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.

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.

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

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).

TheSouth China Sea Award: How Should We Read the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas GUILFOYLE
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
China Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThe conventional wisdom has been that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] Part XV dispute settlement system is narrowly restricted and this reflects the drafters’ intent. Thus, tribunals should cautiously interpret Part XV, giving broad effect to its jurisdictional limitations. The unanimous award inSouth China Seadeals this approach a blow. Indeed, it assumes a fundamentally different orientation to interpreting UNCLOS: one which implicitly takes the foremost principle of Part XV as being its compulsory and comprehensive character. This approach is rooted in a very different understanding of UNCLOS as a “package deal” and the consensus it reflects. Indeed, I argue that any interpretation of ambiguous provisions of UNLCOS is necessarily coloured by one’s view of the struggles involved in its negotiation. Further evidence of this difference of approach inSouth China Seais found, in particular, in its treatment of the regime of islands.

‘Due Regard’ Obligations, with Particular Emphasis on Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-72
Author(s):  
Tullio Scovazzi
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Economic Zone

Abstract ‘Due regard’ obligations occur when a state, in exercising a right, is bound to take into consideration the existence of conflicting rights and interests of other states and to balance their respective importance. They are frequently found in international law of the sea and the LOSC. Within the exclusive economic zone, where the applicable regime is the result of the balancing of the rights of the coastal state with those of other states, international practice shows that the balance shifts in favour of the coastal state if conflicting fishing activities are at stake. The balance may change if other kinds of activities are in conflict within the same zone. Two recent arbitral awards—on the Chagos Marine Protected Area case and the South China Sea case—elaborate on ‘due regard obligations’.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-659
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Sao Tome And Principe ◽  
The Law ◽  
Flag State ◽  
High Seas

Abstract This 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 2019. The most significant developments concerned the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). It delivered its judgment in the M/V Norstar (Panama v. Italy) case (concerning bunkering on the high seas and the scope of non-flag State prescriptive jurisdiction over vessels); made two provisional orders – in the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russia) and San Padre Pio (Switzerland v. Nigeria) cases, both concerned with the alleged unlawful seizure and detention of ships; and was seized of two new cases. In addition, an arbitral tribunal made an award of reparation in the Duzgit Integrity (Malta v. São Tomé and Príncipe) case.

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.

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.

The Vicissitudes of Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Klein
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
China Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

The South China Sea Arbitration raises important questions about the potential operation of the dispute settlement system enshrined in Part xv of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc). This article explores the scope and different limitations that we are seeing in the interpretation of the losc dispute settlement regime with a particular focus on the South China Sea Arbitration. This examination questions the contours of the losc Part xv dispute settlement regime and its utility in resolving disputes relating to the South China Sea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document