Abstract
This chapter is based on a paper presented at a conference on The Oceans at the Millennium, held at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich in April 2000, but has been updated to 6 February 2002.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Rferences
I Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 8 January 2002 (www.un.org/Depts/los/convention, accessed 7 February 2002); updated from Chronological lists of ratifications of accessions and successions to the Convention and related Agreements, updated to 6 February 2002, ibid., accessed 7 February 2002.
Oceans and the law of the sea. Report of the Secretary-General, A/54/429, 30 September 1999, para. 10.
Oceans and the law of the sea. Report of the Secretary-General, A/56/58, 9 March 2001, para. 17, figures revised by reference to A/56/58/Add. 1, 5 October 2001.
Agreement of 28 July 1994 relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (Implementation Agreement), Law of the Sea Bulletin (LOS Bull.), Special Issue IV, 1994, p.10; Misc. No. 44(1994), Cm 2705; E.D. Brown, The International Law of the Sea, Vol. II, 1994,p.366.
Although the U.S. Administration has so far been unable to persuade Congress to support its wish to accede to UNCLOS, its positive attitude to the Convention is reflected in, inter alia, the following documents:United States: Presidential Statement on United States Oceans Policy, 10 March 1983, 9 International Legal Materials (ILM) (1970), p. 807; and Protest from the United States of America [against Iranian legislation alleged to be contrary to UNCLOS], 11 January 1994, LOS Bull., No. 25, June 1994, pp. 101–103. Although the U.S. had not signed or acceded to UNCLOS, it did sign the 1994 Implementation Agreement on 29 July 1994.
Under Art. 2(1) of the Implementation Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement and Part XI are to be interpreted and applied together as a single instrument.
Implementation Agreement, Art. 4(1).
Art. 4(2).
See further E.D. Brown, “The 1994 Agreement on the Implementation of Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: breakthrough to universality?”, 19 Marine Policy (No. 1, 1995), pp. 5–20.
Table and List cited in note 1 above.
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 Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, A/CONF.164/37, LOS Bull. No. 29, 1995, p. 25.
Under Art. 40.
Table and List cited in note 1 above.
Member States have transferred competence to the European Community with regard to the conservation and management of sea fishing resources. See further Declaration concerning the competence of the European Union with regard to matters governed by the Agreement, LOS. Bull. No. 32, 1996, pp. 26–28. Although, therefore, the UK, as an EU member State, is not bound by the Agreement, it did ratify it on 10 December 2001 on behalf of Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands and Anguilla.
All declarations and statements made before 31 December 1996 have been analysed and published in The Law of the Sea: Declarations and statements with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN Publication, Sales No. E.97.V.3), hereafter cited as Declarations and Statements (1997). Subsequent instruments are published in the Law of the Sea Bulletin and can also be found on the UN website at www.un.org/Depts/los or www.un.org/Depts/Treaty.
Ibid. (www.un.org/Depts/los, accessed 7 February 2002).
The latest appeal is in A/56/12, 28 November 2001, operative para. 3.
Loc. cit. in note 3 (A/5 6/5 8/Add.1), para. 13.
Loc. cit. in note 2, at para 16.
UNCLOS, Arts. 156(1) and 157(1), confirmed by Implementation Agreement, Annex, Section 1(1).
UNCLOS, Art. 1(1)(3).
Despite the inclusion of the euphemistic term “Implementation” in its title, the Agreement amends UNCLOS quite substantially.
See further, E.D. Brown, “Neither necessary nor prudent at this stage . The regime of seabed mining and its impact on the universality of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, 17 Marine Policy (No. 2, 1993), pp. 81–107; and loc. cit. in note 9, at p. 17.
See further Brown, loc. cit. in note 23 (1993), at pp. 97–107.
For a full analysis, see E.D. Brown, Sea-Bed Energy and Minerals: The International Legal Regime, Vol. 2: Sea-Bed Mining, Martinus Nijhoff, Publishers, 2001, Chap. 8: “The UN Convention regime of sea-bed mining: VI. The institutional aspects of the regime”.
UNCLOS, Art. 163.
Implementation Agreement, Annex, Section 1(4).
At the first election in 1996, the number of members was increased from 15 to 22 under UNCLOS, Art. 163(2). Prior to the 2001 election, the number was further increased to 24 (ISBA/7/C/6, 5 July 2001).
