Dispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS

DownloadDispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS

Advertisement
Download Presentation
Comments
baylee
From:
|  
(588) |   (0) |   (0)
Views: 231 | Added: 25-02-2012
Rate Presentation: 3 0
Description:
Introduction and overview. IntroductionGeneral principlesMeans availableChoice by parties (declarations). 1. Introduction. . Before UNCLOS. 1958 Optional Protocol of Signature concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Preamble:[The States Parties,e]xpressing their wish to resort, in all matters concerning them in respect of any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of any article of any Convention on the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958, to the compulsory jurisd29966
Tags
Dispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. While downloading, If for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.











- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




1. Dispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS

2. Introduction and overview Introduction General principles Means available Choice by parties (declarations) Recognizing that, just like any other branch of international law, the application and interpretation of UNCLOS would give rise to disputes of many kinds involving States parties (e.g. about boundary delimitation, the exercise of fishing rights, innocent passage etc.), the drafters of the Convention developed a rather complex and thorough set of provisions concerning settlment of disputes. These can be found in Part XV as well as Annexes V, VI, VII and VIII to the Convention. For the sake of this presentation we are going to focus on disputes between States (as opposed to disputes involving individuals), which are parties to the Convention (disputes involving one or more state not party to the Convention are subject to the general principles of international law regarding the peaceful settlement of Disputes, and in particular the principles enshrined in the UN Charter). In this presentation we?ll provide a very brief overview of the general principles contained in Section I of part XV of the Convention, and then we?ll provide an overview of the various means available to the parties, with a view, in particular, to the choice that parties to the Convention may make under the Convention. Recognizing that, just like any other branch of international law, the application and interpretation of UNCLOS would give rise to disputes of many kinds involving States parties (e.g. about boundary delimitation, the exercise of fishing rights, innocent passage etc.), the drafters of the Convention developed a rather complex and thorough set of provisions concerning settlment of disputes. These can be found in Part XV as well as Annexes V, VI, VII and VIII to the Convention. For the sake of this presentation we are going to focus on disputes between States (as opposed to disputes involving individuals), which are parties to the Convention (disputes involving one or more state not party to the Convention are subject to the general principles of international law regarding the peaceful settlement of Disputes, and in particular the principles enshrined in the UN Charter). In this presentation we?ll provide a very brief overview of the general principles contained in Section I of part XV of the Convention, and then we?ll provide an overview of the various means available to the parties, with a view, in particular, to the choice that parties to the Convention may make under the Convention.

3. 1. Introduction

4. Before UNCLOS 1958 Optional Protocol of Signature concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Preamble: [The States Parties,e]xpressing their wish to resort, in all matters concerning them in respect of any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of any article of any Convention on the Law of the Sea of 29 April 1958, to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, unless some other form of settlement is provided in the Convention or has been agreed upon by the parties within a reasonable period,? To fully understand the provisions on settlement of disputes contained in UNCLOS it may be useful to recall the system that had been set out in 1958. The Optional Protocol to the 1958 Conventions on the Law of the Sea had a completely different approach to the one taken by The Convention. As evidenced in its preamble, the Optional Protocol gives automatic compulsory jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice ?unless some other form of settlement is provided in the Convention or has been agreed upon by the parties within a reasonable period?. Indeed, in it?s article 1, the Protocol stated that: ?Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of any Convention on the Law of the Sea shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being Party to this Protocol?. Exceptions to that general rule where found in subsequent articles. In particular, certain provisions of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas; and in general when the parties agree to a different form to settle the dispute. This was perhaps a too ambitious attempt. And this is the reason why it was an Optional protocol. With only about thirty States signing it (Thailand not among them) and no cases brought under it it was clear that States did not find this mechanism to be suitable to the reality of international relations of the time. The experience of the Optional Protocol was therefore influential in the drafting of a more flexible system under the Convention.To fully understand the provisions on settlement of disputes contained in UNCLOS it may be useful to recall the system that had been set out in 1958. The Optional Protocol to the 1958 Conventions on the Law of the Sea had a completely different approach to the one taken by The Convention. As evidenced in its preamble, the Optional Protocol gives automatic compulsory jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice ?unless some other form of settlement is provided in the Convention or has been agreed upon by the parties within a reasonable period?. Indeed, in it?s article 1, the Protocol stated that: ?Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of any Convention on the Law of the Sea shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being Party to this Protocol?. Exceptions to that general rule where found in subsequent articles. In particular, certain provisions of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas; and in general when the parties agree to a different form to settle the dispute. This was perhaps a too ambitious attempt. And this is the reason why it was an Optional protocol. With only about thirty States signing it (Thailand not among them) and no cases brought under it it was clear that States did not find this mechanism to be suitable to the reality of international relations of the time. The experience of the Optional Protocol was therefore influential in the drafting of a more flexible system under the Convention.

5. Overview of UNCLOS III: The need for Effective Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Conflicting approaches: - Direct involvement of parties in the settlement - Need for binding settlement Result: compromise between the two approaches During the drafting of the Convention: some countries were opposed in principle to binding settlement to be decided by third party judges or arbitrators, insisting that issues could best be resolved by direct negotiations between States without requiring them to bring in outsiders; Other countries, pointing to a history of failed negotiations and long-standing disputes often leading to a use of force, argued that the only sure chance for peaceful settlement lay in the willingness of States to bind themselves in advance to accept the decisions of judicial bodies. What emerged from the negotiations was a combination of the two approaches, which recognized the merits of direct involvement of parties in the solution of their disputes as well as binding settlement. What all States agreed on however of the need to ensure that all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention would be settled by peaceful means.During the drafting of the Convention: some countries were opposed in principle to binding settlement to be decided by third party judges or arbitrators, insisting that issues could best be resolved by direct negotiations between States without requiring them to bring in outsiders; Other countries, pointing to a history of failed negotiations and long-standing disputes often leading to a use of force, argued that the only sure chance for peaceful settlement lay in the willingness of States to bind themselves in advance to accept the decisions of judicial bodies. What emerged from the negotiations was a combination of the two approaches, which recognized the merits of direct involvement of parties in the solution of their disputes as well as binding settlement. What all States agreed on however of the need to ensure that all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention would be settled by peaceful means.

