Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; Manifestation of Flag State Obligations on Illegal Fishing by Vessels Flying its Flag in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Third State

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.

Download Full-text

PENGUATAN HAK BERDAULAT (SOUVEREIGN RIGHT) PADA ZEE INDONESIA DALAM RANGKA PERLINDUNGAN SUMBER DAYA ALAM LAUT

Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum LEGALITY ◽

10.22219/jihl.v24i2.4268 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 24 (2) ◽

pp. 172

Author(s):

Indien Winarwati

Keyword(s):

Exclusive Economic Zone ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

Marine Resources ◽

Illegal Fishing ◽

Important Region ◽

United Nations Convention ◽

Economic Zone ◽

The Law ◽

Sea Area ◽

Exploration Exploitation

Sea is a important region for the integrity and unifying, a means of defense and security and foremost as a means of prosperity and welfare of a country due to the potential of the marine resources. Geographically, Indonesia can be termed as a maritime nation. Indonesia has the largest sea area in the world where two-thirds of its territory is waters. Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a maritime area that has the greatest wealth potential. To Regulate, protect and enforce the law in the EEZ, the Indonesian government enacted Law No. 5 of 1983 on the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone. In that regulation, there is a provision on the sovereign rights as contained in the provisions of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). Such right is a privilege rights to carry out the exploration, exploitation and conservation of marine resources. To that end, these rights should be used optimally in order to utilize and protect marine resources from illegal fishing by foreign vessels that have been so frequent that it can be utilized for the welfare and prosperity of society.

Download Full-text

The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (ITLOS)

International Legal Materials ◽

10.5305/intelegamate.53.6.1161 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 53 (6) ◽

pp. 1161-1226

Author(s):

Vincent Cogliati-Bantz

Keyword(s):

Exclusive Economic Zone ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

International Tribunal ◽

Coastal State ◽

Guinea Bissau ◽

Economic Zone ◽

The Law

On April 14, 2014, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (the Tribunal) rendered its Judgment in the case of the M/V Virginia G.. The judgment notably clarifies the scope of the sovereign rights of a coastal state with respect to living resources in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Download Full-text

Introductory Note

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018 ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190072506.003.0020 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 421-428

Author(s):

Tullio Treves

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

International Law ◽

Cote D'ivoire ◽

Exclusive Economic Zone ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

International Tribunal ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Introductory Note ◽

Economic Zone ◽

The Law

This Note focuses on the Judgment handed out by a special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in a dispute concerning delimitation of maritime areas between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. This is the only decision of substance of ITLOS during 2017. Among the elements of particular interests of the Judgment the following should be noted. First, the consideration and rejection of the argument that oil concession practice may constitute a tacit agreement. Second, the reliance, however limited to this case, as regards delimitation of the territorial sea on the same methodology used for the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, namely, the equidistance/relevant circumstances methodology. Third, the distinction between the function of the Chamber in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm and that of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in delineating the outer limits of the shelf. Fourth, the examination of the question of whether the Chamber had jurisdiction to decide on questions of responsibility, and of the applicability of customary international law thereto. Fifth, the statement that to adjudicate on the claim that Ghana had contravened the Chamber’s Order on provisional measures belonged to the Chamber’s “inherent competence”. Sixth, the analysis of the regime of contested areas in light of Article 83 of UNCLOS.

Download Full-text

ITLOS FLAGS ITS INTENT

The Cambridge Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0008197300230201 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 59 (3) ◽

pp. 421-471

Author(s):

Roger O'Keefe

Keyword(s):

Exclusive Economic Zone ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

International Tribunal ◽

Fishing Vessels ◽

First Case ◽

Economic Zone ◽

The Law

The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) (1999) 38 I.L.M. 1323 was, on the facts if not on the docket, the continuation and conclusion of The M/V “Saiga” 110 I.L.R. 736, the first case to be heard by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) established under the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. The cases arose out of an incident in which the Saiga—a Cypriot-owned, Scottish-managed and Swiss-chartered tanker flying the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines—was detected refuelling fishing vessels at sea (“bunkering”) in the Exclusive Economic Zone, and in violation of the customs laws, of Guinea. Guinean patrol craft forcibly arrested the Saiga, injuring a Ukrainian crewman and a Senegalese painter, and escorted the ship to port, where its Ukrainian master was convicted of customs offences. As well as a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment, the court imposed a substantial fine, seizing the vessel and confiscating its cargo by way of guarantee.

Download Full-text

‘Reasonableness’ in the Law of the Sea: The Prompt Release of the Volga

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156503001328 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. 621-630 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

CHESTER BROWN

Keyword(s):

Russian Federation ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

International Tribunal ◽

Coastal State ◽

Illegal Fishing ◽

Financial Conditions ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

The Law ◽

Good Behaviour ◽

Flag State

The jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to hear applications for the prompt release of vessels and crew was recently invoked by the Russian Federation against Australia in the Volga case. In determining whether the bonding arrangements set by Australia were ‘reasonable’ under Article 73(2) of UNCLOS, the Tribunal clarified several issues regarding prompt release applications, and most significantly, held that non-financial conditions and ‘good behaviour bonds’ were not permissible. In rendering its decision, the Tribunal adhered to the ‘guiding criterion’ of balancing the interests of the flag state and coastal state in determining the reasonableness of the bond. It is submitted that this test is inappropriate, and that this decision will create difficulties for coastal states seeking to control illegal fishing.

Download Full-text

The Application of the Law of Occupation in Maritime Zones and Rights to ‘Occupied’ Marine Resources

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law ◽

10.1163/15718085-bja10064 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-19

Author(s):

Shani Friedman

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

Exclusive Economic Zone ◽

Law Of The Sea ◽

Marine Resources ◽

Occupied State ◽

Economic Zone ◽

The Law ◽

New Perspective

Abstract This article seeks to contribute to the emerging literature concerning the application of belligerent occupation in maritime zones of the occupied State. It supports the approach that the law of occupation and the law of the sea apply simultaneously in case of occupation of coastal States, offering a new perspective on the jurisdiction of the occupying power to exploit marine resources in the occupied State’s continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. This perspective highlights some issues that have been ignored in the literature thus far to better understand the rights and obligations of the relevant Parties with respect to maritime zones of the occupied State.

Download Full-text