Implementation Agreement, Annex, Section 9(1), giving effect to UNCLOS, Art. 162(2)(y).
See Implementation Agreement, Annex, Section 9(7).
UNCLOS, Art. 170 and Statute of Enterprise (UNCLOS, Annex IV), Art. 1(1).
Statute of Enterprise, Art. 2(2) and 1(3).
Implementation Agreement, Annex, Section 2(2).
Ibid., Section 1(3).
Ibid., Section 2(1).
Ibid., Section 2(2).
UNCLOS, Art. 191; see too Art. 159(10) and Annex VI, Art. 40(2).
ITLOS/Press 5, 3 March 1997.
ITLOS/Press 31, 4 October 1999.
See further, E.D. Brown, Sea-Bed Energy and Minerals: The international Legal Regime, Vol. I: The Continental Shelf, 1992, Chap. 4;
E.D. Brown, The International Law of the Sea, Vol. I, 1994, Chap. 10.
See further, op. cit. in note 40 (1992), pp. 28–32 and op. cit. in note 40 (1994), pp. 144–146.
UNCLOS, Annex II, Art. 4.
UNCLOS, Art. 76(8) and UNCLOS, Annex II, Art. 3(1)(a) and Art. 6.
UNCLOS, Annex II, Art. 3(1)(b).
Under UNCLOS Art. 76(8) and UNCLOS Annex II, Art. 2.
Originally adopted as CLCS/3/Rev.2, 4 September 1998; revised at seventh and eighth sessions and reissued as CLCS/3/Rev.3, 6 February 2001.
Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), 13 May 1999. Annexes to the Guidelines (CLCS/11/Add.1) include flowcharts providing a simplified outline of the Guideline procedures.
Modus Operandi of the Commission, CLCS/L.3, 12 September 1997.
Op. cit in note 47. See also Modus Operandi of the Commission, CLCS/L.3, 12 September 1997.
See Statement by the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the Progress of Work in the Commission, CLCS/18, 3 September 1999, paras. 13–16.
CLCS/24, 1 September 2000 and CLCS/24/Corr. 1, 9 February 2001. See further Statement by the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the Progress of Work in the Commission. CLCS/25. 1 September 2000. at para. 8.
A/55/7, 30 October 2000. The terms of reference of the two trust funds are in Annexes I and II to this resolution.
Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties, SPLOS/2/Rev.3, 26 July 1995; and Addemdum (SPLOS/2/Rev. 3/Add.1, 12 June 1997).
Rule 3.
Rule 4(1), citing Art. 4 of Statute of Tribunal (Annex VI to UNCLOS).
Rule 4(2), citing Art. 2 of Annex II to UNCLOS.
Rule 4(3), referring to Arts. 18 and 19 of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Rule 4(4)(a), referring to Art. 6(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Rule 4(4)(b).
Report of the Ninth Meeting of States Parties, SPLOS/48, 15 June 1999, paras. 49–53; Oceans and the law of the sea: Report of Secretary-General, A/54/429, 30 September 1999, para. 65.
SPLOS/48, para. 49.
SPLOS/48, para. 51.
SPLOS/48, para. 52.
Ibid.
Ibid. para. 53.
See Report of the tenth Meeting of States Parties, SPLOS/60, 22 June 2000, paras. 73–78 and Report of the eleventh Meeting of States Parties, SPLOS/73, 14 June 2001, paras. 85–92.
For the CSD recommendation, see Commission on Sustainable Development, Report of the seventh session (I May and 27 July 1998, and 19–30 April 1999), Economic and Social Council Official Records, 1999, Supplement No. 9, 1999, Decision 7/1. Oceans and seas, at paras. 38–45.
Ibid., paras. 38(d) and 39.
Resolution 54/33, 24 November 1999.
See further the Reports of the first meeting of UNICPO (30 May — 2 June 2000), A/55/274, 31 July 2000 and of the second meeting (7–11 May 2001), A/56/121, 22 June 2001.
As at 6 February 2002, only 18 States had nominated arbitrators under Annex VII and 10 States had nominated conciliators under Annex V. For current lists, see http://www.un.org/Depts/los. For the purposes of Annex VIII, FAO, UNEP, IOC and IMO maintain lists of experts in their respective areas of competence.
