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 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).

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 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 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.

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).

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.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Provisional Measures: Settled Issues and Pending Problems

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Orrego Vicuña
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThis presentation describes the system of provisional measures by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea under Article 290 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. By pointing towards the binding legal nature of provisional measures and the introduction of a duty to report on compliance efforts, he begins his article stressing the system's efficiency. The author then comments on the various prerequisites while drawing comparisons with the prescription of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice. He finally turns towards the problems of the application of Article 290 by focusing on the requirement of a specific demand by a State party for a provisional measure. While admitting the Tribunal's authorization to issue provisional measures with a view to the marine environment and the increasing influence of the precautionary principle in public international law, he also advises against the temptations to exceed the limits of provisional measures in international law. The interplay with other treaties which refer to the Convention's dispute settlement system (especially the Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks) even adds to this danger in the author's eyes. He closes with an appeal for due process, prudence and impartiality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document