‘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.

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.

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.

Arbitration of the Philippine Claim Against China

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.C.W. PINTO
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
The Law ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

AbstractThis paper discusses the Tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over the Philippine claim notwithstanding China’s publicly declared and law-based withholding of consent to the proceedings instituted by the Philippines. The Tribunal relied on its interpretation of China’s general commitment under Section 2 of Part XV (Settlement of Disputes) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1 which was subjected to a Convention-authorized “exception” under Article 298 (China’s Declaration of 25 August 2006) that had selectively deprived any such proceeding of the essential element of China’s consent. The paper calls for inventive consideration of the methods available for resolving disputes, which might be seen currently as excessively influenced by procedures designed for resolving international trade disputes where only one party is a state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document