Dispute Settlement and Conflict-Resolution Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Prompt Release Proceedings

2012 ◽  
pp. 1589-1614
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law

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 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).

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.

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.

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 Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
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 2012 were the delivery of judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case and by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua/Colombia case, both concerned with maritime boundary delimitation; and the institution of Annex VII arbitration by Argentina against Ghana relating to the arrest of a State-owned vessel and the subsequent order of provisional measures by the ITLOS. These and other developments are reviewed in detail below.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Provisional Measures: Settled Issues and Pending Problems

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Orrego Vicuña
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThis presentation describes the system of provisional measures by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea under Article 290 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. By pointing towards the binding legal nature of provisional measures and the introduction of a duty to report on compliance efforts, he begins his article stressing the system's efficiency. The author then comments on the various prerequisites while drawing comparisons with the prescription of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice. He finally turns towards the problems of the application of Article 290 by focusing on the requirement of a specific demand by a State party for a provisional measure. While admitting the Tribunal's authorization to issue provisional measures with a view to the marine environment and the increasing influence of the precautionary principle in public international law, he also advises against the temptations to exceed the limits of provisional measures in international law. The interplay with other treaties which refer to the Convention's dispute settlement system (especially the Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks) even adds to this danger in the author's eyes. He closes with an appeal for due process, prudence and impartiality.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document