The International Law of the Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-152
Author(s):  
Christopher Whomersley
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Fisheries Policy

Abstract The concept of “historic rights” has been much discussed recently in the light of the arbitral award in the Philippines v. China case. The United Kingdom, as a major maritime power, has had long experience of dealing with claims about such rights and those which are similarly worded. This includes the seminal case of the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case in the International Court of Justice, as well as two other international decisions and a judgment of what is now the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU). In addition, the London Fisheries Convention and the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy seem to employ terminology to similar effect. Finally, it is interesting to speculate about whether claims to historic rights will be made by other EU Member States after BREXIT.

Kosovo: The Post-advisory Opinion Stage

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-510
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Legal Position

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovar authorities in Pristina in 2008 has generated heavy legal and political controversies. The delivery by the International Court of Justice of its advisory opinion on Kosovo unilateral declaration of independence in 2010 has not led to the elimination of unilateralist positions as to Kosovo’s status. Such unilateralist approach, favouring Kosovo’s independence either in principle or in practice, has since been adopted by the local Kosovar authorities, a number of governments and by the European Union. This contribution addresses the merit of such unilateralist positions and examines whether these positions could adversely affect the legal position as to Kosovo’s status under general international law as well as un Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).

scholarly journals Theoretical and Practical Significance of the Issue of Maritime Delimitation in the Law of the Sea

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Lakićević-Đuranović
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

This paper aims to show the significance of maritime delimitation in the Law of the Sea, as well as the contribution of international jurisprudence to the creation of the rules of maritime delimitation. The decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the awards of arbitration tribunals are especially significant in the part of the Law of the Sea dealing with maritime delimitation. Based on the analysis of the principle of equity and the method of equidistance, the jurisprudence of the courts is shown to have established precedents and to have an irreplaceable role in the development of the international Law of the Sea, particularly in the segment of maritime delimitations.

The LOSC as a Package Deal and Its Implications for Determination of Customary International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 704-739
Author(s):  
Xuexia Liao
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Not Given ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention

Abstract This article revisits the package deal nature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) and its implications for determining customary international law. A survey of the case law illustrates that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not given particular weight to the fact that the LOSC was negotiated and accepted as a package deal. Nevertheless, the ICJ’s declaration that Article 121, paragraph 3 of the LOSC is a customary rule tends to be based on a ‘package deal approach’, which focuses on the textual and logical links between the paragraphs that manifest an ‘indivisible régime’. By exploring the difficulties of determining the customary status of Article 76(2)–(7) concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, which may arise in the pending Nicaragua v. Colombia II case, this article calls for a cautious attitude towards determination of customary rules from the LOSC.

International Court of Justice

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Royal Decree ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On December 18, 1951 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the fisheries case which had been brought before the Court by the United Kingdom against Norway. By a vote of ten to two the Court established the validity of the Norwegian Royal Decree of 1935 in international law. This reserved to Norway an exclusive fishing zone of four miles based on lines connecting the outermost land points of the jagged coast. Through an eight to four vote the Court sanctioned the Norwegian system of straight baselines and overruled the United Kingdom contention that the four-mile belt should more closely follow coastal contours. This decision ended two years of litigation over a forty-five year controversy.

Sources of law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Systems

Union law is mentioned in the first position in lit a of para 1. When is the UPC required to apply Union law? The UPC was established by the UPCA which is a piece of international law and is not part of Union law. That makes the UPC an international court. However, the Member States established it—at the level of international law—as a court common to them which, pursuant to Arts 1(2) and 21 UPCA, is part of their respective national judicial systems. As part of the judicial system (Art 21 UPCA) of the CMSs—by an order under international law—and by reason of an express provision in Art 20 UPCA, the Court fulfils the obligation of the CMSs to apply Union law. Since the Court is a ‘court common to a number of Member States’, ‘it is situated within the judicial system of the European Union’, which is why ‘its decisions’ are subject to ‘mechanisms capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of Union law’. This wording—used in Opinion C-1/09 of the Court of Justice with reference to the Benelux Court of Justice—is also appropriate with reference to the UPC. Although it is integrated into the judicial systems of the Member States in a different way compared with the Benelux Court of Justice, it is a ‘court common to the Member States’, and it is only based on that connecting factor that the Benelux Court of Justice is ‘situated within the judicial system of the European Union’. The ‘mechanisms capable’ are expressly confirmed in Arts 21–23 UPCA.

Part II Historical and Legal Sources, Ch.8 General Principles and Constitutions as Sources of Human Rights Law

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
O’Boyle Michael ◽  
Lafferty Michelle
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Human Rights Standards

This article examines influence of general principles of law and constitutions in the formulation of human rights standards and in their interpretation and application by international courts, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It describes and compares the application and interpretation of human rights by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This article also highlights the fact that majority of human rights instruments and provisions subsequently adopted at the national and international levels have built upon the guarantees elaborated by the UDHR.

Judge Vereshchetin: A Russian Scholar at the International Court of Justice

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
SERGEY PUNZHIN ◽  
NATHALIE WILES
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The Body ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

There are three topics within the body of Vereshchetin's academic work which deserve special attention: the law of the sea, space law, and the theory of international law. Vereshchetin's contribution as a judge to the practice and theory of international law can be appreciated through his individual opinions and declarations, in which he dealt with various issues of international law and the international judicial process: self-determination, countermeasures, diplomatic protection, and questions which concern the functioning of the Court (the role and powers of the ICJ, non liquet, bases for the revision of decisions, declarations accepting the Court's jurisdiction and reservations to them, and so on).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document