4 Advisory Opinions by ITLOS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter focuses on advisory opinions by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Like the International Court of Justice, ITLOS may render and has rendered advisory opinions on legal questions within its areas of competence. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) expressly provides for the advisory jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS, but not the full bench of ITLOS itself. According to Article 191 of UNCLOS, the Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council of the International Seabed Authority on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities, and such opinions shall be given as a matter of urgency. The full bench of ITLOS has held that the substantive legal basis of the full-bench ITLOS’ advisory jurisdiction is Article 21 of its Statute stipulating that ITLOS’ jurisdiction comprises all disputes and all applications submitted to it in accordance with UNCLOS and all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on ITLOS. The ITLOS Rules elaborate the procedure in this respect.

Regulatory Coherence

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-88
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Part II comprises two chapters, Chapter Three and Chapter Four. These chapters together investigate the decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII tribunals, as well as other Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) cases. The courts and tribunals studied in these chapters make use of a broad range of interpretive methodologies in identifying emerging global regulatory standards, including reliance on the inbuilt logic of the regulatory schemes they are applying. The standards articulated make relatively minimal demands on domestic legal systems compared with more demanding standards that could have been developed. In this respect the standards appear to enhance traditional procedural justifications for international law’s claim to legitimate authority. Chapter Three focuses on tests for ‘regulatory coherence’.

3 Contentious Cases before ITLOS and the Seabed Disputes Chamber

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
State Enterprises

This chapter examines what constitutes a dispute under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concurs with the International Court of Justice that a dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests, or the positive opposition of the claim of one party by the other, which need not necessarily be stated expressis verbis, and that, in the determination of the existence of a dispute, the position or the attitude of a party can be established by inference, whatever the professed view of that party. When there is a dispute between the parties at the time of the institution of proceedings, the dispute must be one over which ITLOS has jurisdiction. To determine whether a dispute between the disputing parties in a particular case concerns the interpretation or application of UNCLOS, ITLOS must establish a link between the facts advanced by the applicant and the provisions of UNCLOS referred to by it and show that such provisions can sustain the claims submitted by the applicant. In contentious cases, the Seabed Disputes Chamber shall be open to States Parties to UNCLOS, the International Seabed Authority, the Enterprise, State enterprises, and State-sponsored natural legal persons carrying out activities in the Area.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Mensah
Keyword(s):  
Deep Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
First Case ◽  
Organizational Work ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is one of the “compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions” provided for in Article 287 of the Convention. The Tribunal is established by Annex VI to the Convention which is its Statute. Within the Tribunal is established the Seabed Disputes Chamber which has jurisdiction to deal with respect to deep-sea mining activities covered by Part XI of the Convention.The Tribunal performs three different but closely related functions. The first is to offer a forum of choice for states parties to the Convention to settle disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention. The second function is to provide a special, and largely mandatory, procedure for dealing with disputes in connection with the interpretation and application of the provisions of Part XI of the Convention. This is the function of the Seabed Disputes Chamber. The Chamber also has competence to give advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of the activities of the Assembly and Council of the International Seabed Authority. Thirdly, the Tribunal serves as a residual and compulsory mechanism for the settlement of certain disputes identified by the Convention as requiring expeditious decision, such as applications for the prompt release of arrested vessels and crew or requests for the prescription of provisional measures pending final decisions in cases. The Tribunal may also deal with disputes arising under other maritime agreements, if the agreements so provide.The Tribunal commenced operations in October 1996. It has completed organizational work for its administrative judicial functions. It has adopted its Rules, the Resolution on the Internal Judicial Procedure and Guidelines to assist parties appearing before it. It has also established special Chambers. The Tribunal has already dealt with one application for the prompt release of a vessel and crew arrested in a foreign port and one request for provisional measures. Proceedings are in progress on the merits of the first case submitted to it.

II International Tribunal For The Law Of The Sea The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan): Order For Provisional Measures Of 27 August 1999

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. R. Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

Under Part XV of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which cannot be settled by the consensual means set out in section 1 of that Part, may be referred by any party to the dispute for compulsory settlement under section 2. There are four possible fora for such settlement—the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereafter ITLOS), an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention, and a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. If the parties to a dispute have made a declaration under Article 287 (which is optional) specifying their choice of forum, and their choices coincide, that body will be the forum for the settlement of the dispute. If their choices do not coincide or if not all parties have made a declaration, the forum for settlement will be an Annex VII arbitral tribunal.1

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.

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).

Part I Assessing the UN Institutional Structure for Global Ocean Governance: The UN’s Role in Global Ocean Governance, 5 The Role of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Global Ocean Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Golitsyn Vladimir
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Global Ocean ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Ocean Governance ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter focuses on the role of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in global ocean governance. Established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the jurisdiction of the ITLOS comprises all disputes and all applications concerning interpretation or application of the Convention and all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal. In the performance of its responsibilities, ITLOS has accumulated a body of jurisprudence which constitutes its contribution to the progressive development of international law of the sea and thus global ocean governance. The chapter discusses the most important examples of the ITLOS's contribution to the global ocean governance, such as dealing with contentious cases, requests for provisional measures, and prompt release cases as well as providing advisory opinions.

The Procedure Before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; The Rules of the Tribunal and Related Documents

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document