The Tribunal and the Prompt Release of Vessels

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Mensah
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Evolutionary Approach ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Core Problem ◽  
Flag State

AbstractThe paper examines the way in which the Tribunal has so far dealt with applications for the prompt release of arrested vessels and crews under Article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. It begins by setting out the prerequisites for the Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with such applications. These include the requirement that an application must be submitted by or on behalf of the flag State of the vessel, the need for the Tribunal to determine that the application is admissible and that the allegation of non-compliance with a provision of the Convention is "well founded." The paper then examines the nature and content of the Order of the Tribunal, including the issue of the reasonable bond or other financial security to be set for the release of the ship or its crew. A core problem considered is the relationship of the prompt release application to the proceedings "on the merits" before other courts or tribunals. In particular, consideration is given to possible problems that may arise where an application is presented after proceedings in the domestic courts have been completed. The paper concludes by noting with approval the flexible and evolutionary approach by which the Tribunal has so far applied this innovative provision of the Convention.

2 The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Churchill Robin R
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) is the most important source of the international law of the sea. This chapter discusses the history and legal characteristics of the LOSC. It explains how the LOSC came into being; gives a brief overview of its provisions and considers their varying legal nature; explains which entities may and have become parties to the LOSC and considers the extent to which they are permitted to make reservations and declarations; outlines the relationship of the LOSC to other treaties and customary international law; explores the mechanisms for seeking to ensure compliance with the LOSC by its States parties; and finally discusses how the LOSC is kept under review and developed.

scholarly journals PERAN KONVENSI HUKUM LAUT INTERNASIONAL PBB 1982 DAN INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO) BAGI KESELAMATAN DAN KEAMANAN ANAK BUAH KAPAL (ABK) SELAMA BERLAYAR DALAM PELAYARAN INTERNASIONAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-178
Author(s):  
Piseth Chann
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Management ◽  
International Maritime Organization ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

ABSTRAKEksploitasi terhadap tenaga kerja di laut lepas, khususnya ABK, masih sering terjadi. Meskipun tidak diatur secara spesifik, keselamatan dan keamanan ABK dapat dikaitkan dengan KHL PBB 1982, Pasal 94. Tujuan dari kajian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan keterkaitan Pasal 94 KHL dengan perlindungan terhadap ABK, peran IMO terhadap keselamatan dan keamanan ABK, dan kerja sama antara IMO dan ILO dalam menangani masalah eksploitasi sumber daya manusia dalam pelayaran internasional. Dari kajian ini dapat dijelaskan bahwa dalam KHL PBB 1982, Pasal 94 Ayat 2 (b) dan 3 (b) terdapat kewajiban yang dibebankan kepada Negara Bendera untuk ikut bertanggung jawab jika ABK mendapatkan suatu masalah. Sementara itu, sebagai agen khusus PBB, IMO telah mengadopsi satu Kode Manajemen Internasional dengan tujuan untuk memastikan keselamatan manusia dan menghindari kerusakan lingkungan laut. IMO, ILO dan Ad Hoc juga membentuk kerja sama tripartit untuk mengatur hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan ketenagakerjaan di laut. Kata Kunci: anak buah kapal; IMO; ILO; keselamatan dan keamanan ABSTRACTExploitation of workers on the high seas, especially the ship's crew, is still common. Although not specifically regulated, the safety and security of the ship's crew can be linked to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Article 94. The purpose of this study is to explain the relationship between Article 94 UNCLOS and the protection of ship's crew, the role of International Maritime Organization (IMO) in the safety and security of ship's crew, and cooperation between IMO and ILO in dealing with the problem of exploitation of human resources in international shipping. From this study, it can be explained that in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 94 Paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 (b) there was an obligation imposed on the Flag State to take responsibility if the ship's crew had a problem. Meanwhile, as a UN special agent, IMO has adopted an International Management Code to ensure human safety and avoid damage to the marine environment. IMO, ILO and Ad Hoc also formed tripartite cooperation to regulate matters related to employment at sea.Keywords: ILO; IMO; security and safety; ship's crew

scholarly journals Prompt Release of Detained Foreign Vessels and Crews in Matters of Marine Environment Protection

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heiki Lindpere
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
Environment Protection ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
State Party ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Flag State

Article 292 of the United Nations 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention) reads:1. Where the authorities of a state party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another state party and it is alleged that the detaining state has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining state under article 287 or to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, unless the parties otherwise agree.2. The application for release may be made only by or on behalf of the flag state of the vessel.3. The court or tribunal shall deal without delay with the application for release and shall deal only with the question of release, without prejudice to the merits of any case before the appropriate domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew. The authorities of the detaining state remain competent to release the vessel or its crew at any time.4. Upon the posting of the bond or other financial security determined by the court or tribunal, the authorities of the detaining state shall comply promptly with the decision of the court or tribunal concerning the release of the vessel or its crew.