6. 2. General principles

7. Settlement of Disputes States Parties shall settle any dispute concerning UNCLOS? interpretation and application by peaceful means (art. 279); Right to settle the dispute by means of the parties? choice (art. 280): - Non-binding settlement among parties concerned; - Binding settlement through third party mechanism to be chosen.

8. 3. Available mechanisms

9. A Flexible Dispute Settlement Regime Article 279 makes express reference to article 33 of the United Nations Charter. In addition, article 282 makes express reference to regional agencies or arrangements. As a result of this setup these are the mechanisms available to the parties to solve their disputes under the Convention. We?ll analyze them in more detail in the coming slides. The sheer number of options available to parties should ensure enough flexibility to make it possible for virtually all parties to disputes to find a mechanism suitable to their dispute. You can think of it as a ?Toolbox? from which parties can choose what suits them best. There is no hierarchy. They can be taken in any order. E.g. N.Sea C.S. Cases: the ICJ judgement was followed by negotiations.Article 279 makes express reference to article 33 of the United Nations Charter. In addition, article 282 makes express reference to regional agencies or arrangements.

10. A - Consensual settlement exchange of views Obligation to exchange views (art. 283): ?the parties to the dispute shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means? WHENEVER: a dispute arises; a procedure for the settlement of a dispute has been terminated without a settlement; or a settlement has been reached and the circumstances require consultation regarding the manner of implementing the settlement. ?other peaceful means? may refer to pre-established mechanisms like the European Court of justice for disputes btw EU States When the dispute involves certain matters like MSR the parties do not have full freedom of choice e.g. compulsory mechanisms?other peaceful means? may refer to pre-established mechanisms like the European Court of justice for disputes btw EU States When the dispute involves certain matters like MSR the parties do not have full freedom of choice e.g. compulsory mechanisms

11. Consensual settlement: mechanisms Direct involvement of parties: Negotiations Third party settlement ? non binding: Enquiry Mediation Conciliation Regional agencies or arrangements Negotiation: Direct conversations between the parties looking at a mutually agreeable solution to the dispute. Inquiry: In an International dispute involving in particular a difference of opinions on points of fact, the States concerned may agree to initiate an inquiry to investigate a disputed issue of fact, as well as other aspects of the dispute, to determine any violations of relevant treaties or other international commitments alleged by the parties and to suggest appropriate remedies and adjustments. Mediation: Method where a third party intervenes to reconcile the claims of the contending parties and to advance his own proposals aimed at a mutually acceptable compromise solution. Conciliation: Procedure which provides with an informal third-party machinery for the negotiation and non-judicial appraisal of each party?s legal claim, including the opportunity for defining the terms for a solution susceptible of being accepted by them. Negotiation: Direct conversations between the parties looking at a mutually agreeable solution to the dispute. Inquiry: In an International dispute involving in particular a difference of opinions on points of fact, the States concerned may agree to initiate an inquiry to investigate a disputed issue of fact, as well as other aspects of the dispute, to determine any violations of relevant treaties or other international commitments alleged by the parties and to suggest appropriate remedies and adjustments. Mediation: Method where a third party intervenes to reconcile the claims of the contending parties and to advance his own proposals aimed at a mutually acceptable compromise solution. Conciliation: Procedure which provides with an informal third-party machinery for the negotiation and non-judicial appraisal of each party?s legal claim, including the opportunity for defining the terms for a solution susceptible of being accepted by them.

12. Dispute Settlement by Procedures of Choice of the Parties Annex V Conciliation A State Party which is a party to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention may invite the other party or parties to submit the dispute to conciliation in accordance with the procedure under Annex V of the Convention or another conciliation procedure It is worth mentioning that the Convention has established a Conciliation procedure which is found in annex V to the Convention. As with any other Conciliation procedure, it is voluntary.It is worth mentioning that the Convention has established a Conciliation procedure which is found in annex V to the Convention. As with any other Conciliation procedure, it is voluntary.

13. Dispute Settlement by Procedures of Choice of the Parties A list of conciliators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, The conciliation commission shall consist of five members, For the purposes of the Conciliation procedure A list of conciliators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Every State Party shall be entitled to nominate four conciliators, each of whom shall be a person enjoying the highest reputation for fairness, competence and integrity. For the constitution of the conciliation Commission, each party nominates two conciliators, preferably chosen from the list maintained by the Secretary-General. The fifth member, who shall act as chairman, shall be appointed by the other conciliators from the list maintained by the Secretary-General. Thailand may do so if it becomes party ? Communication to the SG (Treaty Section)For the purposes of the Conciliation procedure A list of conciliators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Every State Party shall be entitled to nominate four conciliators, each of whom shall be a person enjoying the highest reputation for fairness, competence and integrity. For the constitution of the conciliation Commission, each party nominates two conciliators, preferably chosen from the list maintained by the Secretary-General. The fifth member, who shall act as chairman, shall be appointed by the other conciliators from the list maintained by the Secretary-General. Thailand may do so if it becomes party ? Communication to the SG (Treaty Section)

14. B ? Compulsory Settlement Any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to consensual mechanisms for the settlement of the dispute, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section (article 286).

