Search

This contribution is a reply to and a commentary on the article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle, "Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?" 34(1) Ocean Development & International Law 59-82 (2003). Colson and Hoyle took the view that Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal did not reach the correct answer. The author's survey of the Southern Bluefin Tuna and the Mox Plant cases, in light of the doctrine of procedural and substantive parallelism between the umbrella UN Law of the Sea Convention and its numerous implementing special treaties covered by Articles 281-282, leads her to conclude that the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal did get it right.­ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the decade-long Qatar v. Bahrain proceedings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered two Judgments on jurisdiction and admissibility (1994–1995), followed by its decision not to rely on the 82 Qatar documents challenged by Bahrain (1999), and by Judgment on the merits (2001). This article surveys how these complex proceedings led to settlement of a long-standing dispute in the Arabian/Persian Gulf to the satisfaction of both parties and how have they enriched the contributions of the Court to the development of international law. The contributions of the two Qatar v. Bahrain (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Judgments, including their Opinions, are highlighted in the context of important issues pertaining to the interpretation of treaties and various aspects of the jurisdiction conferred upon the ICJ by a "framework agreement" (as distinct from a compromis). The analysis of the Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, including its Opinions, substantiates the significant consolidation and further development—in continuation of the formidable jurisprudence of the ICJ and other tribunals, notably the Eritrea/ Yemen Arbitral Tribunal—of the principles and rules governing the acquisition of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Eritrea-Yemen Arbitral Tribunal unanimously resolved in its two awards the disputed territorial sovereignty over the Red Sea islands (Phase I, 1998) and the delimitation of an international maritime boundary (Phase II, 1999) in one of the most strategically sensitive regions of the world. This article surveys the progress made by each of the awards in the development of principles and rules of international law in the respective subject matters of the awards. While due attention is paid to the consistency of the awards with the preceding decisions of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals concerning acquisition of territorial sovereignty and equitable maritime delimitation, distinct features, such as rejection by the 1998 Eritrea-Yemen Award of the existence of a principle of reversion of a newly independent state to the ancient title to territory, are also examined. The analysis of the 1999 Award focuses on the complex decision-making process which led the Arbitral Tribunal to equitable delimitation of the Eritrea-Yemen international maritime boundary by means of a single allpurpose boundary. The resultant line substantiates the governing role of equidistance between opposite states. The Tribunal also reappraised the role of resource-related factors and the principle of proportionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany which was inaugurated by two Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea M/V Saiga cases. Resulting arrest of the oil tanker M/V Saiga; Application of the respective provisions of the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention.

Presents information on a systematic survey of decisions given by the International Court of Justice, under the presidency of Sir Robert Yewdall Jennings. Indepth look at three cases (Guinea Bissau versus Senegal, Gulf of Fonseca, and Denmark versus Norway); Analytical analysis of procedural aspects of the case law referring to Jennings; Reference to the cases (Qatar/Bahrain and Cameroon versus Nigeria).