Statute of ITLOS (UNCLOS, Annex VI), Art. 2(1).
Ibid., Art. 3(1).
Ibid., Art. 3(2).
Ibid., Art. 2(2).
Ibid., Art. 4(1).
Ibid., Art. 4(4).
Ibid.
Report of the Meeting of States Parties (on 21 and 22 November 1994), SPLOS/3, 28 February 1995, p.7, para. 16 (reproduced in part in LOS Bull., No. 30, 1996, p.83).
Ibid.
Election of the Members of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. List of Candidates submitted by Governments, SPLOS/10, 2 July 1996.
France had apparently decided against nominating a French national. The United Kingdom was unable to make a nomination because of the failure to accede to the UN Convention before 1 July 1996, due to concern over the implications for UK fishery zone limits in the Rockall area which accession might have. See further the explanation given by Baroness Chalker (Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office) in the House of Lords on 20 June 1996 ( House of Lords Weekly Hansard, No. 1671, 17–20 June 1996, Cols. 455–457).
Annex VI, Art. 5(1).
UNCLOS, Report of the Ninth Meeting of States Parties, SPLOS/48, 15 June 1999, paras. 31–34. Five judges were elected at the first round and the remaining two (Judge Kolodkin of the Russian Federation and Judge Engo of Cameroon) at the third round.
See above, section 1.2.1.
Annex VI, Art. 15(3).
Ibid.
Annex VI, Art. 17(1) and (4).
Annex VI, Art. 17(2)-(6).
Annex VI, Art. 17(4).
The other two being ad hoc judges not regular members of the Tribunal.
Annex VI, Art. 15(1).
Annex VI, Art. 17(2)-(6).
ITLOS/Press 5, 3 March 1997.
ITLOS/Press 31, 4 October 1999.
ITLOS/Press 5, 3 March 1997.
ITLOS/Press 31, 4 October 1999.
Annual Report of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for 2000, SPLOS/63, 6 April 2001, paras. 19–22 and 36–37. On this case, see further below, section 2.3.2, under Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean, 2000 - Case No. 7.
Statement by P. Chandrasekhara Rao, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, on the Report of the Tribunal at the Eleventh Meeting of the States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention, 14 May 2001.
Part XV, Section 1 (Arts. 279–285).
Part XV, Section 2 (Arts. 286–296).
Part XV, Section 3 (Arts. 297–299).
UNCLOS, Annex V, Art. 7(2), as applied by Art. 14.
UNCLOS, Art. 297(2)(b).
More detailed provision is made for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Fish Agreement of 4 August 1995 (note 11 above) which implements the provisions of UNCLOS dealing with straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. See further above, section 1.2.5, under Ad hoc Expert Panels under Fish Agreement, and E.D. Brown, “Dispute settlement and the law of the sea: the UN Convention regime”, Marine Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1997, pp. 17–43, at p. 41.
Annex V, Art. 7(2), as applied by Art. 14.
UNCLOS, Art. 297(3)(c).
Art. 298(1)(a)(i).
Annex V, Art. 11(2).
Art. 298(1)(a)(ii).
Ibid.
Art. 298(1)(a)(i).
Art. 298(1)(b).
Title of Section 5. Under Art. 191, the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber “shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council [of the Authority] on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.
Under Art. 188(1)(a), disputes between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of Part XI may be submitted to such a chamber at the request of the parties.
Disputes between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of Part XI may be submitted to such an ad hoc chamber at the request of any party to the dispute under Art. 188(1)(b).
See further E.D. Brown, loc. cit. in note 105, at pp. 26–27.
Implementation Agreement, Art. 2(1).
Art. 187 of UNCLOS, read with Art. 2(1) of the Implementation Agreement. Several States (Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden) in making their choice of fora under Art. 287, expressly refer to disputes arising under both UNCLOS and the Implementation Agreement.
Implementation Agreement, Annex, Section 3, para. 12.
Annex, Section 6, para. 1(f)(ii). Where the States concerned are parties to these agreements, the dispute settlement procedures of these agreements apply (para.1(f)(i)).
Section 8, para. 1(0.