15. Compulsory settlement It is only when settlement is not possible by means freely chosen by the parties to the dispute that Section 2 of Part XV is applied. The types of mechanisms envisaged therein are of two kinds Arbitration: Ad-hoc procedure which results in binding decisions upon the parties to the dispute. Judicial Settlement: Pre-constituted international court or tribunal composed of independent judges whose task are to settle claims on the basis of international law and render decisions which are binding to the parties. Such means are: The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established by the Convention itself; The International Court of Justice, established by its Statute, which is an annex to the Charter of the United Nations; An arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention; and A special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the Convention for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein. It is important to notice that if a State changes its choice of procedure by means of a new written declaration or a revocation, it does not affect proceedings pending any of the aforementioned court or tribunals. In fact, the initial declaration shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation or a new declaration has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is only when settlement is not possible by means freely chosen by the parties to the dispute that Section 2 of Part XV is applied. The types of mechanisms envisaged therein are of two kinds Arbitration: Ad-hoc procedure which results in binding decisions upon the parties to the dispute. Judicial Settlement: Pre-constituted international court or tribunal composed of independent judges whose task are to settle claims on the basis of international law and render decisions which are binding to the parties. Such means are: The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established by the Convention itself; The International Court of Justice, established by its Statute, which is an annex to the Charter of the United Nations; An arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention; and A special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the Convention for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein. It is important to notice that if a State changes its choice of procedure by means of a new written declaration or a revocation, it does not affect proceedings pending any of the aforementioned court or tribunals. In fact, the initial declaration shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation or a new declaration has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

16. Annex VII Arbitration A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It can be found in the webpage of the Treaty Section, Office of Legal Affairs. The arbitral tribunal consist of five members. Arbitration under Annex VII to the Convention is a comprehensive procedure which is available to deal with disputes arising in connection with the provisions of the Convention as a whole. The members of a tribunal under Annex VII are selected from a general list drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Persons for inclusion in the list are nominated by the States parties, with each State Party entitled to nominate not more than four persons.Arbitration under Annex VII to the Convention is a comprehensive procedure which is available to deal with disputes arising in connection with the provisions of the Convention as a whole. The members of a tribunal under Annex VII are selected from a general list drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Persons for inclusion in the list are nominated by the States parties, with each State Party entitled to nominate not more than four persons.

17. Annex VII Arbitration Constitution of the Tribunal Other characteristics: The expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. The award is final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure. Constitution of the Tribunal: Each party nominates one member, preferably chosen from the list maintained by the Secretary-General, who may be a national of the respective country. The other three members shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, they should be nationals of third States unless the parties otherwise agree, and chosen preferably from the list. The parties to the dispute shall appoint the President of the arbitral tribunal from among those three members If within 60 days of receipt of the initial notification the parties are unable to reach agreement on the appointment of one or more of the members to be appointed by agreement or on the appointment of the President, the President of ITLOS will make the necessary appointments, from the list and in consultation with the parties. If the President is unable or is a national of one of the parties to the dispute, the appointment shall be made by the next senior member of ITLOS who is available and is not a national of one of the parties. As with any other Arbitral Tribunal, the expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. And the award is final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure. Constitution of the Tribunal: Each party nominates one member, preferably chosen from the list maintained by the Secretary-General, who may be a national of the respective country. The other three members shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, they should be nationals of third States unless the parties otherwise agree, and chosen preferably from the list. The parties to the dispute shall appoint the President of the arbitral tribunal from among those three members If within 60 days of receipt of the initial notification the parties are unable to reach agreement on the appointment of one or more of the members to be appointed by agreement or on the appointment of the President, the President of ITLOS will make the necessary appointments, from the list and in consultation with the parties. If the President is unable or is a national of one of the parties to the dispute, the appointment shall be made by the next senior member of ITLOS who is available and is not a national of one of the parties. As with any other Arbitral Tribunal, the expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. And the award is final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure.

18. Annex VII Arbitration List of cases List of cases

19. Annex VII Arbitration: default Annex VII arbitration applies: If a party to a dispute is not covered by a declaration in force If parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree. In the maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India in the bay of Bengal, Bangladesh submitted to the Secretary-General a case-specific written declaration stating that ITLOS was the appropriate for a for this dispute. However, India had not made a general written declaration and did not agree to make a case-specific for this dispute. For these situations the Convention established that if a party to a dispute is not covered by a declaration in force, it will be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII. Similarly, if the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree. By virtue of these provisions, Annex VII arbitration operates as a residual fora for cases in which there is no agreement on the venue. The maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India in the Bay of Bengal is interesting for another reason. Once established that the dispute was to be adjudicated through Annex VII arbitration , the parties could not agree on the arbitrators. Pursuant to article 3 of Annex VII to the Convention, the President of the Tribunal had the authority to appoint arbitrators at the request of one of the parties to a dispute submitted to an Annex VII arbitration whenever they do not agree on the choice of arbitrators, and that he had recently exercised such authority in the dispute concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India in the Bay of Bengal, upon the request of Bangladesh. Based on that request, three arbitrators had been appointed to serve as members of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal instituted for the settlement of the maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India. In the maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India in the bay of Bengal, Bangladesh submitted to the Secretary-General a case-specific written declaration stating that ITLOS was the appropriate for a for this dispute. However, India had not made a general written declaration and did not agree to make a case-specific for this dispute. For these situations the Convention established that if a party to a dispute is not covered by a declaration in force, it will be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII. Similarly, if the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree. By virtue of these provisions, Annex VII arbitration operates as a residual fora for cases in which there is no agreement on the venue. The maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India in the Bay of Bengal is interesting for another reason. Once established that the dispute was to be adjudicated through Annex VII arbitration , the parties could not agree on the arbitrators. Pursuant to article 3 of Annex VII to the Convention, the President of the Tribunal had the authority to appoint arbitrators at the request of one of the parties to a dispute submitted to an Annex VII arbitration whenever they do not agree on the choice of arbitrators, and that he had recently exercised such authority in the dispute concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India in the Bay of Bengal, upon the request of Bangladesh. Based on that request, three arbitrators had been appointed to serve as members of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal instituted for the settlement of the maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India.

