Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael Kocsis

Resource Access Under the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68846-6_19-1
  • 102 Downloads

Definition

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is one of the options for states that ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) to settle their disputes peacefully through a third party (LOSC, Art. 287(1)(a)). Other international conventions than the LOSC can also refer to the ITLOS as the preferred third party for dispute settlement as long as such an agreement relates to the purposes of the LOSC (LOSC, Art. 288(2)). So far, the ITLOS – that is, the full Tribunal – has only dealt directly with access to resources in cases related to fisheries. Disputes concerning the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar (ITLOS 2012) and the Arctic Sunrise (ITLOS 2013) clearly affected the oil and gas industry; however, the Tribunal did not decide on the access to those resources explicitly.

One particular type of case has exclusively ended up at the ITLOS. A coastal state can arrest vessels that violate its laws and regulations concerning...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (1995) Int Leg Mater 34:1542–1580Google Scholar
  2. Al Faruque A (2012) Judgment in maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar: significance and implications under international law. Asian Yearb Int Law 18:65–87Google Scholar
  3. Armas-Pfirter FM (2018) The Seabed Disputes Chamber: moving forward. In: Nordquist MH et al (eds) Legal order in the world’s oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 210–227Google Scholar
  4. Churchill RR (2000) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan): order for provisional measures of 27 August 1999. Int Comp Law Q 49:979–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of the International Seabed Authority (2010) Decision of the Council of the International Seabed Authority requesting an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 191 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ISBA/16/C/13Google Scholar
  6. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1999a) Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), provisional measures order of 27 August 1999. ITLOS Rep 1999:280–301Google Scholar
  7. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1999b) Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), provisional measures order of 27 August 1999, separate opinion of Judge Laing. ITLOS Rep 1999:305–315Google Scholar
  8. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1999c) Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), provisional measures order of 27 August 1999, separate opinion of Judge Treves. ITLOS Rep 1999:316–319Google Scholar
  9. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2011) Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the area, advisory opinion of 1 February 2011. ITLOS Rep 2011:10–78Google Scholar
  10. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2012) Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) judgment of 14 March 2012. ITLOS Rep 2012:4–133Google Scholar
  11. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2013) The “Arctic Sunrise” case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), provisional measures order of 22 November 2013. ITLOS Rep 2013:230–253Google Scholar
  12. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2015a) Request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, advisory opinion of 2 April 2015. ITLOS Rep 2015:4–70Google Scholar
  13. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2015b) Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), provisional measures order of 25 April 2015. ITLOS Rep 2015:146–167Google Scholar
  14. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2017) Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire) judgment of 23 September 2017. ITLOS Rep 2017:4-177Google Scholar
  15. Kwiatkowska B (2000) The Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) cases. Int J Mar Coast Law 15:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marr S (2000) The Southern Bluefin Tuna cases: the precautionary approach and conservation and management of fish resources. Eur J Int Law 11:815–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matz-Lück N, van Doorn E (2017) Due diligence obligations and the protection of the marine environment. L’Observateur des Nations Unies 42:177–195Google Scholar
  18. Oude Elferink AG (2016) ITLOS’ approach to the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case: theoretical and practical difficulties. In: Wolfrum R et al (eds) Contemporary developments in international law: essays in honour of Budislav Vukas. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 230–249Google Scholar
  19. Proelss A (2016) Fisheries. In: Morgera E, Kulovesi K (eds) Research handbook on international law and natural resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 178–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rayfuse R (2011) Differentiating the common? The responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring deep seabed mining activities in the area. Ger Yearb Int Law 54:459–488Google Scholar
  21. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) Int Leg Mater 21:1261–1354Google Scholar
  22. Yiallourides C (2018) Calming the waters in the West African Region: the case of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Afr J Int Comp Law 26:507–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Walther Schücking Institute for International Law, Faculty of LawKiel UniversityKielGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Kevin W. Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada