scholarly journals The Timor Sea Conciliation: The Unique Mechanism of Dispute Settlement

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 321-344
Author(s):  
Dai Tamada
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Economic Factor ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Timor Sea ◽  
The Law ◽  
Gas Fields ◽  
Unique Mechanism

Abstract The maritime boundary dispute between Timor-Leste and Australia was submitted to the compulsory conciliation procedure under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is the first instance of conciliation, whether voluntary or compulsory, under UNCLOS. The Timor Sea conciliation led to the successful settlement of the long-standing deadlock between the parties that had hitherto not been settled by negotiation and had no possibility of being settled by litigation (within, for example, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or International Court of Justice proceedings) or arbitration (within the context of an UNCLOS Annex VII tribunal). This article aims to elucidate the unique mechanism of conciliation and, to this end, analyses both the procedural particularities of conciliation under UNCLOS and the substantive considerations in conciliation proceedings. The author places emphasis, in particular, on the fundamental importance of the economic factor in the Timor Sea maritime delimitation – namely, the sharing ratio of the natural resources in the Greater Sunrise gas fields. Being a definitive factor for the success of this conciliation, it was the economics of this dispute that incentivized the parties to compromise and settle. Furthermore, given that conciliation is a most elucidating piece in the rather complicated puzzle that is the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism, the Timor Sea conciliation offers valuable insights into this mechanism.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Timor Leste ◽  
The Pacific Ocean ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the latest in a series of annual surveys in this Journal reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. It covers developments during 2018. The most significant developments during the year were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, delimiting the maritime boundaries between the two States’ overlapping maritime zones in both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean; the report of the Conciliation Commission concerning maritime boundary arrangements between Timor-Leste and Australia; and the findings of a dispute settlement body of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

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).

Compulsory jurisdiction under the law of the Sea Convention: its achievements and limits

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-172
Author(s):  
Mariko Kawano
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
The Unclos

Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a special regime for the settlement of international disputes concerning its interpretation or application. Thanks to the mechanism of the enhanced compulsory jurisdiction provided by Section 2, various cases have been referred to the court or tribunals. Accumulation of the precedents has contributed to the clarification of the interpretation and application of the provisions relevant to the functions of the compulsory jurisdiction of international court and tribunals. This article examines the achievements and limits of the dispute settlement mechanism of Part XV. As far as the choice of the procedures in accordance with Article 287 is concerned, it is possible to say that the choice made by State Parties is respected as much as possible. Article 286 sets out the following requirements for a State Party to resort to the compulsory jurisdiction under Section 2: existence of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS; no settlement has been reached by recourse to Section 1; subject to the limitations and optional exceptions in accordance with Section 3. With regard to the first requirement, the ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have examined the subject-matter of the dispute before them and have tried to identify those concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS. It is possible to say that examining the second requirement, the ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have emphasized the sound function of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism under Section 2. As the third requirement relates to the scope of the compulsory jurisdiction of the court and tribunals, the ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have strictly interpreted the terms of Articles 297 and 298. Their Strict interpretation have allowed the Applicant to resort to the compulsory dispute settlement under Section 2. It is also necessary to note the strategic use of Article 300 in the arguments concerning the breach of the obligations under the UNCLOS in various precedents.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

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.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2014

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Main Development ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

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 development during 2014 was the delivery of four judgments—two by the International Court of Justice (one concerning maritime boundary delimitation between Peru and Chile, the other the Whaling case between Australia and Japan); one by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, concerning the arrest and detention of a Panamanian vessel by Guinea-Bissau; and one by an Annex vii arbitral tribunal, concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India. In addition, the dispute between Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands) and the European Union over the management of a shared stock of Atlanto-Scandian herring was settled; and judicial proceedings in three new cases (all concerning maritime boundary delimitation) were initiated. These and other developments are reviewed in detail.

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2008

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

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.

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2009

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Black Sea ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the sixth of 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 2009 were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) case and the commencement of three new maritime boundary cases (between Bangladesh and India, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and Croatia and Slovenia, respectively).

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

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 2011 were: the delivery by the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber of its advisory opinion on Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area; the referral of a new case to the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea (ITLOS) relating to the arrest and detention of a bunkering vessel in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (the Virginia G case); the International Court of Justice’s judgments rejecting the requests of Costa Rica and Honduras to intervene in the Nicaragua/Colombia maritime boundary delimitation case; the decision of the arbitral tribunal in the Mauritius/United Kingdom case to reject a challenge to the appointment of one of the arbitrators; the activation of the Croatia/Slovenia arbitration agreement; and the fifth triennial election of ITLOS judges.

Maritime Dispute

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Abhimanyu George Jain
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On January 27, 2014, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered its judgment in a dispute between Peru and Chile concerning the maritime boundary between them. The Court held that a partial maritime boundary already existed between the parties, and it proceeded to analyze both its nature and its extent on the basis of agreements between the parties, their practice, and other evidence. For the remainder of the boundary extending up to 200 nautical miles, the Court applied the rule of equitable delimitation found in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Seabed Mining

The entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), on 16 November 1994, is probably the most important development in the settlement of international disputes since the adoption of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Not only does the Convention create a new international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), it also makes extensive provision for compulsory dispute-settlement procedures involving States, the International Seabed Authority (“ISBA”), seabed mining contractors and, potentially, a range of other entities. Implementation of the Convention has spawned a number of inter-State disputes to add to the cases already before the International Court. The initiation of the ITLOS not only opens up new possibilities for settling these disputes but it also has implications for the future role of the International Court and ad hoc arbitration in the law of the sea and more generally. It contributes to the proliferation of international tribunals and adds to the potential for fragmentation both of the substantive law and of the procedures available for settling disputes. Judges Oda and Guillaume have argued that the ITLOS is a futile institution, that the UNCLOS negotiators were misguided in depriving the International Court of its central role in ocean disputes and that creation of a specialised tribunal may destroy the unity of international law. The law of the sea, both judges argue, is an essential part of international law and any dispute concerning the application and interpretation of that law should be seen as subject to settlement by the International Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document