Prompt Release Procedures and the Challenge for Fisheries Law Enforcement: The Judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in The ‘Volga’ Case (Russian Federation V Australia)

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-407
Author(s):  
Warwick Gullett
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law ◽  
Fisheries Law

The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Fisheries Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis paper provides a comprehensive survey of all matters related to the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea relating to fisheries. An overview of the main provisions of the LOSC on the matter serves as an introduction. The author then expounds on the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction relating to fisheries in great detail while differentiating between its jurisdiction to deal with the substance of fisheries disputes on the one hand and provisional measures as well as prompt release orders on the other hand. He concludes that while the Tribunal theoretically has jurisdiction to deal with fisheries disputes not only arising from the LOSC and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement but also from over 20 other treaties, it has so far rarely been called on to do so. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has made a not insignificant impact on international fisheries law. This becomes obvious in the course of the following analysis of its jurisprudence on these matters. Before turning towards his final remarks, the author considers the prospects for the development of the Tribunal's fisheries jurisprudence. He concludes that it is difficult to predict the extent to which the Tribunal may be asked to resolve fisheries disputes and thus given an opportunity to develop its jurisprudence, but points out both that States have historically been reluctant to refer fisheries disputes to binding third-party settlement and that there are considerable jurisdictional obstacles to the Tribunal hearing fisheries disputes.

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.

Provisional Measures and the MV Arctic Sunrise

2014 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Guilfoyle ◽  
Cameron A. Miles
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Security Service ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Vladimir Putin

On September 18, 2013, several Greenpeace activists, bearing ropes and posters, attempted to board a Gazprom oil platform, the Prirazlomnaya, in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Russian Federation. They did so in inflatable craft launched from a Greenpeace vessel, the Netherlands-flagged MV Arctic Sunrise. They were soon arrested by the Russian Coast Guard. The following day, armed agents of the Russian Federal Security Service boarded the Arctic Sunrise itself from a helicopter, arresting those on board. The Netherlands was apparently informed of Russia’s intention to board and arrest the vessel shortly after the original boarding of the platform. Over the next four days, the vessel was towed to Murmansk. Russian authorities charged the thirty detained persons (the so-called Arctic 30) with “piracy of an organized group.” Although President Vladimir Putin acknowledged that the protesters were “obviously... not pirates,” he also noted that “formally, they tried to seize our platform.” On October 4, the Netherlands announced that, under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it had commenced arbitration proceedings against Russia over the detention of the Arctic Sunrise and the legality of its seizure. On October 21, the Netherlands filed with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) a request for the prescription of provisional measures pending the constitution of the Annex VII arbitration tribunal.

scholarly journals Analisis UNCLOS 1982 Terkait Permasalahan Yurisdiksi Negara dan Penegakan Hukum Atas Kapal Berbendera Negara Asing

SASI ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Zainal Abdul Aziz Hadju
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Water Area ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Law ◽  
Criminal Matters

International Law has reign most interactions between States in the sea. The practice of illegal transshipment is a serious issue as it falls within both theft mode and smuggling through the transfer of cargo from one ship to another that occurs at sea. Including a crime which committed in the territory of one state but involving parties from another state or more. Law enforcement is a major concern when an offence of some kind of illegal transshipment occurs. The study aims to determine the jurisdiction of states in enforcing laws including in criminal matters that occurred over its sea where the country has sovereign rights, especially when the involvement of 3rd states party in the law enforcement on a ship which not entered into its territory, yet indicately committed a violation of the law in some states water area, this paper also study how the responsibility of 3rd states party towards of flag states of ships who feel harmed. This article was written using normative research methods with a statutory. Historical and conceptual approach explaining efforts from international organizations in resolving the issues of accountability of countries involved in the problem of Illegal Transshipment at sea in the 1982 UNCLOS perspective especially the process of law enforcement and dispute resolution by the International Tribunal for the Law of The Sea (ITLOS).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document