For differing views on the merits of introducing this new system of dispute settlement, see S. Oda (ICJ Judge), “Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 44, 1995, pp. 863–872, and, in response
J.I. Charney, “The Implications of Expanding International Dispute Settlement Systems: The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 90, 1996, pp. 69–75. More generally, see L. Boisson de Chazournes et al., “Implications of the Proliferation of International Adjudicatory Bodies for Dispute Resolution” ( ASIL Bulletin, No. 9, 1995).
See below, section 2.3.1, at note 144.
Annex VI, Art. 15(4)-(5).
The question was considered in Special Commission 4 during its examination of the draft Rules of the Tribunal in 1985. See LOS/PCN/SCN.4/L.3, 3 April 1985 (R. Platzöder, ed., The Law of the Sea: Documents 1983–1989, Vol. VII, 1990, pp. 29–42), at pp. 41–42, paras. 99–100. It was suggested that, “A conceivable way of meeting such a situation could be for the Chamber to relinquish jurisdiction to the Tribunal in order to achieve a continuous and reliable development in the interpretation of the Convention” ( ibid., para. 99). The Provisional Report of Special Commission 4 (in Preparatory Commission, Consolidated Provisional Final Report, Vol. I, LOS/PCN/130, 17 November 1993, pp. 99–114) refers to this suggestion (at p. 105) but reports no further progress on the question. There is no such provision in the Rules of the Tribunal (ITLOS/8), adopted on 28 October 1997.
Address to the Plenary Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, 26 October 1999.
Ibid. E.g. the international tribunals for the prosecution of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Speech by H.E. Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 30 October 2001.
This analysis is based on declarations reproduced in The Law of the Sea. Declarations and Statements with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UN Publications, Sales No. E.97.V.3, 1997, referred to below as “E.97.V.3”.) which contains declarations made down to 31 December 1996, updated by reference to UN website http://www.un.org/Depts/los/los_decl.htm, accessed 7 February 2002. On the position of the United States, see Transmittal Letter from the President to the US Senate, 7 October 1994 (34 ILM (1995), p.1396) and Submittal Letter from the Secretary of State to the President, 23 September 1994 ( ibid., p. 1397, at pp. 1399 and 1440–1443).
LOS Bull. No. 46, p. 14.
E.97.V.3, pp. 22–23.
Ibid., p.31.
Ibid., pp. 10–11.
LOS Bull. No. 34, pp. 7–8.
LOS Bull. No. 36, p.8.
E.97.V.3, p.19.
Ibid., pp. 23–24.
Ibid., p. 30.
Ibid., pp. 45–46.
For the texts of these declarations made on signature (S), ratification (R) or accession (A), see the following sources: Argentina (R), E.97.V.3, pp.19–21; Austria (R), ibid., p. 21; Belarus(S), ibid., p.2; Belgium(R), LOS Bull. No. 39, p. 11; Cape Verde(R), ibid., p.22; Chile(R), LOS Bull. No. 35, pp. 9–11; Croatia (Declaration of 4 November 1999 as successor State), LOS Bull. No. 42, p. 14; Egypt(R), E.97.V.3, pp.24–26; Finland(R), ibid., p.26; France(R), ibid., pp.26–27; Germany(A), ibid., pp. 27–29; Greece(R). ibid., p.30; Hungary (R), UN website, loc. cit. in note 132 above; Iceland(R), ibid., p.31; Italy(R), LOS Bull. No. 34, p.7; Netherlands(R),E.97.V.3, pp.35–37; Nicaragua (R), LOS Bull. No. 43, p.13; Norway(R), ibid., p.37; Oman(R), ibid., pp.38–39; Philippines(R), ibid., p.40; Portugal(R), LOS Bull. No. 36, pp.7–8; Russia(S and R), E.97.V.3, pp.14–15 and LOS Bull No. 34, p.9; Slovenia(Declarations of 11 October 2001), UN website, loc. cit. in note 132 above; Spain(R), UN website, loc. cit. in note 132 above; Sweden(R), E.97.V.3, pp.42–43; Tanzania(R), ibid., p.44; Tunisia,(Declaration, 31 May 2001), LOS Bull. No. 46, p.14; Ukraine(R), LOS Bull. No. 41, p.14; United Kingdom(A), LOS Bull. No. 36, p.9; Uruguay (S and R), E.97.V.3, pp 44–45.
