Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:02:56.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effectiveness of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Reaching for the Stars?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Natalie Klein
Natalie Klein*
Affiliation:
Macquarie Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The Dispute Settlement System of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: An Assessment After 20 Years
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 108 , 2014 , pp. 359 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Mr. Lathrop and Professor Mossop did not submit remarks for the Proceedings.

1 Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.9, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.9/Add.1 (1976), reprinted in 5 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Official Records at 122, para. 6 (1984) (explaining his initiative in preparing an informal single negotiating text on the Settlement of Disputes).

2 Boyle, Alan E., Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction, 46 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 37, 38 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 A notable skeptic at the time of the adoption of UNCLOS was former ICJ President Shigeru Oda. See, e.g., Oda, Shigeru, Some Reflections on the Dispute Settlement Clauses in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs 645, 655 (Makarczyk, Jerzy ed., 1984)Google Scholar.

4 Natalie Klein, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (2005).

5 See, e.g., UNCLOS, art 204 and other provisions relating to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

6 A practice reflected in the adoption of the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 2167 U.N.T.S. 88.

7 Among the cases that most clearly demonstrate this point are Volga, Camouco, and Monte Confurco. Klein, supra note 4, at 109.

8 This aspect was particularly apparent in the Volga case. See Stephens, Tim & Rothwell, Donald R., The Volga (Russian Federation v. Australia), 35 J. Mar. L. & Com. 283 (2004)Google Scholar.

9 “Hoshinmaru” Case (Japan v. Russian Federation), Prompt Release, Judgment, Aug. 6, 2007, para. 99, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_14/Judgment_Honshinmaru_No._14_E.pdf.

10 “ARA Libertad” Case (Argentina v. Ghana), Provisional Measures Order, Dec. 15, 2012, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.20/C20_Order_15.12.2012.corr.pdf.

11 “Arctic Sunrise” Case (Netherlands v. Russia), Provisional Measures Order, Nov. 22, 2013, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Order/C22_Ord_22_11_2013_orig_Eng.pdf.

12 Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Australia v. Japan; New Zealand v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 39 ILM 1359 (2000).

13 MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) (Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Article 287 and Annex VII of the UN Law of the Sea Convention), Order No 6 of 6 June 2008 (Termination of Proceedings), available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/MOX%20Plant%20Order%20No.%206.pdf.

14 Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber), Feb. 1, 2011, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/Adv_Op_010211_eng.pdf. See also Freestone, David, Advisory Opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on ‘Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities With Respect to Activities in the Area’, ASIL Insight (Mar. 9, 2011)Google Scholar, http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/15/issue/7/advisory-opinion-seabed-disputes-chamber-international-tribunal-law-sea-.

15 Republic of Mauritius v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1429.

16 Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China, available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1529.

17 Prows, Peter, Mauritius Brings UNCLOS Arbitration Against the United Kingdom over the Chagos Archipelago, ASIL Insight (Apr. 5, 2011)Google Scholar, http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/15/issue/8/mauritius-brings-unclos-arbitration-against-united-kingdom-over-chagos.

18 To the extent the case entails consideration of fishing interests in the EEZ or military activities, it should be recalled that these are excluded from jurisdiction by way of operation of Articles 297 and 298 of UNCLOS, and the British declaration under Article 298. See id.

19 This is borne out in the Louisa decision of ITLOS and its strict reading of each provision of UNCLOS argued by the applicant in determining jurisdiction. See “M/V Louisa” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Judgment of 28 May 2013, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_18_merits/judgment/C18_Judgment_28_05_13-orig.pdf.

20 Boyle, supra note 2, at 44–45.

21 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, Mar. 14, 2012, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/C16_Judgment_14_03_2012_rev.pdf [hereinafter Dispute Concerning Bangladesh & Myanmar].

22 UNCLOS, annex 2 & art. 76.

23 See Dispute Concerning Bangladesh & Myanmar, supra note 21, paras. 360–63. The arbitral tribunal in Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago had determined that it had jurisdiction but did not ultimately exercise that jurisdiction on the facts before it. Arbitration Between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, 27 U.N.R.I.A.A. 147, at 209, paras. 217, 242 & 368. Churchill has also noted that “In the Canada/France and Nicaragua/Honduras cases the arbitral tribunal and ICJ, respectively, took the view that they could not delimit the continental shelf boundary beyond 200 miles.” Churchill, Robin, The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation, 1 Cambridge J. Int’l & Comp. L. 137, 148 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nicolb&case=154&k=02.

25 See, e.g., Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) (Judgment), [2007] ICJ Rep. 659; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) (Judgment), [2009] ICJ Rep. 61.

26 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan; New Zealand Intervening), Judgment, Mar. 31, 2014, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3#x0026;k=64&case=148&code=aj&p3=4.

27 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Dec. 2, 1946, 161 U.N.T.S. 72.

28 See Beckman, Robert C., PSSAs and Transit Passage—Australia’s Pilotage System in the Torres Strait Challenges the IMO and UNCLOS, 38 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 325, 340 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Sea Shepherd has alleged that Japan has acted in violation of requirements pertaining to the safety of life at sea in its maneuvers to counter the actions of Sea Shepherd protestors. See Captain Hammarstedt Responds to Greg Hunt (Mar. 4, 2014), available at http://www.seashepherd.org.au/commentary-and-editorials/2014/03/04/captain-hammarstedt-responds-to-greg-hunt-649.