collaboration with other intergovernmental organisations and UN bodies, such as the FAO, UNEP, the Commission on Sustainable Development and the United Nations, as well as with the secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Basel Convention and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Although the work of IMO is frequently overlooked because it is an older organisation, the treaties, codes and guidelines developed by the MEPC have made an essential and valuable contribution to the progressive development of international environmental law, as well as to the law of the sea.

6 Applications for Provisional Measures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

This chapter assesses applications for provisional measures of protection under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). At the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, the need for courts or tribunals having jurisdiction under UNCLOS to have the power to prescribe provisional measures was beyond dispute although there was considerable debate concerning the details of the regime associated with such measures. The finally adopted Article 290 of UNCLOS, under the heading ‘Provisional measures’, represents the best possible compromise. Provisional measures are divided into provisional measures prescribed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under Article 290(1) pending ITLOS’ judgment on the merits of the dispute, on the one hand, and provisional measures prescribed by ITLOS under Article 290(5) pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute is being submitted, on the other hand. The request for the prescription of provisional measures shall be in writing and specify the measures requested, the reasons therefor, and the possible consequences, if the request is not granted, for the preservation of the respective rights of the parties or for the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment.

5 Applications for Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Laws And Regulations

This chapter looks at applications for prompt release of vessels and crews detained after violating laws and regulations of a coastal State. Pursuant to Article 292(1) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has default jurisdiction over prompt release applications, unless the parties otherwise agree. The parties must be States Parties to UNCLOS and have not agreed to submit the question of release from detention to any other court or tribunal within ten days from the time of detention. Article 112 of the ITLOS Rules adds, inter alia, that ITLOS shall give priority to applications for release of vessels or crews over all other proceedings before ITLOS. In its judgment, ITLOS must determine in each case whether or not the allegation made by the applicant that the detaining State has not complied with a provision of UNCLOS for the prompt release of the vessel or the crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security is well founded. If ITLOS decides the allegation is well founded, it shall determine the amount, nature, and form of the bond or financial security to be posted for the release of the vessel or the crew.

The Freedom to Use the High Seas to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment: Case Study of the Activities of The Ocean Cleanup

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Talitha Ramphal
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Marine Debris ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
High Seas

Abstract Activities to tackle marine debris are conducted on the high seas by The Ocean Cleanup. The high seas are open to all States and may be used as long this is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) and other rules of international law. This article argues that the LOSC provides for the freedom to use the high seas to protect and preserve the marine environment, including tackling marine debris, when interpreting Article 87 of the LOSC in light of present day needs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document