What Have the United Nations Conventionand the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to Offer as Regards Maritime Delimitation Disputes?

2010 ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

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.

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: 1996-97 Survey

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
First Case ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis article surveys the work of the Meeting of States Parties, of the United Nations General Assembly, and of ITLOS, from the third Meeting of States Parties held in November 1995 through 1996 and 1997. The Meeting of States Parties dealing with the Tribunal's financial and administrative matters is noted. The results of the election of members of ITLOS held in August 1996 and the geographical representation in the Tribunal are explained. An account of different actions taken by the United Nations General Assembly relating to ITLOS during the period under review follows. The Tribunal's activities relating to its own internal organisation, the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and the first case submitted to it, conclude this survey.

The “ARA Libertad”

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 404-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Kraska
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Irreparable Harm ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Sailing Ship

On December 15, 2012, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Tribunal or ITLOS) ordered Ghana to resupply and, upon payment of security, to refuel and release the Argentine naval frigate ARA Libertad, which was being held by authorities in the Ghanaian port of Tema. The Tribunal ordered release of the vessel in response to Argentina’s request for provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention or UNCLOS). The Tribunal accepted Argentina’s prima facie showing that the Libertad, a tall, three-masted sailing ship commissioned in the Argentine Navy being used as a training vessel for officer cadets, qualifies as a “warship” under Article 29 of UNCLOS, and was therefore entitled to immunity and release to avoid irreparable harm to Argentina pending the final outcome of the case (paras. 93–95).

Ghana v. Ivory Coast

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuwan Peiris
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ivory Coast ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

The charm of maritime delimitation and its enigmatic lessons hardly surprise us, yet the reasoning behind them sometimes seems seductively elusive. On September 23, 2017, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued its decision in Ghana v. Ivory Coast. The glamour of maritime delimitation is reason enough to note the judgment, but the case also addresses the equidistance principle for maritime delimitation, the standard for the acceptance of a tacit agreement, and international responsibility under Article 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): Provisional Measures Order (ITLOS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1147-1166
Author(s):  
Yurika Ishii
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Institutional Authority ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a provisional measures order to the Russian Federation to release two Ukrainian warships, a naval auxiliary ship, and their servicemen. This case adds to the jurisprudence concerning the Tribunal's institutional authority to issue a provisional measures order under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Order of Provisional Measures in Ukraine versus Russia and Mixed Disputes concerning Military Activities

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-294
Author(s):  
Xinxiang Shi ◽  
Yen-Chiang Chang
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Military

Abstract This article discusses mixed disputes concerning military activities in light of the Order of Provisional Measures in Ukraine v Russia. It is argued that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) decision that Russia’s use of force against the Ukrainian warships was not military in nature would diminish the military activities exception under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The distinct status of warships means that use of force against them can hardly be taken as merely pertaining to law enforcement activities. Thus, the dispute should be more properly characterized as a mixed dispute, containing both a military element and a law enforcement element. In light of the jurisprudence of UNCLOS tribunals concerning mixed disputes, if the Annex VII Tribunal to be constituted intends to assume jurisdiction over the dispute, it would need to either isolate the law enforcement element from the military element, or define and apply the preponderance test applicable to mixed disputes concerning military activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document