Compulsory and Binding Dispute Resolution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Introduction

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 209-215
Author(s):  
Øystein Jensen ◽  
Nigel Bankes
2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

In his reply to Rosemary Rayfuse's article, "The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention", Andrew Serdy addresses some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Part XV dispute resolution provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He concludes that despite being little used, the Part XV provisions remain pivotal to UNCLOS and its related treaties, and if anything are becoming more so


2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 675
Author(s):  
David Leary ◽  
Anshuman Chakraborty

This article summarises the proceedings of the symposium held at Victoria University of Wellington in September 2004 to mark the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.The authors highlight the key themes of the symposium, basing their discussion on the five topics of maritime security, enforcement and compliance in fisheries law, Pacific regional issues, dispute resolution and the law of the sea, and future directions for the law of the sea.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-83
Author(s):  
Chris Whomersley

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains detailed provisions concerning its amendment, but these have never been used and this article explores why this is so. States have instead maintained the Convention as a “living instrument” by adopting updated rules in other organisations, especially the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. States have also used the consensus procedure at Meetings of the States Parties to modify procedural provisions in UNCLOS, and have adopted two Implementation Agreements relating to UNCLOS. In addition, port State jurisdiction has developed considerably since the adoption of UNCLOS, and of course other international organisations have been active in related fields.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document