Maritime Dispute

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Abhimanyu George Jain
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On January 27, 2014, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered its judgment in a dispute between Peru and Chile concerning the maritime boundary between them. The Court held that a partial maritime boundary already existed between the parties, and it proceeded to analyze both its nature and its extent on the basis of agreements between the parties, their practice, and other evidence. For the remainder of the boundary extending up to 200 nautical miles, the Court applied the rule of equitable delimitation found in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Regulatory Coherence

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-88
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Part II comprises two chapters, Chapter Three and Chapter Four. These chapters together investigate the decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII tribunals, as well as other Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) cases. The courts and tribunals studied in these chapters make use of a broad range of interpretive methodologies in identifying emerging global regulatory standards, including reliance on the inbuilt logic of the regulatory schemes they are applying. The standards articulated make relatively minimal demands on domestic legal systems compared with more demanding standards that could have been developed. In this respect the standards appear to enhance traditional procedural justifications for international law’s claim to legitimate authority. Chapter Three focuses on tests for ‘regulatory coherence’.

Rethinking the Concept of Historic Rights in International Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-165
Author(s):  
Ying Wang
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Abstract Historic rights have been acknowledged by international legislation including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, although many issues concerning the concept still remain uncertain. This article will mainly discuss the legal connotation and juridical functions of the concept of ‘historic rights’ for maritime entitlements and maritime boundary delimitation, and attempt to clarify some legal ambiguity and explain the function of the legal regime through analysis of legal documents and identification of typical difficulties in the application of the concept of ‘historic rights’.

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).

Military Sanctions Enforcement in the Absence of Express Authorization?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Nevill
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter examines the use of force to enforce sanctions in the absence of express authorization by the UN Security Council. After reviewing the history and background to enforcement of sanctions which primarily takes place at sea, the chapter addresses the question of what amounts to a use of force in this context, paying particular attention to whether sanctions enforcement is ‘law enforcement’ or a use of force in the sense of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter by examining the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention concerning forcible measures used or threatened by state authorities against vessels or oil rigs and platforms. The chapter concludes by assessing the legal bases for the use of force to enforce sanctions, including those imposed by the United Nations.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Abstract 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 2012 were the delivery of judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case and by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua/Colombia case, both concerned with maritime boundary delimitation; and the institution of Annex VII arbitration by Argentina against Ghana relating to the arrest of a State-owned vessel and the subsequent order of provisional measures by the ITLOS. These and other developments are reviewed in detail below.

Remarks by Alfred Soons

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 389-392
Author(s):  
Alfred Soons
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court ◽  
Technical Issues ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rising Sea Level

Whether or not there are “shortcomings” in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) depends of course on one's view of the adequacy or desirability of the current law, and that in turn depends on one's views of what the current law is. Before I comment on that, it is useful to first summarize what we are talking about, and that is what the consequences are of a rising sea level for the location and extent of maritime jurisdictional areas. And here a distinction must be made between (1) areas that have been delimited between two coastal states by a boundary agreement or a decision by an international court or tribunal, and (2) areas where either there are no adjacent or opposite other coastal states or no delimitation has yet taken place. The first situation in my view does not raise any problems because, in brief, under general international law such boundaries are permanent unless the parties agree to change the existing boundary. Much more can be said about this but there is no time to delve into that area. The second situation is more complicated. Here the international law on “baselines” (in combination with the law on extent and limits of maritime jurisdictional zones) is decisive. A distinction must then be made between the “normal” baseline and artificial baselines (straight baselines, UNCLOS Article 7; and archipelagic baselines, UNCLOS Article 47). I will now concentrate on the “normal” baseline and leave the somewhat more technical issues of straight and archipelagic baselines aside.

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2008

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the fifth of a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The main developments during 2008 were the fourth triennial elections to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; an order made by the Tribunal further continuing the suspension of proceedings in the Swordfish case; and the referral of a maritime boundary dispute between Peru and Chile to the International Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document