7 ITLOS’s Jurisprudential Contributions: Present and Future

Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

This chapter explores the present and future contributions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Presently, ITLOS has made substantial contributions to the peaceful solution of ongoing maritime disputes and to international efforts against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. It has also provided guidance on the responsibility and liability regarding activities in the deep seabed area for the benefits of humankind as well as developed procedural rules and substantive law in international adjudication. Human rights at sea, marine environment protection and preservation, and delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles are some of the areas of the law of the sea elucidated by ITLOS’s rulings. Future challenges include legal issues pertaining to sea-level rise, dispute settlement as regards biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and potential contentious cases before the Seabed Disputes Chamber arising from exploitation of mineral resources in the deep seabed.

Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) plays a central role as a dispute settlement mechanism for the international law of the sea. This book provides a unique insight into its inner workings exploring both its limitations and its unutilized potentials. New fields such as sea-level rise and the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction play important roles in the ever-expanding scope of the law of the sea. The book charts the evolution of ITLOS and the role it continues to play in international law. It introduces the reader to the historical and legal context for the discussion of ITLOS’s place within this dispute settlement regime, as well as its relationship and interaction with the other choices of dispute settlement mechanisms. It is an invaluable resource for law students, practising lawyers, judges, government and international officials, academics, and those interested in law of the sea.


Author(s):  
Lodge Michael W

The deep seabed is the part of the seabed that is beyond national jurisdiction and is referred to as ‘the Area’ in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). This chapter discusses the legal regime of the deep seabed. It covers the legal status of the Area and its resources; the International Seabed Authority; the regulation of ‘activities in the Area’; commercial exploitation; reserved areas; sponsorship by states parties; dispute settlement; and responsibility of the International Seabed Authority under Article 82 (4) of the LOSC.


1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E. Boyle

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.


Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

This chapter discusses the dispute settlement system under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The dispute settlement system under UNCLOS was drafted with the main purpose of achieving the uniform and effective interpretation and application of UNCLOS, as the compromises it embodied would otherwise be vulnerable to unilateral interpretation. UNCLOS sets up two international organizations: the International Seabed Authority (Authority) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The Authority is the organization through which States Parties to UNCLOS organize and control activities in the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area), particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area. ITLOS, the dispute settlement mechanism specifically created by UNCLOS, allows urgent issues to be tackled swiftly through seeking provisional measures of protection from a court or tribunal as well as a functional approach. The chapter then considers ITLOS's place within the dispute settlement regime under UNCLOS; entities with access to ITLOS; other international agreements besides UNCLOS that confer jurisdiction on ITLOS; ITLOS's relationship and interaction with the other principal choices of dispute settlement mechanisms; and the pros and cons of using ITLOS instead of other forums.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-393
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka

Abstract The jurisdiction ratione materiae of an international court or tribunal in a particular dispute settlement system relies on a sensitive balance between the safeguard of the consensual basis of jurisdiction and the need for the effective settlement of international disputes. Thus, the scope of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of an international court or tribunal constitutes a crucial issue in international adjudication. This issue was vividly raised in the 2020 Enrica Lexie Incident arbitration between Italy and India. In this case, the arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea held that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue of immunity that necessarily arose as an incidental question in the application of the Convention. However, the validity of the Tribunal’s approach needs careful consideration. Therefore, this article critically examines the Arbitral Tribunal’s approach in the Enrica Lexie Incident arbitral award.


2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ane Jørem ◽  
Morten Walløe Tvedt

This article examines the law governing bioprospecting in the high seas and subsequent use of biological material. Seen in relation to the on-going debate on a new legal regime for marine areas beyond national jurisdiction, the authors explore the degree to which existing rights and obligations under the law of the sea and patent law could coincide with one of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, namely that of promoting benefit sharing. The activity of bioprospecting is examined in light of the different freedoms of the high seas, making the point that different interpretations give different indications of existing provisions on benefit sharing. In particular, the regime for marine scientific research under the law of the sea exemplifies different ways for sharing benefits, all of which run up against implementation challenges when seen in relation to rights awarded by patents to inventions resulting from bioprospecting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document