scholarly journals The Environmental Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Boyle
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Disputes ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Marine Environmental ◽  
Environmental Jurisprudence

AbstractThis presentation starts out with an overview of the environmental jurisprudence of international tribunals and courts in the last decade. The author then examines the jurisprudence of the ITLOS and considers four issues that have arisen: the precautionary principle; environmental impact assessment; environmental co-operation; and jurisdiction over marine environmental disputes. Concluding, he asks what the jurisprudence tells us about the Tribunal's role in the LOSC dispute settlement system. First, the Tribunal's provisional measures cases have established the utility of the Article 290 procedure as a means of protecting the rights of other States but also the marine environment in general. Second, there is evidence in the case law of a desire to settle disputes between the parties in a way that contributes to the development of a consistent jurisprudence and of a willingness to interpret and apply Part XII of the Convention in accordance with the contemporary state of international environmental law. The Tribunal's record on marine environmental disputes is a positive one.

scholarly journals The UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System: What Role Can It Play in Resolving Maritime Disputes in Asia?

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Ngoc NGUYEN
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The World ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
The Unclos

AbstractAsia is currently the scene of some of the most high-profile maritime disputes in the world. Even though the majority of states in Asia are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], its dispute settlement system has only been utilized in a handful of cases. Given that negotiations have brought about limited results in easing many of the tensions, it is worth asking whether the UNCLOS dispute settlement system can play a role in the resolution of maritime disputes in Asia. This paper, based on a review of the disputes before UNCLOS Tribunals, as well the advantages and limitations of the system, argues that the UNCLOS dispute settlement system can make meaningful contributions to resolving thorny disputes between Asian states. It does so by providing a solution to the disputes brought before them, clarifying the legal framework for the conduct of the parties and facilitating co-operation amongst countries in the region.

1 ITLOS and the Dispute Settlement System under UNCLOS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
And Control

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.

Between the Law of the Sea and Sovereign Immunity: Reflections on the Jurisdiction of the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal in the Enrica Lexie Incident Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-393
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

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.

scholarly journals A Bridge Too Far? Assessing the Prospects for International Environmental Law to Resolve the South China Sea Disputes

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 578-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Ong
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
China Sea

Doctrinal approaches to the South China Sea island and maritime jurisdiction disputes have traditionally invoked the international law on territorial sovereignty acquisition and the law of the sea for their resolution. However, neither of these two fields of international law and their established institutions has succeeded in settling these disputes. This paves the way for consideration of other, related but less historically and politically significant international legal developments establishing constraints against the activities undertaken on and around many of the South China Sea insular formations. In this paper, the potential for international environmental law to resolve the South China Sea disputes will be examined. Specifically, international environmental law governing ‘shared’ water bodies and their application in relevant international case law will be assessed. These obligations will be mapped onto the South China Sea disputes, with a view to providing the means for co-operation towards the resolution of these disputes.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Forum for the Development of Principles of International Environmental Law?

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwenaele Rashbrooke
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Land Reclamation ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThis article examines the role of the ITLOS established by the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. It considers the extent to which principles of international environmental law are reflected in the 1982 Convention. It then reviews the relevant jurisprudence of the tribunal including the Southern Blue-fin Tuna case between Japan and Australia and New Zealand, the MOX case between Ireland and the UK, and the Land Reclamation case between Malaysia and Singapore to determine the extent that the ITLOS case-law has indeed contributed to the development of certain key principles of international environmental law, including Stockholm Principle 21/Rio Principle 2, the principle of preventative action, cooperation and precaution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document