Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Buga

Abstract It is unclear whether Law of the Sea tribunals under the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC, or the Convention) have jurisdiction to determine maritime boundary disputes involving concurrent land sovereignty issues. The text of the Convention and case law are silent in this respect. The only reference is in LOSC Article 298(1)(a)(i), which allows States to make declarations exempting maritime delimitations from compulsory dispute settlement, excluding concurrent territorial questions even from conciliation. However, it leaves unclear whether concurrent land sovereignty issues are also excluded in the absence of such declarations. There are indications that LOS tribunals may be able to decide ancillary land issues so long as these do not constitute the ‘very subject-matter’ of the dispute, or rely on an alternative jurisdictional basis. The question of competence over mixed disputes may be less extensive in effect than is often believed. States should not avoid initiating proceedings based on the view that LOS tribunals might not ultimately exercise jurisdiction.

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

AbstractThis is the first of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea generally, rather than focusing purely on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The main developments during 2004 were the referral of two maritime boundary disputes in the Caribbean area to arbitration under Annex VII and a prompt release of vessel judgment by the ITLOS in the Juno Trader case.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 321-344
Author(s):  
Dai Tamada

Abstract The maritime boundary dispute between Timor-Leste and Australia was submitted to the compulsory conciliation procedure under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is the first instance of conciliation, whether voluntary or compulsory, under UNCLOS. The Timor Sea conciliation led to the successful settlement of the long-standing deadlock between the parties that had hitherto not been settled by negotiation and had no possibility of being settled by litigation (within, for example, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or International Court of Justice proceedings) or arbitration (within the context of an UNCLOS Annex VII tribunal). This article aims to elucidate the unique mechanism of conciliation and, to this end, analyses both the procedural particularities of conciliation under UNCLOS and the substantive considerations in conciliation proceedings. The author places emphasis, in particular, on the fundamental importance of the economic factor in the Timor Sea maritime delimitation – namely, the sharing ratio of the natural resources in the Greater Sunrise gas fields. Being a definitive factor for the success of this conciliation, it was the economics of this dispute that incentivized the parties to compromise and settle. Furthermore, given that conciliation is a most elucidating piece in the rather complicated puzzle that is the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism, the Timor Sea conciliation offers valuable insights into this mechanism.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

AbstractThis is the latest in a series of annual surveys in this Journal reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. It covers developments during 2018. The most significant developments during the year were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, delimiting the maritime boundaries between the two States’ overlapping maritime zones in both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean; the report of the Conciliation Commission concerning maritime boundary arrangements between Timor-Leste and Australia; and the findings of a dispute settlement body of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

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).


Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

This chapter explores the present and future contributions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Presently, ITLOS has made substantial contributions to the peaceful solution of ongoing maritime disputes and to international efforts against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. It has also provided guidance on the responsibility and liability regarding activities in the deep seabed area for the benefits of humankind as well as developed procedural rules and substantive law in international adjudication. Human rights at sea, marine environment protection and preservation, and delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles are some of the areas of the law of the sea elucidated by ITLOS’s rulings. Future challenges include legal issues pertaining to sea-level rise, dispute settlement as regards biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and potential contentious cases before the Seabed Disputes Chamber arising from exploitation of mineral resources in the deep seabed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

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 2012 were the delivery of judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case and by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua/Colombia case, both concerned with maritime boundary delimitation; and the institution of Annex VII arbitration by Argentina against Ghana relating to the arrest of a State-owned vessel and the subsequent order of provisional measures by the ITLOS. These and other developments are reviewed in detail below.


Author(s):  
Михаил Елизаров

In 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted, founded upon the UN Charter, which encompasses the legal basis for ensuring the peaceful use of marine resources with a view to protecting the resource for future generations. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention offers several options for the settlement of disputes. And yet, the established international maritime dispute settlement me- chanism currently in force is by no means complete and effective.


2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 580-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Øystein Jensen

This article examines the legal significance of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in third-party dispute settlement regarding delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines. Recent international jurisprudence indicates that the relationship between the procedures of the 1982 un Convention on the Law of the Sea involving the Commission and third-party dispute settlement is marked by lack of clarity, bringing procedural and substantive legal challenges in the view of the international judiciary. The procedures involving the Commission may influence a dispute settlement body’s decision to exercise its jurisdiction to delimit continental shelf areas beyond 200 nautical miles. Also in terms of continental shelf entitlement—determining what is legally a “continental shelf” and what is not—the Commission plays a crucial role.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document