Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

AbstractThis is the seventh 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 2010 were the commencement of four new, and very different, cases—a request for an advisory opinion in the Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area case and three contentious cases, the Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), the M/V Louisa (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain) and Dispute concerning the ‘Marine Protected Area’ related to the Chagos Archipelago (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) cases—and an order by the ITLOS declining to prescribe provisional measures in the M/V Louisa case.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015—Part i

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Protected Area ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
The Law

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, and covering developments in 2015. During the year the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea gave an advisory opinion concerning fisheries questions in the exclusive economic zone and made two orders of provisional measures. Annex vii arbitral tribunals delivered awards on the merits in the Chagos Marine Protected Area and Arctic Sunrise cases, and the tribunal in the Philippines v. China case gave an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. There were also a number of less significant developments during the year.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015, Part ii and 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law

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. It covers developments concerning the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2016 and concerning all other law of the sea dispute settlement bodies for both 2015 and 2016. The developments covered include: the awards in Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), South China Sea (Philippines v. China), Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands v. Russia) and Duzgit Integrity cases; the judgments in the jurisdictional phases of the Norstar and Nicaragua/Colombia cases; the prescription of provisional measures by the arbitral tribunal in the Enrica Lexie case; and the first ever use of the compulsory conciliation procedures of the un Convention on the Law of the Sea.

scholarly journals THE CHAGOS MARINE PROTECTED AREA ARBITRATION: EXPANSION OF THE JURISDICTION OF UNCLOS PART XV COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 927-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Talmon
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Limitations And Exceptions ◽  
Compulsory Subject ◽  
The Unclos

AbstractThis article shows that the Tribunal in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration between Mauritius and the United Kingdom has contributed considerably to the creeping expansion of compulsory jurisdiction of courts and tribunals established under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Tribunal has employed three techniques to do so. First, it has read down the jurisdictional precondition to exchange views in Article 283(1) of the UNCLOS; second, it has expanded the limited scope of compulsory subject-matter jurisdiction under section 2 of Part XV by broadening the meaning of the phrase ‘any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention’ to include incidental, related—and through the backdoor of a balancing exercise—even extraneous disputes; and, third, it has restricted the limitations and exceptions to compulsory jurisdiction in Articles 297 and 298 of the UNCLOS. Few would have predicted in 1982 that a Part XV court or tribunal would—within the context of such a balancing exercise—ever find that a colonial era undertaking created binding legal obligations under international law and that the United Kingdom was obliged to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes. The Tribunal's expansive reading of the jurisdictional provisions in Part XV opens up the possibility of future rulings, albeit incidentally, on issues that have little to do with the law of the sea.

scholarly journals Dissenting Opinions of Judges of the unclos Tribunal in the Chagos Case

Afrika Focus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-49
Author(s):  
Roopanand Mahadew ◽  
Arzeena Bhowarkan
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Moral Value ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Unclos

Abstract Mauritius won its first victory when the “tribunal constituted under Annex vii of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” delivered its award “in the matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area (mpa) Arbitration, between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom”. The award declared that the mpa established around Chagos by the United Kingdom was against international law. However, the decision desired by both Mauritius and the Chagossians is found in the dissenting opinion, which is, as a matter of law, non-binding. The dissenting opinion is to the effect that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the issue of sovereignty over Chagos and that if such issue was considered, Mauritius had a strong case for winning back sovereignty over Chagos. This article aims to make the dissenting opinions more widely known and reflect on the legal value of such opinions, alongside their high political and moral value and relevance to Mauritius and the Chagossians.

In re Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
pp. 845-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Colson ◽  
Brian J. Vohrer
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
United Nations Convention

On March 18, 2015, an arbitral tribunal (Tribunal) constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention) under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration handed down its award in a proceeding brought by Mauritius in 2010 challenging the United Kingdom’s establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, which are claimed by Mauritius. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Convention to address whether the United Kingdom or Mauritius has the rights of a coastal state regarding the Chagos Islands. Nevertheless, the Tribunal also held that, in creating the MPA by unilateral declaration, the United Kingdom had failed to take into account certain legitimate interests of Mauritius and had thereby breached its obligations under Articles 2(3), 56(2), and 194(4) of the Convention.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2011

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
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 2011 were: the delivery by the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber of its advisory opinion on Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area; the referral of a new case to the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea (ITLOS) relating to the arrest and detention of a bunkering vessel in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (the Virginia G case); the International Court of Justice’s judgments rejecting the requests of Costa Rica and Honduras to intervene in the Nicaragua/Colombia maritime boundary delimitation case; the decision of the arbitral tribunal in the Mauritius/United Kingdom case to reject a challenge to the appointment of one of the arbitrators; the activation of the Croatia/Slovenia arbitration agreement; and the fifth triennial election of ITLOS judges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document