Search

This is the second part of a two-part article surveying state practice regarding Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes under the Rules of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). It reviews basic principles and the interpretation of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the CLCS Rules. As the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh v. Myanmar Judgment reaffirmed, the CLCS Recommendations must in no way prejudice exist-ing and prospective boundary delimitations, nor must they prejudice other land or maritime disputes. All practical means of giving effect to such "without prejudice" principles are care-fully analysed. Part One covers Latin America and the Wider Caribbean, Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. The present Part Two covers South Asia and the Middle Last, East Africa-Indian Ocean, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first part of a two-part article surveying state practice regarding Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes under the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) Rules. It reviews basic principles and the interpretation of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the CLCS Rules. As the 2006 Annex VII Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh v. Myanmar Judgment reaffirmed, the CLCS Recommendations must in no way prejudice existing and prospective boundary delimitations, nor must they prejudice other land or maritime disputes. All practical means of giving effect to such "without prejudice" principles are carefully analysed. The present Part covers Latin America and the Wider Caribbean, Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. Part Two will cover South Asia and the Middle East, East Africa--Indian Ocean, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the unanimous 2006 Award of the Five-Member Tribunal established under Annex VII of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) by Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago regarding the delimitation of their fish and oil-rich Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and Continental Shelves (CS). It surveys the procedural significance of several unprecedented pronouncements made by the Arbitral Tribunal with respect to Articles 281–283 LOSC and their relationship to LOSC Articles 74 and 83, which allowed the Tribunal to uphold its compulsory jurisdiction over the delimitation of the EEZ/CS up to 200 nautical miles and of the outer CS beyond this limit. The article commences with the Tribunal's appraisal of the modern law and process of equitable maritime boundary delimitation, followed by its application of that law consistently with the vast jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and previous arbitral tribunals. In a two-stage process, the Tribunal drew a provisional, single equidistant boundary line and then considered whether that line needed to be adjusted in view of special circumstances and the proportionality test for an equitable result. This process is traced against the background of the factual and legal contentions disputed by the parties in the Western and Eastern sectors. The Tribunal also provided an important incentive for resolution of the associated fisheries dispute by calling upon the parties to conclude, pursuant to LOSC Article 63, a new agreement on Barbados's access to flying fish stocks in Trinidad's EEZ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the 2001 Mox Plant (Provisional Measures) Order – the second instance of ITLOS acting under the innovatory LOSC Article 290(5) – pending the establishment of the Annex VII Mox Plant Arbitral Tribunal. An OSPAR Mox Plant Arbitration is also pending. The article analyses key aspects of the 2001 Order including the low thresholds for prima facie jurisdiction and the fundamental requirement of urgency, the distinctive treatment of 'substantive' and 'procedural' rights and the basis for the tribunals reliance on the precautionary principle, which is in the regional treaties concerned, but not in the LOSC. These issues are scrutinized in the light of the application of the doctrine of treaty parallelism as expounded by the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Award. The article argues that the legitimacy of the Order could have been increased had ITLOS defined the Mox Plant dispute as an EU-law centered dispute, and it concludes with the hope that the Mox Plant case will provide an incentive for the European Community as party to LOSC to give closer and constructive consideration to its policy on the settlement of ocean and other environmental disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Southern Bluefin Tuna cases before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea resulted from disagreement between Australia, New Zealand and Japan related to the carrying out by Japan of an experimental fishing programme within the framework of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. The cases were the first instance of incidental proceedings on provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the LOS Convention and Article 25 of the ITLOS Statute, according to which ITLOS may prescribe provisional measures 'if it considers that prima facie the tribunal which is to be constituted would have jurisdiction and that the urgency of the situation so requires'. The article considers the parties' arguments for and against the use of provisional measures, considers the provisional measures ordered by ITLOS and the reasons therefor by comparison to the practice of the ICJs, and finally considers the establishment of an Arbitral Tribunal to hear the merits of the substantive case.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the award of the Arbital Tribunal in the first stage of the Eritrea/Yemen proceedings. Details of the award, the Eritrea/Yemen Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute; Hostilities between the countries; Membership of the Tribunal; Reasoning of the Tribunal for the award; Importance of this award.

The article pays tribute to Professor and Ambassador Shabtai Rosenne of Israel, who died on September 21, 2010.

This article explores the unique role of the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in the development of the law of the sea as part of the global system of peace and security, during thePresidency of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (United States) in the busiest triennium in the Court's history (1997-2000). The new style of governance brought by President Schvebel to the Court is appraised against the background of an 'intrinsic' authority and paramount functionsperformed by the ICJ as the world's most senior international court and the only truly universal judicial body of general jurisdiction, as well as that of the continuously inter-active influence of the Court and the International Law Commission. The article surveys the law-of-the-sea-related cases of the Court in the context of an ongoing follow-up to the Overall Review and Appraisal of the UNCED Agenda 21 in the critical areas of environmental protection, international fisheries and navigation, equitable maritime delimitation and territorial questions, and international institutions. The inaugural practice of ITLOS and the awards of the two Arbitral Tribunals, of which President Schwebel was a member, are taken into due account. The article concludes that the Court will undoubtedly continue to further explore its unique role, as importantly reinforced in the triennium 1997-2000, in the years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]