That is, the 138 “States Parties” at 6 February 2002 minus the 26 States which had made a choice of fora under Art. 287 in their declarations. Under Art. 2 of the UN Convention, the term “States Parties” includes entities other than States “which become Parties to [the] ... Convention in accordance with the conditions relevant to each ...”.
See text above, at note 144.
Based on List of all Decisions and Advisory Opinions brought before the Court since 1946 (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm, accessed 7 February 2002).
This figure is rather inflated since it includes separately cases which dealt with virtually the same issues between different parties and cases which followed up earlier judgments. Thus, it includes the 2 Fisheries Jurisdiction cases brought by the UK and Germany respectively against Iceland (ICJ Reports 1974, p.3; I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.175); the 2 Nuclear Tests cases brought by Australia and New Zealand respectively against France (I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.253; I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.457); and 3 cases which were in a sense continuations of earlier proceedings ( Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 192; Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 288; and Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Request for Interpretation of Judgment of I 1 June 1998, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999.
Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p.150; Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 66 ; and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p.226.
Corfu Channel, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p.4.
Fisheries, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 116.
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p.3.
Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.3; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.175.
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.253; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p.457.
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p.3; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 18 and I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 192; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p.246; Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), I.C.J. Reports 1985, p.13; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras, Nicaragua intervening), I.C.J. Reports 1992, p.351; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, 1. C.J. Reports 1993, p.38; Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 12 and I.C.J. Reports 1992, p.348; Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Maritime Boundary between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal), I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 53; East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 901; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), I.C.J. Reports 1998 ; Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 288; and Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I.C.J. Reports 1999; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Judgment, 16 March 2001; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Equatorial Guinea intervening), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p.13; Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 275.
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (1991--); Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Merits (1994 -); Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in The Caribbean Sea (1991--); and Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia (2001).
On this question, see further above, section 2.2.2.
Press conference of Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, ICJ Communiqué No. 2000/5, 16 February 2000.
Speech by Judge Guillaume to UN General Assembly, 30 October 2001.
Summarised in Judge Guillaume’s speech (loc. cit. in note 158). See also Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 2000 — 31 July 2001, at paras. 19–22.
According to Judge Guillaume’s speech to the General Assembly of 30 October 2001, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions had recommended an increase in the Court’s budget from US$ 20,606,700 for the biennium 200–2001 to US$ 22,873,500 for the biennium 2002–2003, an increase of 11%.
Meeting of [UNCLOS] States Parties. Report of the 11th Meeting of States Parties (14–18 May 2001) , SPLOS/73, 14 June 2001, paras. 31–36.
The M/V “Saiga” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea — International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, Case No. 1), Judgment, 4 December 1997 (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/judg_1; International Legal Materials, Vol. 37, 1998, p.360).
For an analysis of Art. 292 and a critique of the Judgment, see E.D. Brown, The MN Saiga case on prompt release of detained vessels: the first Judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Marine Policy, Vol. 22, Nos. 4–5, July-September 1998, pp. 307–326.
UN Convention, Art. 292(3) and Rules of the Tribunal, Art. 112. This Article (and Art. 111) was amended on 15 March 2001 and now allows the Court a more extended period.
See further Brown, loc. cit. in note 163, especially at pp. 319–325.
The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Case No. 2: Request for Provisional Measures, Order of 11 March 1998 (http://ww.un.org/Depts/los/ord1103.htm).
ITLOS/Press 11, 13 January 1998.
Ibid., and ITLOS/Press 23/Add. 1, 1 July 1999.
ITLOS/Press 11, 13 January 1998.
Order of 11 March 1998 (loc. cit. in note 166), para. 21.
Ibid.
The text of the agreement is reproduced in M/V “Saiga ” No. 2, Order of 20 February 1998.
Ibid.
Ibid.
UN Convention, Art. 290(1).
ITLOS/Press 13, 28 February 1998.
MN “Saiga” No. 2, Order of 20 February 1998,para. 36.
Ibid., para. 52(1)
Ibid., para. 52(2).
Ibid., para. 52(3).
Ibid., para. 52(4).
The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Case No. 2: Judgment of 1 July 1999 (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/Judg_E.htm).
Judgment, paras. 55–74.
