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’.

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.

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).

Due Diligence in the Law of the Sea

2020 ◽  
pp. 147-162
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Secondary Character ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter analyses due diligence obligations in law of the sea instruments, particularly in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It demonstrates the linkage between general principles, their application to non-state actors via the due diligence obligations of states, and their eventual transformation into binding detailed technical standards, such as the ones incorporated in maritime safety conventions. The chapter advances an integrated reading of due diligence rules in the law of the sea and argues that increased reference to technical standards would facilitate their application in practice. Following a review of two advisory opinions—one of the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea and one of its Seabed Disputes Chamber—the chapter finally contextualises its core findings within the broader debate on the legal nature of due diligence and its primary or secondary character.

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.

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

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document