Advisory Proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as an Alternative Procedure to Supplement the Dispute-Settlement Mechanism under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Doo-young Kim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Alternative Procedure ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

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 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

Compulsory jurisdiction under the law of the Sea Convention: its achievements and limits

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-172
Author(s):  
Mariko Kawano
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
The Unclos

Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a special regime for the settlement of international disputes concerning its interpretation or application. Thanks to the mechanism of the enhanced compulsory jurisdiction provided by Section 2, various cases have been referred to the court or tribunals. Accumulation of the precedents has contributed to the clarification of the interpretation and application of the provisions relevant to the functions of the compulsory jurisdiction of international court and tribunals. This article examines the achievements and limits of the dispute settlement mechanism of Part XV. As far as the choice of the procedures in accordance with Article 287 is concerned, it is possible to say that the choice made by State Parties is respected as much as possible. Article 286 sets out the following requirements for a State Party to resort to the compulsory jurisdiction under Section 2: existence of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS; no settlement has been reached by recourse to Section 1; subject to the limitations and optional exceptions in accordance with Section 3. With regard to the first requirement, the ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have examined the subject-matter of the dispute before them and have tried to identify those concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS. It is possible to say that examining the second requirement, the ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have emphasized the sound function of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism under Section 2. As the third requirement relates to the scope of the compulsory jurisdiction of the court and tribunals, the ITLOS and arbitral tribunals have strictly interpreted the terms of Articles 297 and 298. Their Strict interpretation have allowed the Applicant to resort to the compulsory dispute settlement under Section 2. It is also necessary to note the strategic use of Article 300 in the arguments concerning the breach of the obligations under the UNCLOS in various precedents.

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.

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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document