The Settlement of Disputes Arising From Conflicting Outer Continental Shelf Claims

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 409-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

AbstractThis article begins with brief observations on the dispute-settlement system contained in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). It then reviews the rules of procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission) which are designed to prevent or minimize disputes concerning outer continental shelf boundaries. In this context reference is made to joint submissions by coastal States. The role of the institutions created by the LOS Convention—the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in particular the Seabed Disputes Chamber, and the Commission—with respect to dispute settlement is examined. It also considers the circumstances when States Parties may or may not challenge the recommendations of the Commission.

Settlement of Disputes Relating to the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf: The Role of International Courts and Arbitral Tribunals

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Marotta Rangel
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
State's Rights ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

AbstractThis presentation gives an assessment of the actual judicial control concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf. Before interpreting the role of International Courts and Arbitral Tribunals, the author gives a brief overview over the different categories of delimitation, the coastal state's rights over its continental shelf and outlines historic precedents of international disputes. Today, the Convention provides an comprehensive dispute settlement system. This system will be illuminated and reviewed by the presentation with special reference to the judicial control over the Commission's recommendations.

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.

Brazil and the Implementation of Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Setting the Stage for the Bidding Rounds

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Alexandre Pereira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
Legal Opinions ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority

Abstract This article analyses the challenges that Brazil faces in implementing Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), which imposes a levy with respect to the exploitation of non-living resources on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. First, it presents the developments made by Brazil with reference to Articles 76 and 82 of the LOSC, which are closely associated. Then, legal opinions and the conclusions of the Working Group (created to discuss the implementation of Article 82 in Brazil) are examined. Lastly, the tender protocol and the draft concession agreement for the ongoing bidding round – which includes blocks on the outer continental shelf – are considered. The article argues that the conclusions of the Working Group and core provisions of the relevant documents may compromise the proper implementation of Article 82 and impact the future relationship between Brazil and the International Seabed Authority.

scholarly journals Tarptautinio jūrų teisės tribunolo privalomosios jurisdikcijos taikymo problemos

Teisė ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 95-106
Author(s):  
Justinas Linkevičius
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Straipsnyje analizuojamos pagrindinės Tarptautinio jūrų teisės tribunolo privalomosios jurisdikcijos taikymo problemos, daugiausiai dėmesio skiriant 1982 m. Jungtinių Tautų jūrų teisės konvencijos privalomo ginčų sprendimo mechanizmo nuostatoms bei valstybių praktikai pasirenkant tribunolo jurisdikciją, taip pat vertinamas Tribunolo jurisdikcijos dėl šios konvencijos aiškinimo ar taikymo ir Tarptautinio Teisingumo Teismo jurisdikcijos pagal jo statuto 36 straipsnio 2 dalį santykis.This article analyses general problems of compulsory jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea putting the main focus on compulsory dispute settlement system provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and discussing states’ practice of choosing the tribunal as the compulsory means for the settlement of disputes. It also approaches the question of relation between jurisdiction of the Tribunal and compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice based on article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute.

‘Due Regard’ Obligations under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Laying of Cables and Activities in the Area

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Cable Laying ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Way

Abstract This article examines in detail the obligations of ‘due regard’ found in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It considers the way these are reflected in the International Seabed Authority (ISA) current Prospecting and Exploration Regulations, and then looks at the way that ‘due regard’ obligations have been considered by international courts and tribunals and by scholars. It then considers the specific ‘due regard’ issues raised by cable laying, and the modalities for settlement of disputes that may arise from such activities.

11 The Deep Seabed

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lodge Michael W
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Commercial Exploitation ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority

The deep seabed is the part of the seabed that is beyond national jurisdiction and is referred to as ‘the Area’ in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). This chapter discusses the legal regime of the deep seabed. It covers the legal status of the Area and its resources; the International Seabed Authority; the regulation of ‘activities in the Area’; commercial exploitation; reserved areas; sponsorship by states parties; dispute settlement; and responsibility of the International Seabed Authority under Article 82 (4) of the LOSC.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Seabed Mining

The entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), on 16 November 1994, is probably the most important development in the settlement of international disputes since the adoption of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Not only does the Convention create a new international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), it also makes extensive provision for compulsory dispute-settlement procedures involving States, the International Seabed Authority (“ISBA”), seabed mining contractors and, potentially, a range of other entities. Implementation of the Convention has spawned a number of inter-State disputes to add to the cases already before the International Court. The initiation of the ITLOS not only opens up new possibilities for settling these disputes but it also has implications for the future role of the International Court and ad hoc arbitration in the law of the sea and more generally. It contributes to the proliferation of international tribunals and adds to the potential for fragmentation both of the substantive law and of the procedures available for settling disputes. Judges Oda and Guillaume have argued that the ITLOS is a futile institution, that the UNCLOS negotiators were misguided in depriving the International Court of its central role in ocean disputes and that creation of a specialised tribunal may destroy the unity of international law. The law of the sea, both judges argue, is an essential part of international law and any dispute concerning the application and interpretation of that law should be seen as subject to settlement by the International Court.

scholarly journals Dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention On the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anshuman Chakraborty
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Traditional Role ◽  
Actual Role ◽  
The Future ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

<p>This thesis is about the dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC or Convention), and the potential and actual role that they play in oceans governance. The study focuses not only on the traditional role of dispute settlement mechanisms in peacefully settling disputes, but also on their potential for contribution to good oceans governance in many ways. The jurisprudence generated so far under the dispute settlement provisions of the LOSC can be called neither a complete success nor a total failure. Part XV of the Convention, dealing with dispute settlement procedures, has made a promising start with the inaugural jurisprudence under the prompt release and provisional measures proceedings. However, besides the general beneficial influence of the jurisprudence on oceans governance, a few detrimental developments have also been identified from the perspective of oceans governance. The present thesis demonstrates that a lot of hope had been pinned on the dispute settlement provisions at the time when the LOSC was drafted. However, most of these hopes have not yet found expression, and if the limited use of dispute settlement procedures continues, it is unlikely that Part XV will fulfil those hopes in the future. Nevertheless, this thesis argues along more optimistic lines, and expresses a realistic hope that the actual role of dispute settlement in oceans governance will improve in the future. The thesis concludes that the success or failure of the dispute settlement mechanisms mostly depends upon their actual use made by states. Further, the dispute settlement mechanisms once invoked must be able to settle disputes objectively on the basis of law, equity and justice and uphold the principles and provisions of the LOSC. It is hoped that states will have recourse to Part XV more often for the purpose of settling their disputes peacefully, and that the dispute settlement provisions will in turn fulfil their mandate. Only then will the world witness the dispute settlement mechanisms playing a real and beneficial role in oceans governance, concurrently with other oceans governance institutions and arrangements.</p>

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document