Ibid., paras. 75–88.
Ibid., paras. 89–102.
Ibid., ,paras. 103–109.
Ibid., paras. 137–138. See also Separate Opinion of Judge Anderson under “Arrest of the Saiga”.
Ibid.,. paras. 139–152.
Ibid., paras. 153–159.
Ibid., paras.167–177.
Ibid., paras. 181–182.
Ibid., paras. 55–109.
Ibid., para. 136.
Ibid., paras. 145–150.
Ibid., para. 159.
Ibid., para. 175.
Ibid., para. 182.
Ibid., para. 55.
Ibid., paras. 57–58.
Ibid., paras. 67–68 and 72–74.
Ibid., para. 68.
Ibid., paras.69 and 73(c).
Ibid., para. 73(d).
Ibid., para. 183.
Ibid., para. 183(13).
Ibid., para. 182.
The text of the Agreement is reproduced in the Judgment at para. 4 and the reference to costs is in its para. 4.
Joint Declaration by Judges Caminos, Yankov, Akl, Anderson, Vukas, Treves and Eiriksson on the Question of Costs (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ITLOS/JD_Saiga.htm).
Ibid. , second para.
Ibid.
Ibid. fifth para.
Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Case No. 3 and Australia v. Japan — Case No. 4), Order of 27 August 1999 (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ITLOS/Order-tuna34.htm). The two cases were joined by Order of the Tribunal of 16 August 1999.
Though it is true that the Judgment in the Merits phase of the Saiga case went beyond the simple issue of prompt release under Art. 292. See further above, text, at note 182 et seq.
Order of 27 August 1999, paras. 90(1)(a) and (b).
Ibid., paras. 90(1)(c) and (d).
Ibid., para. 90(1)(e).
Ibid., para 90(1)(f),
Ibid., para. 90(2).
Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan). Award on Jursidiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2000. Text on website of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which administered the proceedings, at www.worldbank.org/icsid.
The “Camouco” Case (Panama v. France — Case No. 5, Judgment, 7 February 2000 (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ITLOS/JudgmentCamouco.htm).
See however, the Separate Opinion of Vice-President Nelson and the Dissenting Opinions of Judges Anderson, Treves, Vukas and Wolfrum.
Judgment, paras. 50–54.
Judgment, paras. 55–58.
See Judgment, paras. 64–76.
The “Monte Confurco” Case (Seychelles v. France), Application for Prompt Release, Judgment, 18 December 2000.
A. V. Lowe, “The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2000”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 16 (No. 4, 2001), pp. 549–570, at p. 564.
See section 1.2.5, under Chambers for particular disputes.
Case Concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Community), Constitution of Chamber. Order of 20 December 2000.
Order of 15 March 2001, para. 6.
The “Grand Prince” Case (Belize v. France), Application for Prompt Release, Judgment, 20 April 2001.
The “Chaisiri Reefer 2” Case (Panama v. Yemen), Order 2001/14, 13 July 2001. See also ITLOS/Press 51, 5 July 2001 and ITLOS/Press 52, 16 July 2001.
Judgment, para. 81. The time-limits for the constitution of an Annex VII tribunal are specified in Annex VII of UNCLOS, Art. 3.
UNCLOS, Art. 290(5).
See further Judgment, paras. 38–44. For the Irish response, see paras. 45–47.
Judgment, paras. 48–53.
Judgment, para. 81. The Tribunal’s reasoning is set out in paras. 64–81.
Judgment, para. 82.
As permitted by Art. 89(5) of its Rules
Judgment, para. 89.
The M/V “Saiga” Case; the “Camouco” Case; the “Monte Confurco” Case; the “Grand Prince” Case; and the “Chaisiri Reefer 2” Case.
The “Grand Prince” Case.
The “Chaisiri Reefer 2” Case.
The “M/V Saiga” Case; the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases; and the MOX Plant Case.
The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases.
The MOX Plant Case.
The “MN Saiga” Case and the Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean.
The Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-
See above, section 2.3.1.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brown, E.D. (2004). The Law of the Sea at the Millennium. In: Smith, H.D. (eds) The Oceans: Key Issues in Marine Affairs. The GeoJournal Library, vol 78. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2780-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2780-2_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6716-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2780-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive