The Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) Cases

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe Southern Bluefin Tuna cases before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea resulted from disagreement between Australia, New Zealand and Japan related to the carrying out by Japan of an experimental fishing programme within the framework of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. The cases were the first instance of incidental proceedings on provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the LOS Convention and Article 25 of the ITLOS Statute, according to which ITLOS may prescribe provisional measures "if it considers that prima facie the tribunal which is to be constituted would have jurisdiction and that the urgency of the situation so requires". The article considers the parties' arguments for and against the use of provisional measures, considers the provisional measures ordered by ITLOS and the reasons therefor by comparison to the practice of the ICJs, and finally considers the establishment of an Arbitral Tribunal to hear the merits of the substantive case.

I. The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D. Evans ◽  
Alan Boyle
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Tuna Fishing ◽  
The Law

Readers of last October's I.C.L.Q. will recall that this case started life in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea when Australia and New Zealand were granted provisional measures against Japanese high seas tuna fishing in the Pacific.1 That Tribunal had held that the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“1982 UNCLOS”) invoked by Australia and New Zealand appeared to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal might be founded; that the fact that the 1993 Convention on Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna applied between the parties did not preclude recourse to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures in Part XV of the 1982 UNCLOS; and that an arbitral tribunal would prima facie have jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute.2 Notwithstanding this necessarily provisional view, when the parties then proceeded to arbitration, Japan maintained its initial preliminary objections, and the award handed down in August 2000 thus deals only with the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.3 The facts and background to the case are set out in the earlier case-note and need not be repeated here.

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

The Australia and New Zealand v Japan Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award of the First Law of the Sea Convention Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Compulsory Arbitration ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Future ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna

AbstractThe Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissihilily) Award of 4 August 2000 marked the first instance of the application of compulsory arbitration under Part XV, Section 2 of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and of the exercise by the Annex VII Tribunal of la compétence de la compétence pursuant to Article 288(4) over the merits of the instant dispute. The 72-paragraph Award is a decision of pronounced procedural complexity and significant multifaceted impacts of which appreciation requires an in-depth acquaintance with procedural issues of peaceful settlement of disputes in general and the-law-of-the-sea-related disputes in particular. Therefore, the article surveys first the establishment of and the course of proceedings before the five-member Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, presided over by the immediate former ICJ President, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, and also comprising Judges Keith, Yamada. Feliciano and Tresselt. Subsequently, the wide range of specific paramount questions and answers of the Tribunal are scrutinised against the background of arguments advanced by the applicants (Australia and New Zealand) and the respondent (Japan) during both written and oral pleadings, including in reliance on the extensive ICJ jurisprudence and treaty practice concerned. On this basis, the article turns to an appraisal of the impacts of the Arbitral Tribunal's paramount holdings and its resultant dismissal of jurisdiction with the scrupulous regard for the fundamental principle of consensuality. Amongst such direct impacts as between the parties to the instant case, the inducements provided by the Award to reach a successful settlement in the future are of particular importance. The Award's indirect impacts concern exposition of the paramount doctrine of parallelism between the umbrella UN Convention and many compatible (fisheries, environmental and other) treaties, as well as of multifaceted, both substantial and procedural effects of that parallelism. All those contributions will importantly guide other courts and tribunals seised in the future under the Convention's Part XV, Section 2.

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).

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.

The Ireland v United Kingdom (Mox Plant) Case: Applying the Doctrine of Treaty Parallelism

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Environmental Disputes ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Fundamental Requirement

AbstractThis article analyses the 2001 Mox Plant (Provisional Measures) Order - the second instance of ITLOS acting under the innovatory LOSC Article 290(5) - pending the establishment of the Annex VII Mox Plant Arbitral Tribunal. An OSPAR Mox Plant Arbitration is also pending. The article analyses key aspects of the 2001 Order including the low thresholds for prima facie jurisdiction and the fundamental requirement of urgency, the distinctive treatment of "substantive" and "procedural" rights and the basis for the tribunals reliance on the precautionary principle, which is in the regional treaties concerned, but not in the LOSC. These issues are scrutinized in the light of the application of the doctrine of treaty parallelism as expounded by the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award. The article argues that the legitimacy of the Order could have been increased had ITLOS defined the Mox Plant dispute as an EU-law centered dispute, and it concludes with the hope that the Mox Plant case will provide an incentive for the European Community as party to LOSC to give closer and constructive consideration to its policy on the settlement of ocean and other environmental disputes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document