20. Annex VIII Special Arbitration The Convention establishes also that there will be a Special Arbitration for cases concerning the interpretation or application of its articles relating to Fisheries protection and preservation of the marine environment marine scientific research, and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping The Convention establishes also that there will be a Special Arbitration for cases concerning the interpretation or application of its articles relating to Fisheries protection and preservation of the marine environment marine scientific research, and navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping

21. Annex VIII Special Arbitration Lists of experts shall be kept in the expertises of: Fisheries: by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Protection and preservation of the marine environment: by the United Nations Environment Programme Marine scientific research: by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping: by the International Maritime Organization, or its appropriate subsidiary body A list of experts shall be established and maintained in respect of each of the fields in which the Special Arbitration applies The Tribunal will be composed of experts on these topics which will be drawn up and maintained: in the field of fisheries by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in the field of protection and preservation of the marine environment by the United Nations Environment Programme In the field of marine scientific research by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in the field of navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, by the International Maritime Organization, or in each case by the appropriate subsidiary body Thai can nominate experts if it becomes party A list of experts shall be established and maintained in respect of each of the fields in which the Special Arbitration applies The Tribunal will be composed of experts on these topics which will be drawn up and maintained: in the field of fisheries by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in the field of protection and preservation of the marine environment by the United Nations Environment Programme In the field of marine scientific research by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission in the field of navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, by the International Maritime Organization, or in each case by the appropriate subsidiary body Thai can nominate experts if it becomes party

22. Annex VIII Special Arbitration The arbitral tribunal consist of five members. Constitution of the Tribunal Other characteristics: The expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. The award is final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure Constitution of the Tribunal: Each party nominates two member, preferably chosen from the list maintained by the Secretary-General, one of whom may be a national of the respective country. The President shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, they should be nationals of third States unless the parties otherwise agree, and chosen preferably from the list. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the appointment of the member to be appointed by agreement, or a party fails to nominate their respective members, the Secretary-General of the United Nations will make the appointments, from the lists and in consultation with the parties. As it was the case with Annex VII arbitration, the expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. And the award is final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure. Constitution of the Tribunal: Each party nominates two member, preferably chosen from the list maintained by the Secretary-General, one of whom may be a national of the respective country. The President shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, they should be nationals of third States unless the parties otherwise agree, and chosen preferably from the list. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on the appointment of the member to be appointed by agreement, or a party fails to nominate their respective members, the Secretary-General of the United Nations will make the appointments, from the lists and in consultation with the parties. As it was the case with Annex VII arbitration, the expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. And the award is final and without appeal, unless the parties to the dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure.

23. ICJ Located in The Hague, Netherlands. Established by its Statute, annexed the UN Charter. 15 Judges who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or have recognized competence in international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations?(UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court?s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.? These organs vote simultaneously but separately.?Judges must be elected from among persons of high moral character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law. From a historical point of view, the judgments of the ICJ have played an important role in the development of the law of the sea. In this connection, it may suffice to recall the impact on the concept of straight baselines played by the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case, the importance of the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases in the evolution of the continental shelf regime. The content and language of the Convention reflects these very important ICJ judgments. In turn, following its entry into force in 1994 the interpretation and application of the Convention has been the object the following cases in front of the ICJ. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations?(UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court?s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.? These organs vote simultaneously but separately.?Judges must be elected from among persons of high moral character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law. From a historical point of view, the judgments of the ICJ have played an important role in the development of the law of the sea. In this connection, it may suffice to recall the impact on the concept of straight baselines played by the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case, the importance of the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases in the evolution of the continental shelf regime. The content and language of the Convention reflects these very important ICJ judgments. In turn, following its entry into force in 1994 the interpretation and application of the Convention has been the object the following cases in front of the ICJ.

24. ICJ From a historical point of view, the judgments of the ICJ have played an important role in the development of the law of the sea. In this connection, it may suffice to recall the impact on the concept of straight baselines played by the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case, the importance of the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases in the evolution of the continental shelf regime. The content and language of the Convention reflects these very important ICJ judgments. In turn, following its entry into force in 1994 the interpretation and application of the Convention has been the object the following cases in front of the ICJ.From a historical point of view, the judgments of the ICJ have played an important role in the development of the law of the sea. In this connection, it may suffice to recall the impact on the concept of straight baselines played by the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case, the importance of the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases in the evolution of the continental shelf regime. The content and language of the Convention reflects these very important ICJ judgments. In turn, following its entry into force in 1994 the interpretation and application of the Convention has been the object the following cases in front of the ICJ.

