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.

Declarations, Statements and ‘Disguised Reservations’ with Respect to the Convention on the Law of the Sea

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. M. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

The question of reservations was one of the ‘controversial issues’ facing the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in drawing up the final clauses of the Convention. On the one hand it was argued that the integrity of the Convention must be safeguarded and that the ‘package deal’ must be protected from possible disintegration by the making of reservations. On the other hand the view was held that ‘allowance for the possibility of reservations is aimed at accommodating the views of the delegations who have maintained that they cannot become parties to the Convention unless the Convention permits them to exercise a right to enter reservations, in accordance with customary international law and as envisaged under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.’ In short the need to preserve the integrity of the Convention was pitted against the need to secure universal participation in the Convention.

2 Overview of ITLOS’s Composition, Organization, Structure, and Rules of Procedure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Organization Structure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Secret Ballot ◽  
The Status ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an overview of the composition, organization, structure, and rules of procedure of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). ITLOS is composed of 21 judges elected by secret ballot by the States Parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) from among persons nominated by States Parties who enjoy the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea. The United Nations recognizes ITLOS as an autonomous international judicial body with jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of UNCLOS and its Statute (which is Annex VI to UNCLOS). The UN and ITLOS each undertakes to respect the status and mandate of the other and to establish cooperative working relations pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement on Cooperation and Relationship between the UN and ITLOS. With a view to facilitating the effective attainment of their objectives and the coordination of their activities, they shall consult and cooperate, whenever appropriate, on matters of mutual concern, and pursue, whenever appropriate, initiatives to coordinate their activities. Moreover, ITLOS's Registrar transmits to the UN information and documentation relating to ITLOS's work, including documentation relating to applications, pleadings, oral proceedings, orders, judgments, and other communications and documentation before ITLOS.

Provisional Measures in the “Enrica Lexie” Case

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-436
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Small Measure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

Abstract “Enrica Lexie” is yet another landmark case under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos). The provisional measures prescribed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (itlos) and the Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal share a discernibly significant commonality of result, if not a demonstrably identical approach to the issues contested between the flag state and the coastal state. There was no express finding by itlos on urgency other than in terms of prejudice to the rights of the parties. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s Order preserved the parties’ rights would depend in no small measure upon the nature and effectiveness of its decision on the merits. Perhaps the most important common legal development is the appreciation of human rights considerations. While their application might remain a matter of contestation, it would be difficult to characterize the Orders as unfair both for provisional measures as a temporary remedy and for their perceived bearings on the merits of the case.

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’.

United States Interests in the Law of the Sea Convention

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Multilateral Negotiations ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

In 1982 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that succeeded in resolving the most fundamental questions of the law of the sea in accordance with three basic principles: 1.The rules of the law of the sea must fairly balance the respective interests of all states, notably the competing coastal and maritime interests, in a manner that is generally acceptable.2.Multilateral negotiations on the basis of consensus replace unilateral claims of right as the principal means for determining that balance.3.Compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms should be adopted to interpret, apply, and enforce the balance.

Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) (Perm. Ct. Arb.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Kill
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

An ad hoc arbitral tribunal convened pursuant to Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered its award on the merits on August 14, 2015 in Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands/Russia). The award was unanimous on all holdings and included no separate opinions. In addition to establishing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility of the claims, the Tribunal also found that Russia had violated its obligations under UNCLOS by detaining the Arctic Sunrise, a Dutch-flagged vessel, and the thirty people (Arctic 30) on board on September 19, 2013; by failing to comply with an earlier order on provisional measures; and by failing to pay its share of the arbitral expenses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document