Search

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 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.

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]