Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Republic of Mauritius v. United Kingdom & Northern Ireland, Reasoned Decision on Challenge

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-381
Author(s):  
Jeremy K. Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) (Perm. Ct. Arb.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Kill
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

An ad hoc arbitral tribunal convened pursuant to Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered its award on the merits on August 14, 2015 in Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands/Russia). The award was unanimous on all holdings and included no separate opinions. In addition to establishing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility of the claims, the Tribunal also found that Russia had violated its obligations under UNCLOS by detaining the Arctic Sunrise, a Dutch-flagged vessel, and the thirty people (Arctic 30) on board on September 19, 2013; by failing to comply with an earlier order on provisional measures; and by failing to pay its share of the arbitral expenses.

6 Applications for Provisional Measures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Third ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One

This chapter assesses applications for provisional measures of protection under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). At the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, the need for courts or tribunals having jurisdiction under UNCLOS to have the power to prescribe provisional measures was beyond dispute although there was considerable debate concerning the details of the regime associated with such measures. The finally adopted Article 290 of UNCLOS, under the heading ‘Provisional measures’, represents the best possible compromise. Provisional measures are divided into provisional measures prescribed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under Article 290(1) pending ITLOS’ judgment on the merits of the dispute, on the one hand, and provisional measures prescribed by ITLOS under Article 290(5) pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute is being submitted, on the other hand. The request for the prescription of provisional measures shall be in writing and specify the measures requested, the reasons therefor, and the possible consequences, if the request is not granted, for the preservation of the respective rights of the parties or for the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment.

The Mox Plant Case–Provisional Measures in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 611-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
MALCOLM J. C. FORSTER
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Irish Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Radioactive Substances ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Irish Sea

On 3 December 2001, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an Order in response to Ireland's request for the prescription of provisional measures in accordance with Article 290 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In its request, Ireland alleged violation by the United Kingdom of numerous provisions of UNCLOS. The scope of provisional measures requested by Ireland included, among others, the immediate suspension by the United Kingdom of the authorization of the Sellafield Mox Plant and a guarantee of no movement of radioactive substances or materials or wastes that are in any way related to the plant into or out of the waters of the Irish Sea. This article reviews the background to the dispute between Ireland and the United Kingdom over the operation of the Sellafield Mox Plant. It focuses on the various jurisdictional challenges raised before ITLOS and critically assesses the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in its Order.

Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands/Russia) (Award on Compensation) (Perm. Ct. Arb.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-582
Author(s):  
Theodore Kill
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

An ad hoc arbitral tribunal convened pursuant to Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered its award on compensation on July 10, 2017, in Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands/Russia). The award was unanimous on all holdings and included no separate opinions. The Tribunal awarded the Netherlands just under EUR 5.4 million under four separate heads of damages arising out of Russian violations of its obligations under UNCLOS that were established in the Tribunal's award of August 15, 2015.

The Award in the Matter of an Arbitration Concerning The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Perm. Ct. Arb.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-110
Author(s):  
Sindhura Natesha Polepalli
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
The Republic

On June 26, 2015, the Italian Republic (Italy) commenced arbitral proceedings under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by serving on the Republic of India (India) a Notification under Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 of UNCLOS and Statement of Claim (Notification and Statement of Claim) in respect of the dispute concerning the Enrica Lexie incident. On July 2, 2020, having issued its Award to Italy and India (the Parties), the Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal) published the operative part or the “dispositive” of the Award at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which acts as registry for the proceedings.

British Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 761-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On 21 July 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced the United Kingdom's decision to accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the Convention”), a decision which was acted upon four days later in New York. The United Kingdom thus became the 119th State to establish its consent to be bound by the Convention and the 82nd party to the Agreement of July 1994 on the Implementation of its Part XI (“the Implementation Agreement”).

Provisional Measures in the “Enrica Lexie” Case

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-436
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Small Measure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

Abstract “Enrica Lexie” is yet another landmark case under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos). The provisional measures prescribed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (itlos) and the Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal share a discernibly significant commonality of result, if not a demonstrably identical approach to the issues contested between the flag state and the coastal state. There was no express finding by itlos on urgency other than in terms of prejudice to the rights of the parties. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s Order preserved the parties’ rights would depend in no small measure upon the nature and effectiveness of its decision on the merits. Perhaps the most important common legal development is the appreciation of human rights considerations. While their application might remain a matter of contestation, it would be difficult to characterize the Orders as unfair both for provisional measures as a temporary remedy and for their perceived bearings on the merits of the case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document