25. ITLOS Located in Hamburg, Germany. Established by Annex VI of the Convention. 21 Judges with recognized competence in Law of the Sea Elections for 9 seats to be held in 2011 The Tribunal is located in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg in the Federal Republic of Germany. The building of the Tribunal was a donation of the Host Country and the Host City, and it?s incorporated to the historic Villa Schr?der, built by the Hamburg banker Frensdorf at the beginning of the eighteen seventies, and located in the Altona borough just on the right bank of the Elbe river. Nominations and Elections: The Tribunal is composed of 21 independent members elected by secret ballot by the States Parties to the Convention. Each State Party may nominate up to two candidates from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea. No two members may be nationals of the same State and in the Tribunal, and there shall be no fewer than three members from each geographical group as established by the General Assembly of the United Nations (WEOG, African Group, Asian Group, GruLaC, Eastern European Group). This is due to the need to assure the representation of the principal legal systems of the world and equitable geographical distribution Term of Office Members are elected for nine years and may be re-elected; the terms of one third of the members expire every three years. The Registrar shall be elected for a term of five years and may be re-elected. Upcoming vacancies: The current term of seven Judges expires on 30 September 2011. The Second term of the Registrar expires on 21 September 2011. The Second term of the Deputy Registrar expires on 25 June 2012. The Tribunal is located in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg in the Federal Republic of Germany. The building of the Tribunal was a donation of the Host Country and the Host City, and it?s incorporated to the historic Villa Schr?der, built by the Hamburg banker Frensdorf at the beginning of the eighteen seventies, and located in the Altona borough just on the right bank of the Elbe river. Nominations and Elections: The Tribunal is composed of 21 independent members elected by secret ballot by the States Parties to the Convention. Each State Party may nominate up to two candidates from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea. No two members may be nationals of the same State and in the Tribunal, and there shall be no fewer than three members from each geographical group as established by the General Assembly of the United Nations (WEOG, African Group, Asian Group, GruLaC, Eastern European Group). This is due to the need to assure the representation of the principal legal systems of the world and equitable geographical distribution Term of Office Members are elected for nine years and may be re-elected; the terms of one third of the members expire every three years. The Registrar shall be elected for a term of five years and may be re-elected. Upcoming vacancies: The current term of seven Judges expires on 30 September 2011. The Second term of the Registrar expires on 21 September 2011. The Second term of the Deputy Registrar expires on 25 June 2012.

26. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Organization and functions Seabed Disputes Chamber Ad hoc chambers for particular disputes Chamber of Summary Procedure Special chambers for categories of disputes Chamber for Fisheries Disputes Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes Chamber for Maritime Delimitation Disputes Special chambers for particular disputes In principle, all disputes and applications submitted to the Tribunal shall be heard and determined by the Tribunal as a plenary. However, the Convention established the creation of a Seabed Dispute Chamber, which will deal with disputes and applications related to Part XI of the Convention, concerning activities in the Area. At the request of any party to the dispute, to an ad hoc chamber of the Seabed Dispute Chamber can be formed for a particular case. With a view to the speedy dispatch of business, the Convention also establishes the creation of a chamber for dealing with disputes by summary procedure. This Chamber may hear and determine a case by summary procedure if the parties so request, and also may prescribe provisional measures if the Tribunal is not in session or a sufficient number of members is not available to constitute a quorum. The Convention contemplates the creation of Special Chambers, if the Tribunal considers it necessary for dealing with particular categories of disputes. The Court currently has three Special Chambers for dealing with Fisheries, Marine Environment and Maritime Delimitation Disputes. Finally, the Convention allows for the formation of a chamber for dealing with a particular dispute submitted to it if the parties so request. The composition of such a chamber shall be determined by the Tribunal with the approval of the parties. So far, the only case submitted to a special chamber of the Tribunal was the Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community). A special chamber was formed on 20 December 2000, but the case was discontinued by agreement of the parties on 16 December 2009.In principle, all disputes and applications submitted to the Tribunal shall be heard and determined by the Tribunal as a plenary. However, the Convention established the creation of a Seabed Dispute Chamber, which will deal with disputes and applications related to Part XI of the Convention, concerning activities in the Area. At the request of any party to the dispute, to an ad hoc chamber of the Seabed Dispute Chamber can be formed for a particular case. With a view to the speedy dispatch of business, the Convention also establishes the creation of a chamber for dealing with disputes by summary procedure. This Chamber may hear and determine a case by summary procedure if the parties so request, and also may prescribe provisional measures if the Tribunal is not in session or a sufficient number of members is not available to constitute a quorum. The Convention contemplates the creation of Special Chambers, if the Tribunal considers it necessary for dealing with particular categories of disputes. The Court currently has three Special Chambers for dealing with Fisheries, Marine Environment and Maritime Delimitation Disputes. Finally, the Convention allows for the formation of a chamber for dealing with a particular dispute submitted to it if the parties so request. The composition of such a chamber shall be determined by the Tribunal with the approval of the parties. So far, the only case submitted to a special chamber of the Tribunal was the Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community). A special chamber was formed on 20 December 2000, but the case was discontinued by agreement of the parties on 16 December 2009.

27. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea The Tribunal is open to all States Parties and entities referred to in Part XI, Applicable law: The Convention Other rules of international law not incompatible with the Convention Cases can be decided ex aequo et bono, Enforcement of decision. The Tribunal is open to all States Parties, the Authority and the other entities referred to in Part XI, which include the main organs of the authority (the Assembly and the Council can request Advisory Opinions) and ?natural or juridical persons? sponsored by States Parties. According to the Convention the applicable law by the Tribunal includes: (art. 293) The Convention Other rules of international law not incompatible with the Convention For this purpose, it is useful to mention as a guide, that according to the Statute of the ICJ, the Court shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. Annex VI of the Convention establishes (art. 38) that the Seabed Disputes Chamber shall also apply, if required: (a) the rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority adopted in accordance with this Convention; and (b) the terms of contracts concerning activities in the Area in matters relating to those contracts. None of the above limits the power of the Tribunal to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties so agree (art. 293). The decisions of the Chamber shall be enforceable in the territories of the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the enforcement is sought. (Annex VI, art 39).The Tribunal is open to all States Parties, the Authority and the other entities referred to in Part XI, which include the main organs of the authority (the Assembly and the Council can request Advisory Opinions) and ?natural or juridical persons? sponsored by States Parties. According to the Convention the applicable law by the Tribunal includes: (art. 293) The Convention Other rules of international law not incompatible with the Convention For this purpose, it is useful to mention as a guide, that according to the Statute of the ICJ, the Court shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. Annex VI of the Convention establishes (art. 38) that the Seabed Disputes Chamber shall also apply, if required: (a) the rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority adopted in accordance with this Convention; and (b) the terms of contracts concerning activities in the Area in matters relating to those contracts. None of the above limits the power of the Tribunal to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties so agree (art. 293). The decisions of the Chamber shall be enforceable in the territories of the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the enforcement is sought. (Annex VI, art 39).

28. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Jurisdiction Contentious proceedings Disputes concerning the Convention: ?any dispute concerning the interpretation or application off [the] Convention? Disputes concerning other agreements: ?all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement? Prompt release Provisional Measures Advisory proceedings Advisory opinions given by the Seabed Disputes Chamber Advisory opinions given by the Tribunal According to the Convention, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal comprises all disputes and all applications submitted to it in accordance with UNCLOS and all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal. That is, the Tribunal has both a Contentious and Advisory jurisdiction. For Contentious proceedings, if the parties to a dispute concerning UNCLOS or any international agreement which grants jurisdiction to the Tribunal submit such dispute, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve it. (art. 288) Unless the parties otherwise agree, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is mandatory in cases relating to the prompt release of vessels and crews (art. 292) and to provisional measures pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal (art. 290). Concerning the Advisory jurisdiction, the Seabed Disputes Chamber is competent to give advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of the activities of the International Seabed Authority. Such opinions have to be requested by either the Assembly or the Council of the Authority, and are treated as a matter or urgency (art. 191). The Convention does not contemplate the possibility of submitting requests for advisory opinions to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has established in its Rules of Procedure that it may give an advisory opinion on a legal question if an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention specifically provides for the submission to the Tribunal of a request for such an opinion.According to the Convention, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal comprises all disputes and all applications submitted to it in accordance with UNCLOS and all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal. That is, the Tribunal has both a Contentious and Advisory jurisdiction. For Contentious proceedings, if the parties to a dispute concerning UNCLOS or any international agreement which grants jurisdiction to the Tribunal submit such dispute, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve it. (art. 288) Unless the parties otherwise agree, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is mandatory in cases relating to the prompt release of vessels and crews (art. 292) and to provisional measures pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal (art. 290). Concerning the Advisory jurisdiction, the Seabed Disputes Chamber is competent to give advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of the activities of the International Seabed Authority. Such opinions have to be requested by either the Assembly or the Council of the Authority, and are treated as a matter or urgency (art. 191). The Convention does not contemplate the possibility of submitting requests for advisory opinions to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has established in its Rules of Procedure that it may give an advisory opinion on a legal question if an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention specifically provides for the submission to the Tribunal of a request for such an opinion.

29. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas; 24 November 1993; Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement; 4 August 1995; 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972; 7 November 1996; Framework Agreement for the Conservation of the Living Marine Resources on the High Seas of the South-Eastern Pacific; 14 August 2000; Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; 5 September 2000; Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South-East Atlantic Ocean; 20 April 2001; Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage; 2 November 2001; Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries; 18 November 1980, as amended; IMO Wreck Removal Convention, 2007. This is a non-exhaustive list of international instruments that also grant jurisdiction to the Tribunal in cases of disputes.This is a non-exhaustive list of international instruments that also grant jurisdiction to the Tribunal in cases of disputes.

30. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Adjudicated cases Substantive cases The M/V "SAIGA" (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Union) Provisional measures Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) Case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore) Prompt release The M/V "SAIGA" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) The "Camouco" Case (Panama v. France) The "Monte Confurco" Case (Seychelles v. France) The "Grand Prince" Case (Belize v. France) The "Chaisiri Reefer 2" Case (Panama v. Yemen) The "Volga" Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) The "Juno Trader" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea-Bissau) The "Hoshinmaru" Case (Japan v. Russian Federation) The "Tomimaru" Case (Japan v. Russian Federation)

31. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Pending cases Contentious Case Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal Dispute concerning the M/V "Louisa" between Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Spain (sonar and cesium magnetic surveys of the sea floor of the Bay of Cadiz in order to locate and record indications of oil and methane gas ? arrested - violations of Spain?s historical patrimony or marine environment laws ? permit)

32. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Upcoming vacancies The current term of seven Judges expire on 30 September 2011, Second term of the Registrar to expire on 21 September 2011, Second term of the Deputy Registrar to expire on 25 June 2012.

