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.

Regulatory Coherence

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-88
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Part II comprises two chapters, Chapter Three and Chapter Four. These chapters together investigate the decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII tribunals, as well as other Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) cases. The courts and tribunals studied in these chapters make use of a broad range of interpretive methodologies in identifying emerging global regulatory standards, including reliance on the inbuilt logic of the regulatory schemes they are applying. The standards articulated make relatively minimal demands on domestic legal systems compared with more demanding standards that could have been developed. In this respect the standards appear to enhance traditional procedural justifications for international law’s claim to legitimate authority. Chapter Three focuses on tests for ‘regulatory coherence’.

United States Interests in the Law of the Sea Convention

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Multilateral Negotiations ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

In 1982 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that succeeded in resolving the most fundamental questions of the law of the sea in accordance with three basic principles: 1.The rules of the law of the sea must fairly balance the respective interests of all states, notably the competing coastal and maritime interests, in a manner that is generally acceptable.2.Multilateral negotiations on the basis of consensus replace unilateral claims of right as the principal means for determining that balance.3.Compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms should be adopted to interpret, apply, and enforce the balance.

scholarly journals Dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention On the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anshuman Chakraborty
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Traditional Role ◽  
Actual Role ◽  
The Future ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

<p>This thesis is about the dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC or Convention), and the potential and actual role that they play in oceans governance. The study focuses not only on the traditional role of dispute settlement mechanisms in peacefully settling disputes, but also on their potential for contribution to good oceans governance in many ways. The jurisprudence generated so far under the dispute settlement provisions of the LOSC can be called neither a complete success nor a total failure. Part XV of the Convention, dealing with dispute settlement procedures, has made a promising start with the inaugural jurisprudence under the prompt release and provisional measures proceedings. However, besides the general beneficial influence of the jurisprudence on oceans governance, a few detrimental developments have also been identified from the perspective of oceans governance. The present thesis demonstrates that a lot of hope had been pinned on the dispute settlement provisions at the time when the LOSC was drafted. However, most of these hopes have not yet found expression, and if the limited use of dispute settlement procedures continues, it is unlikely that Part XV will fulfil those hopes in the future. Nevertheless, this thesis argues along more optimistic lines, and expresses a realistic hope that the actual role of dispute settlement in oceans governance will improve in the future. The thesis concludes that the success or failure of the dispute settlement mechanisms mostly depends upon their actual use made by states. Further, the dispute settlement mechanisms once invoked must be able to settle disputes objectively on the basis of law, equity and justice and uphold the principles and provisions of the LOSC. It is hoped that states will have recourse to Part XV more often for the purpose of settling their disputes peacefully, and that the dispute settlement provisions will in turn fulfil their mandate. Only then will the world witness the dispute settlement mechanisms playing a real and beneficial role in oceans governance, concurrently with other oceans governance institutions and arrangements.</p>

scholarly journals The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half-hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse

2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Future ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

In his reply to Rosemary Rayfuse's article, "The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention", Andrew Serdy addresses some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Part XV dispute resolution provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He concludes that despite being little used, the Part XV provisions remain pivotal to UNCLOS and its related treaties, and if anything are becoming more so

scholarly journals Prompt Release of Detained Foreign Vessels and Crews in Matters of Marine Environment Protection

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heiki Lindpere
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
Environment Protection ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
State Party ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Flag State

Article 292 of the United Nations 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention) reads:1. Where the authorities of a state party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another state party and it is alleged that the detaining state has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining state under article 287 or to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, unless the parties otherwise agree.2. The application for release may be made only by or on behalf of the flag state of the vessel.3. The court or tribunal shall deal without delay with the application for release and shall deal only with the question of release, without prejudice to the merits of any case before the appropriate domestic forum against the vessel, its owner or its crew. The authorities of the detaining state remain competent to release the vessel or its crew at any time.4. Upon the posting of the bond or other financial security determined by the court or tribunal, the authorities of the detaining state shall comply promptly with the decision of the court or tribunal concerning the release of the vessel or its crew.

6 Applications for Provisional Measures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

This chapter assesses applications for provisional measures of protection under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). At the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, the need for courts or tribunals having jurisdiction under UNCLOS to have the power to prescribe provisional measures was beyond dispute although there was considerable debate concerning the details of the regime associated with such measures. The finally adopted Article 290 of UNCLOS, under the heading ‘Provisional measures’, represents the best possible compromise. Provisional measures are divided into provisional measures prescribed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under Article 290(1) pending ITLOS’ judgment on the merits of the dispute, on the one hand, and provisional measures prescribed by ITLOS under Article 290(5) pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute is being submitted, on the other hand. The request for the prescription of provisional measures shall be in writing and specify the measures requested, the reasons therefor, and the possible consequences, if the request is not granted, for the preservation of the respective rights of the parties or for the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment.

5 Applications for Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Financial Security ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Laws And Regulations

This chapter looks at applications for prompt release of vessels and crews detained after violating laws and regulations of a coastal State. Pursuant to Article 292(1) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has default jurisdiction over prompt release applications, unless the parties otherwise agree. The parties must be States Parties to UNCLOS and have not agreed to submit the question of release from detention to any other court or tribunal within ten days from the time of detention. Article 112 of the ITLOS Rules adds, inter alia, that ITLOS shall give priority to applications for release of vessels or crews over all other proceedings before ITLOS. In its judgment, ITLOS must determine in each case whether or not the allegation made by the applicant that the detaining State has not complied with a provision of UNCLOS for the prompt release of the vessel or the crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security is well founded. If ITLOS decides the allegation is well founded, it shall determine the amount, nature, and form of the bond or financial security to be posted for the release of the vessel or the crew.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document