5 Applications for Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Laws And Regulations

This chapter looks at applications for prompt release of vessels and crews detained after violating laws and regulations of a coastal State. Pursuant to Article 292(1) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has default jurisdiction over prompt release applications, unless the parties otherwise agree. The parties must be States Parties to UNCLOS and have not agreed to submit the question of release from detention to any other court or tribunal within ten days from the time of detention. Article 112 of the ITLOS Rules adds, inter alia, that ITLOS shall give priority to applications for release of vessels or crews over all other proceedings before ITLOS. In its judgment, ITLOS must determine in each case whether or not the allegation made by the applicant that the detaining State has not complied with a provision of UNCLOS for the prompt release of the vessel or the crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security is well founded. If ITLOS decides the allegation is well founded, it shall determine the amount, nature, and form of the bond or financial security to be posted for the release of the vessel or the crew.

scholarly journals Observations on Vessel Release under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
German Government ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Additional Procedure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Flag State

AbstractIf a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with "without delay". Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made "by or on behalf" of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words "on behalf of" present an option that is not already provided by the word "by". Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application "by" the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release "on behalf of the flag State" may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.

14 Flag States

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barnes Richard A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Rights ◽  
Flag State

This chapter discusses flag state jurisdiction as set forth in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It covers the development of flag state jurisdiction; registration and nationality; the operation of flag state jurisdiction; and flag state rights and duties.

scholarly journals Adjacency and due regard: The role of coastal States in the BBNJ treaty

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop ◽  
Clive Schofield
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

In the negotiations for the new treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), a fundamental question will be the relationship between the regime for areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and areas under coastal State jurisdiction. Adjacency has been raised as a concept that might assist in bridging these areas. It has been suggested that adjacency is a legal principle that could give coastal States additional rights or responsibility in relation to biodiversity in ABNJ proximate to their own national maritime jurisdictions. However, there has never been an accepted principle in the law of the sea that coastal States have priority over other States in ABNJ. We propose that due regard is a more appropriate lens to address this issue and one that would be consistent with existing principles under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). References to adjacent coastal States can be found in the draft text considered by the Intergovernmental Conference. The article analyses challenges arise in defining adjacent States as well as applying due regard to elements of the package. It considers the use of adjacency in the draft texts issued for the third and fourth sessions of the Intergovernmental Conference, as well as proposals made by delegates.

THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT UNDER THE UN CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA CONCERNING MARINE BIODIVERSITY

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Common ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis article discusses the current negotiations for an Implementing Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It discusses, in particular, the issue of the relationship of the new agreement with existing and future relevant regional instruments and bodies and the need for cooperation and coordination amongst them, the guiding principles of the new agreement, and the question of implementation and enforcement of the new agreement. These issues and the choices that delegations will make respectively highlight the controversy on the underpinning tenet of the agreement, ie between the ‘freedom of the high seas’ and the common heritage of mankind. The article concludes with a pessimistic prognosis that, in general, the agreement will fall short of the expectations that many States and international community have had at the early days of the negotiation.

scholarly journals Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and "Disputed Areas": State Practice concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance Johnson ◽  
Alex Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractArticle 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) requires a coastal State to submit information on the limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). The Commission shall make recommendations to the coastal State on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf. In a case where the coastal State establishes the outer limits on the basis of these recommendations, they are final and binding. However, Article 76(10) provides that the "The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts". The relationship between Article 76 and the delimitation of the continental shelf between neighboring States and other "unresolved land or maritime disputes" has been addressed by the CLCS in its Rules of Procedure. The present article analyzes the significance of Article 76(10) for submissions to the CLCS, looking at the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the submissions that have been made to the Commission to date.

Modern Slavery and the Law of the Sea

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-17
Author(s):  
Chie Kojima
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Human Trafficking ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Complementary Role ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
Flag State

Abstract Practices of modern slavery across maritime borders, such as human trafficking and forced labour in the maritime and fishing industries, are often unregulated and uncontrolled due to legal uncertainties and the lack of political will. This article discusses possibilities to re-interpret the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to give a complementary role to non-flag States in controlling modern slavery practices at sea. In particular, it analyses the question as to whether a non-flag State may take prescriptive and enforcement measures against a foreign vessel suspected of modern slavery on the high seas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document