The Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea M/V Saiga Cases

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-564
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska

The article surveys the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea M/V Saiga cases which inaugurated jurisprudence of the 21 Member International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany, with delivery of two important decisions on prompt release of the vessel and its crew (1997, Case No. 1) and on provisional measures of protection (1998, Case No. 2). The decisions provided precedential instances of application by the Tribunal of Articles 292 and 290 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea respectively, and of the relevant provisions of the ITLOS Rules. The prescription of provisional measures of protection formed the incidental proceedings of the pending M/V Saiga (Merits) case which is to be settled by ITLOS in mid-1999 (Case No. 2) and is to be the subject of a separate article. In view of the ITLOS Statute and the Rules being closely modelled in the Statute and the Rules of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), careful attention is given to comparison of the inaugural practice of ITLOS with the longstanding practice of the ICJ, and preservation of judicial consistency by ITLOS is particularly commended. A history of the M/V Saiga dispute, intertwined with domestic proceedings before Guinean courts, is for the reader's convenience outlined in a Chronological Table annexed to this article.

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

AbstractThis is the fourth of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2007 was the busiest year for dispute settlement in the law of the sea for some time. The main developments under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname Case and two prompt-release-of-vessel judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Outside the framework of the Convention, the International Court of Justice gave judgments in two maritime boundary cases—one on the merits (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and the other on jurisdiction (Nicaragua v. Colombia).


1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves

The Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, adopted in October 1997 (together with the Resolution on Internal Judicial Practice and the Guidelines Concerning the Preparation and Presentation of Cases Before the Tribunal) follows the model of the Rules of the International Court of Justice with rather relevant differences. Some of these differences depend on the need of more expeditious and less expensive proceedings: in particular, the provisions introducing time limits and those in the Resolution on Internal Judicial Practice which eliminate in most cases the requirement of Notes by each judge. Others depend on the specific characteristics of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. These include the provisions on intervention, on preliminary objections and proceedings, on provisional measures, on prompt release of vessels and crews, and on activities in the international seabed Area. In this category can also be included the provisions on the participation in proceedings by international organizations and natural and juridical persons.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

Abstract This is the latest in a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. The main developments during 2012 were the delivery of judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case and by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua/Colombia case, both concerned with maritime boundary delimitation; and the institution of Annex VII arbitration by Argentina against Ghana relating to the arrest of a State-owned vessel and the subsequent order of provisional measures by the ITLOS. These and other developments are reviewed in detail below.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-199
Author(s):  
Massimo Lando

Abstract In the context of requests for provisional measures, the link requirement has not attracted much scholarly attention and might be regarded as raising limited controversy. However, this article argues that the link is an unnecessary requirement for granting provisional measures by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. First, the function which the link purports to fulfil is already fulfilled by other requirements (i.e., prima facie jurisdiction, plausibility and real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice). Second, if the link is understood as requiring provisional measures to be tailored to the rights of which protection is sought, the ICJ and ITLOS have the power to indicate measures different from those requested. One may suggest that the link therefore emerges as an unnecessary requirement which overburdens provisional measures proceedings.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

AbstractThis is the fifth of a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The main developments during 2008 were the fourth triennial elections to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; an order made by the Tribunal further continuing the suspension of proceedings in the Swordfish case; and the referral of a maritime boundary dispute between Peru and Chile to the International Court of Justice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document