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.

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).

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 Observations on Vessel Release under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
German Government ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Additional Procedure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Flag State

AbstractIf a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with "without delay". Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made "by or on behalf" of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words "on behalf of" present an option that is not already provided by the word "by". Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application "by" the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release "on behalf of the flag State" may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.

scholarly journals The MV “Norstar” Case (Panama v. Italy)

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
Cameron Miles
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Rights ◽  
Flag State ◽  
The Way ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

In the MV “Norstar” Case (Norstar Case), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) produced two reasoned decisions. In the first, the Tribunal established jurisdiction over the relevant dispute and the admissibility of Panama's claims. In the second, it found that Italy had violated Panama's right to freedom of navigation on the high seas. In the latter decision, the Tribunal relied on an expansive understanding of flag state jurisdiction—prompting a vociferous joint dissent by seven of its twenty-three judges. The majority's understanding of the jurisdictional exclusivity of the flag state as extending to prescriptive as well as enforcement jurisdiction is a significant expansion of flag state rights—and will have a corresponding impact on the way that shipping is regulated internationally.

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.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
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. The main developments during 2013 were the delivery of a judgment by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (itlos) finding that it lacked jurisdiction in the Louisa case; an order of provisional measures by the itlos in the Arctic Sunrise case; and the initiation of a record 10 new cases. These and other developments are reviewed in detail.

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2004

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Caribbean Area ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document