33. Proceedings at the Seabed Disputes Chamber A Chamber of ITLOS Special jurisdiction Not affected by the declaration referred in article 287. The Seabed Disputes Chamber is a Special Chamber established by the Convention and constituted within ITLOS which has jurisdiction over cases related to the Area, in the following categories of disputes: disputes between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention and its annexes relating to the Area; disputes between a State Party and the Authority concerning acts or omissions of the Authority or of a State Party alleged to be in violation of provisions relating to the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the Authority; or acts of the Authority alleged to be in excess of jurisdiction or a misuse of power; disputes between parties to a contract (States Parties, the Authority or the Enterprise, state enterprises and natural or juridical persons), concerning: the interpretation or application of a relevant contract or a plan of work; or acts or omissions of a party to the contract relating to activities in the Area and directed to the other party or directly affecting its legitimate interests; disputes between the Authority and a prospective contractor who has been sponsored by a State, concerning the refusal of a contract or a legal issue arising in the negotiation of the contract; disputes between the Authority and a State Party, a state enterprise or a natural or juridical person sponsored by a State Party, where it is alleged that the Authority has incurred liability for any damage arising out of wrongful acts in the exercise of its powers and functions. It must be noted that the choice made by the States on their written declarations does not affect the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber in cases that fall within it?s jurisdiction. The Seabed Disputes Chamber is a Special Chamber established by the Convention and constituted within ITLOS which has jurisdiction over cases related to the Area, in the following categories of disputes: disputes between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention and its annexes relating to the Area; disputes between a State Party and the Authority concerning acts or omissions of the Authority or of a State Party alleged to be in violation of provisions relating to the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the Authority; or acts of the Authority alleged to be in excess of jurisdiction or a misuse of power; disputes between parties to a contract (States Parties, the Authority or the Enterprise, state enterprises and natural or juridical persons), concerning: the interpretation or application of a relevant contract or a plan of work; or acts or omissions of a party to the contract relating to activities in the Area and directed to the other party or directly affecting its legitimate interests; disputes between the Authority and a prospective contractor who has been sponsored by a State, concerning the refusal of a contract or a legal issue arising in the negotiation of the contract; disputes between the Authority and a State Party, a state enterprise or a natural or juridical person sponsored by a State Party, where it is alleged that the Authority has incurred liability for any damage arising out of wrongful acts in the exercise of its powers and functions. It must be noted that the choice made by the States on their written declarations does not affect the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber in cases that fall within it?s jurisdiction.

34. Proceedings at the Seabed Disputes Chamber Not a an Administrative Tribunal The Seabed Disputes Chamber shall have no jurisdiction with regard to the exercise by the Authority of its discretionary powers in accordance with the Convention, and in no case shall it substitute its discretion for that of the Authority. Advisory Opinions upon request The Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. Such opinions shall be given as a matter of urgency It must be noted that the Seabed Disputes Chamber is not an administrative tribunal in the sense that it cannot decide on the legality of decisions of the Authority, when the later is exercising its discretionary powers according to the Convention, nor can substitute its discretion for that of the Authority. However, upon request of the organs of the Authority, namely the Council or the Assembly, the Chamber can render advisory opinions on legal questions arising with the scope of their respective activities.It must be noted that the Seabed Disputes Chamber is not an administrative tribunal in the sense that it cannot decide on the legality of decisions of the Authority, when the later is exercising its discretionary powers according to the Convention, nor can substitute its discretion for that of the Authority. However, upon request of the organs of the Authority, namely the Council or the Assembly, the Chamber can render advisory opinions on legal questions arising with the scope of their respective activities.

35. Proceedings at the Seabed Disputes Chamber No contentious cases to date One advisory opinion: Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the International Seabed Area

36. Compulsory settlement: Exclusions General exclusions (297): Exercise of rights/jurisdiction within own EEZ Marine Scientific Research Fishing Optional exclusions (298): Delimitation/claims to historic waters; Military/law enforcement activities Disputes in respect of which the S.C. is exercising its functions. Reciprocity To prevent that a too tight system would deter participation in the Convention, certain categories of disputes are excluded by the compulsory settlement mechanisms. Therefore, while each State Party is obliged to accept a compulsory procedure entailing binding decisions with respect to disputes in which it may be involved, the jurisdiction of all the respective courts and tribunals is subject to a number of important qualifications and limitations. Before looking in detail into those mechanisms let?s look at what these exceptions are - There are two categories of exceptions: General EEZ rights/jurisdiction (unless concerns exercise of freedom of navigation, pipelines etc, MSR Fishing One of these absolute limitations is that States are not obliged to accept the submission to a court or tribunal of certain disputes arising out of the exercise by that State of a right or discretion in respect of marine scientific research; particularly those related to regulate, authorize and conduct marine scientific research or to suspend a project of that nature within its exclusive economic zone. Another absolute limitation is found in the sovereign rights of a coastal State with respect to the living resources in the exclusive economic zone. As said before, in disputes relating to these matters, the State is not obliged to accept the submission of the dispute to a court or tribunal. Optional: allow States to ?opt out? of the compulsory dispute settlement (if Thai becomes party, could do it ? see TS website for examples http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI~6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en) Delimitation/claims to historic waters; Military/law enforcement activities Disputes in respect of which the S.C. is exercising its functions. Apart from these general limitations from jurisdiction, the Convention also specifies a number of exceptions which States Parties can invoke by means of a written declaration to be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention or at any time thereafter. disputes concerning the interpretation or application of provisions relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal; disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in the Convention. ReciprocityTo prevent that a too tight system would deter participation in the Convention, certain categories of disputes are excluded by the compulsory settlement mechanisms. Therefore, while each State Party is obliged to accept a compulsory procedure entailing binding decisions with respect to disputes in which it may be involved, the jurisdiction of all the respective courts and tribunals is subject to a number of important qualifications and limitations. Before looking in detail into those mechanisms let?s look at what these exceptions are - There are two categories of exceptions: General EEZ rights/jurisdiction (unless concerns exercise of freedom of navigation, pipelines etc, MSR Fishing One of these absolute limitations is that States are not obliged to accept the submission to a court or tribunal of certain disputes arising out of the exercise by that State of a right or discretion in respect of marine scientific research; particularly those related to regulate, authorize and conduct marine scientific research or to suspend a project of that nature within its exclusive economic zone. Another absolute limitation is found in the sovereign rights of a coastal State with respect to the living resources in the exclusive economic zone. As said before, in disputes relating to these matters, the State is not obliged to accept the submission of the dispute to a court or tribunal. Optional: allow States to ?opt out? of the compulsory dispute settlement (if Thai becomes party, could do it ? see TS website for examples http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI~6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en) Delimitation/claims to historic waters; Military/law enforcement activities Disputes in respect of which the S.C. is exercising its functions. Apart from these general limitations from jurisdiction, the Convention also specifies a number of exceptions which States Parties can invoke by means of a written declaration to be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention or at any time thereafter. disputes concerning the interpretation or application of provisions relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal; disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in the Convention. Reciprocity

