scholarly journals Praktik Illegal Transhipment di Laut Lepas Berdasarkan Hukum Laut Internasional

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Cindy Vira Yunita
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Transnational Organized Crime ◽  
Resolution Process ◽  
Regional Association ◽  
The Law ◽  
Criminal Groups

AbstractIllegal transhipment practice is a serious problem because it is included in the theft mode of fish, which is by transferring the cargo of fish that occurs in the middle of the high seas from one ship to foreign ships without reporting the catch. It categorized as one form of the criteria for Transnational Organized Crime/TOC, includes crimes committed in one country, but involves organized criminal groups from more than one country. This paper will construct how the dispute resolution process must be carried out if it consists of UN procedures, UNCLOS 1982 by "International Tribunals for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)" and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional. The type of research used is normative juridical.  IntisariPraktik illegal transhipment merupakan suatu permasalahan yang serius karena termasuk dalam modus pencurian ikan, yaitu melalui pemindahan muatan ikan yang terjadi di tengah laut lepas dari satu kapal ke kapal asing tanpa melaporkan hasil tangkapannya tersebut. Dikategorikan sebagai salah satu bentuk kriteria Transnational Organized Crime/TOC, meliputi kejahatan yang dilakukan di satu negara, akan tetapi melibatkan kelompok kriminal terorganisasi yang berasal lebih dari satu negara. Tulisan ini akan mengonstruksikan bagaimana proses penyelesaian sengketa yang harus dilakukan bilamana terdiri atas prosedur PBB, UNCLOS 1982 oleh “International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)”, dan Regional Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Jenis penelitian yang digunakan ialah yuridis normatif. 

scholarly journals The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under The Law of the Sea Convention

2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Rayfuse
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law ◽  
Or Applications

In this article Rosemary Rayfuse evaluates the dispute resolution provisions found in Part XV of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). While the cases emerging from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to date have been limited in number, they can provide us with some idea of whether the Part XV machinery has been successful, and allow some predictions to be made as to its continuing role in the development of the law of the sea. Having examined this jurisprudence, she concludes that while the fears of fragmentation in the sense of inconsistent interpretations or applications of legal rules have not yet materialised, the overall role for the dispute settlement provisions in the development of international law seems rather limited.

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).

Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean, Preliminary Objections (ITLOS)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-69
Author(s):  
Thomas Burri ◽  
Jamie Trinidad
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
The Law ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

On January 28, 2021, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a judgment in which it rejected preliminary objections raised by the Maldives in arbitral proceedings instituted by Mauritius, concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary north of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean.

Normative propositions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-18
Author(s):  
Roman Kolodkin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Obiter Dictum ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Normative propositions of the international courts, including these of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, are considered in the paper as provisions in the judicial decisions and advisory opinions, spelling out, formulating or describing international law norms, prescriptions, prohibitions or authorizations, which are applicable, in the court’s view, in the case at hand and the similar cases. Such a proposition is considered to be a description of a legal norm, its spelling out by a court, but not a norm or its source. In contrast with legal norms, judicial normative propositions are descriptive, not prescriptive; they may be true or wrong. Normative propositions are not transformed into norms solely by their repetition in judicial decisions. The author considers not only ITLOS decisions but also the Tribunal’s and its Seabed disputes chamber advisory opinions containing normative propositions to be subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law under article 38(1(d)) of the International Court of Justice Statute. The legal reasoning of the Tribunal’s decision, not its operative provisions, usually features normative propositions. While strictly speaking, the decision addresses the parties of the dispute, normative propositions in the reasoning are in fact enacted by the Tribunal urbi et orbi aiming at all relevant actors, ITLOS including. They bear upon substantive and procedural issues, rights and obligations of relevant actors; they may also define legal notions. The Tribunal provides them as part of its reasoning or as obiter dictum. It is those provisions of the Tribunal’s decisions that are of particular importance for international law through detailing treaty- and verbalizing customary rules. However, the States that have the final and decisive say confirming or non-confirming the content and binding nature of the rules spelt out or described by the Tribunal in its normative propositions. Meanwhile, States are not in a hurry to publicly react to the judicial normative propositions, particularly to those of ITLOS, though they refer to them in pleadings or when commenting on the International Law Commission drafts. At times, States concerned argue that international judicial decisions are not binding for third parties. While the States are predominantly silent, ITLOS reiterates, develops and consolidates normative propositions, and they begin to be perceived as law. The paper also points to the possibility of the Tribunal’s normative propositions being not correct and to the role of the judges’ dissenting and separate opinions in identifying such propositions.

Ways to counteract transnational crime in Russia

2020 ◽  
pp. 18-20
Author(s):  
Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Dadalko ◽  
Victoria Aleksandrovna Pobedushkina
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Transnational Crime ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Transnational Organized Crime ◽  
Effective Work ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The World ◽  
Criminal Groups ◽  
Current Mechanism

The article is devoted to possible ways of counteracting transnational organized crime in Russia. A number of proposals have been developed to change and toughen the measures to combat transnational crime in Russia. The current situation of transnational criminal groups in the world is analyzed, and the threat they pose is demonstrated. The importance of strengthening international cooperation for effective work in this direction is noted. The current mechanism of counteraction in foreign countries is considered. The materials of the article can be used as teaching materials for courses related to economic security.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document