scholarly journals International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea

2017 ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
Tam Xuan Song
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Effective Role ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
The Law

Although most international disputes are resolved through political means, especially as bilateral discussions and suggestions, international decisions and an important element of arbitration dispute settlement. There are several organizations serving as a place to solve the laws of maritime disputes, but special judicial organs specially designed to conduct such disputes in the International Tribunal for the Sea Law (ITLOS). This article is mainly limited to the procedures and procedures of ITLOS, although it and some other judiciary will be compared. In addition, the views and practices of the settlement of judicial disputes in East Asian states will be examined based on the latest cases filed in ITLOSS. This article discusses the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and its relevance. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea seems to contemplate extensive jurisdiction for the Tribunal, but since its inception, the Tribunal has heard a very limited number and scope of cases, in part because disputants have other options for adjudication. This article provides a detailed discussion of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Then, it concludes in a positive note by emphasizing the tribunal's desire to analyze the important decisions of the tribunal and to create a more effective role in its existing institutional limitations, to ensure a significant contribution in the field of international law and judgment.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Provisional Measures: Settled Issues and Pending Problems

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Orrego Vicuña
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThis presentation describes the system of provisional measures by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea under Article 290 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. By pointing towards the binding legal nature of provisional measures and the introduction of a duty to report on compliance efforts, he begins his article stressing the system's efficiency. The author then comments on the various prerequisites while drawing comparisons with the prescription of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice. He finally turns towards the problems of the application of Article 290 by focusing on the requirement of a specific demand by a State party for a provisional measure. While admitting the Tribunal's authorization to issue provisional measures with a view to the marine environment and the increasing influence of the precautionary principle in public international law, he also advises against the temptations to exceed the limits of provisional measures in international law. The interplay with other treaties which refer to the Convention's dispute settlement system (especially the Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks) even adds to this danger in the author's eyes. He closes with an appeal for due process, prudence and impartiality.

The Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule in the Settlement of Maritime Disputes: A Study of the Practice of the UNCLOS Tribunals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianjun Gao
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
The Unclos

Abstract The exhaustion of local remedies (“ELR”) rule is applicable in the settlement of maritime disputes, and it is not limited to the case of diplomatic protection. So far the manner in which the tribunals under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea dealt with the ELR issue in the cases of the flag State’s protection has raised the concern that the rule may become a dead letter in practice. Although the cases involved the protection of natural and legal persons by States, the tribunals rejected the objections to the admissibility of claims raised by the respondents based on the ELR rule in all cases. However, the approaches in which the tribunals dealt with the ELR issue are questionable, and the practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea contains dual imbalances. In the case of a mixed claim, the preponderance test suggested by the International Law Commission should be employed to determine the nature of the plaintiff’s claim as a whole. The test was mentioned in several cases, but it was not used correctly.

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.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) plays a central role as a dispute settlement mechanism for the international law of the sea. This book provides a unique insight into its inner workings exploring both its limitations and its unutilized potentials. New fields such as sea-level rise and the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction play important roles in the ever-expanding scope of the law of the sea. The book charts the evolution of ITLOS and the role it continues to play in international law. It introduces the reader to the historical and legal context for the discussion of ITLOS’s place within this dispute settlement regime, as well as its relationship and interaction with the other choices of dispute settlement mechanisms. It is an invaluable resource for law students, practising lawyers, judges, government and international officials, academics, and those interested in law of the sea.

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.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law

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. The main developments during 2013 were the delivery of a judgment by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (itlos) finding that it lacked jurisdiction in the Louisa case; an order of provisional measures by the itlos in the Arctic Sunrise case; and the initiation of a record 10 new cases. These and other developments are reviewed in detail.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Seabed Mining

The entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), on 16 November 1994, is probably the most important development in the settlement of international disputes since the adoption of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Not only does the Convention create a new international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), it also makes extensive provision for compulsory dispute-settlement procedures involving States, the International Seabed Authority (“ISBA”), seabed mining contractors and, potentially, a range of other entities. Implementation of the Convention has spawned a number of inter-State disputes to add to the cases already before the International Court. The initiation of the ITLOS not only opens up new possibilities for settling these disputes but it also has implications for the future role of the International Court and ad hoc arbitration in the law of the sea and more generally. It contributes to the proliferation of international tribunals and adds to the potential for fragmentation both of the substantive law and of the procedures available for settling disputes. Judges Oda and Guillaume have argued that the ITLOS is a futile institution, that the UNCLOS negotiators were misguided in depriving the International Court of its central role in ocean disputes and that creation of a specialised tribunal may destroy the unity of international law. The law of the sea, both judges argue, is an essential part of international law and any dispute concerning the application and interpretation of that law should be seen as subject to settlement by the International Court.

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the fourth of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2007 was the busiest year for dispute settlement in the law of the sea for some time. The main developments under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname Case and two prompt-release-of-vessel judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Outside the framework of the Convention, the International Court of Justice gave judgments in two maritime boundary cases—one on the merits (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and the other on jurisdiction (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2004

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Caribbean Area ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the first of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea generally, rather than focusing purely on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The main developments during 2004 were the referral of two maritime boundary disputes in the Caribbean area to arbitration under Annex VII and a prompt release of vessel judgment by the ITLOS in the Juno Trader case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document