37. The will of States A dispute covered by a limitation or excepted by a declaration from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in the Convention may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute. Nothing in the Convention impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement. Evidently, the system ultimately lies on the will of States Parties. If all the parties to a disputed covered by limitations or exceptions agree to take the dispute to whatever mechanism they prefer, this will not be a bar to procedures. And also, nothing in the Convention impairs the rights of States to resolve the disputes through other means of their preference.Evidently, the system ultimately lies on the will of States Parties. If all the parties to a disputed covered by limitations or exceptions agree to take the dispute to whatever mechanism they prefer, this will not be a bar to procedures. And also, nothing in the Convention impairs the rights of States to resolve the disputes through other means of their preference.

38. Compulsory Conciliation In cases in which the aforementioned limitations apply, or in which the exception concerning the interpretation or application of provisions relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles applies It must be noted that in cases in which the aforementioned limitations apply, or in which the exception concerning the interpretation or application of provisions relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles applies, the dispute can be submitted to Compulsory Conciliation by any party, according to the rules established in Annex V of the Convention. It is Compulsory because the failure of a party to the dispute to reply to notification of institution of proceedings or to submit to such proceedings shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. However, this does not mean that the parties must accept the conclusions or recommendations in the report of the Conciliation Commission, which is by no means binding on any party.It must be noted that in cases in which the aforementioned limitations apply, or in which the exception concerning the interpretation or application of provisions relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles applies, the dispute can be submitted to Compulsory Conciliation by any party, according to the rules established in Annex V of the Convention. It is Compulsory because the failure of a party to the dispute to reply to notification of institution of proceedings or to submit to such proceedings shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. However, this does not mean that the parties must accept the conclusions or recommendations in the report of the Conciliation Commission, which is by no means binding on any party.

39. Choice of compulsory procedure (article 287) ITLOS 27 as first choice ICJ 17 as first choice, 4 as second choice, 2 as third choice Annex VII Arbitration 7 as first choice, 2 as second choice Annex VIII Arbitration 5 as first choice, 3 as second choice, 1 as third choice Surprisingly, not many States have made a choice, pursuant to the Convention, as to the procedure of compulsory settlement of their choice. States can do so at the time of signing, ratifying, acceding or at any time thereafter, pursuant to article 287. If Thailand were to become party it could make such declaration. It would be done with a declaration at the time of ratification or thereafter to the Secretary-General, de facto to the Treaty Section. A useful reference is the TS?s website with examples of such declarations http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI~6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=enSurprisingly, not many States have made a choice, pursuant to the Convention, as to the procedure of compulsory settlement of their choice. States can do so at the time of signing, ratifying, acceding or at any time thereafter, pursuant to article 287. If Thailand were to become party it could make such declaration. It would be done with a declaration at the time of ratification or thereafter to the Secretary-General, de facto to the Treaty Section. A useful reference is the TS?s website with examples of such declarations http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?&src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI~6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en

40. Provisional measures Cases submitted to ITLOS for provisional measures, pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal: Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), If a dispute has been duly submitted to a court or tribunal which considers that prima facie it has jurisdiction according to the Convention, the court or tribunal may prescribe any provisional measures which it considers appropriate under the circumstances to preserve the respective rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, pending the final decision. However, pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute is being submitted any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or ITLOS, in the absence of such agreement, may prescribe, modify or revoke provisional measures if it considers that prima facie the tribunal which is to be constituted would have jurisdiction and that the urgency off the situation so requires. In cases with respect to activities in the Area, the Seabed Disputes Chamber will have the jurisdiction for Provisional Measures.If a dispute has been duly submitted to a court or tribunal which considers that prima facie it has jurisdiction according to the Convention, the court or tribunal may prescribe any provisional measures which it considers appropriate under the circumstances to preserve the respective rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, pending the final decision. However, pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute is being submitted any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or ITLOS, in the absence of such agreement, may prescribe, modify or revoke provisional measures if it considers that prima facie the tribunal which is to be constituted would have jurisdiction and that the urgency off the situation so requires. In cases with respect to activities in the Area, the Seabed Disputes Chamber will have the jurisdiction for Provisional Measures.

41. Prompt release The M/V "SAIGA" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) The "Camouco" Case (Panama v. France) The "Monte Confurco" Case (Seychelles v. France) The "Grand Prince" Case (Belize v. France) The "Chaisiri Reefer 2" Case (Panama v. Yemen) The "Volga" Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) The "Juno Trader" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea-Bissau) The "Hoshinmaru" Case (Japan v. Russian Federation) The "Tomimaru" Case (Japan v. Russian Federation) Where the authorities of a State Party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another State Party and it is alleged that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to: any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining State in its written declaration under article 287 or to ITLOS. Where the authorities of a State Party have detained a vessel flying the flag of another State Party and it is alleged that the detaining State has not complied with the provisions of this Convention for the prompt release of the vessel or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other financial security, the question of release from detention may be submitted to: any court or tribunal agreed upon by the parties or, failing such agreement within 10 days from the time of detention, to a court or tribunal accepted by the detaining State in its written declaration under article 287 or to ITLOS.

42. ????????? & thank you


Other Related Presentations

Copyright © 2014 SlideServe. All rights reserved | Powered By DigitalOfficePro