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. Keywords compulsory jurisdiction, Mox Plant cases, peaceful settlement of disputes, Southern Bluefin Tuna case,

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. Keywords equidistance, equity, islands, International Court of Justice, low-tide elevations, maritime boundary delimitation, single boundary, territorial acquisition, treaty interpretation

The article contains a systematic survey of decisions rendered by the International Court of Justice (and its Chamber) under the presidency of Sir Robert Yewdall Jennings in three cases (Guinea Bissau v. Senegal, Gulf of Fonseca, and Denmark v. Norway) involving equitable maritime delimitation, and in one case (East Timor) settled after Sir Robert's presidency. Distinct features, which are particularly pronounced in the landmark Denmark v. Norway Judgment, are the increased consistency and degree of predictability in the complex process of applying equity in maritime delimitation, of which Sir Robert has been a strong advocate. The important procedural aspects of the case law under Sir Robert's presidency are also analyzed. These are exemplified by the role of the Court as a partner in preventive diplomacy and by the precedential permission granted a third state to intervene as a nonparty. While highlighting the two presently pending cases (Qatar/Bahrain and Cameroon v. Nigeria), the author hopes that these settlements will significantly benefit from substantial and procedural solutions endorsed by the Court during Sir Robert's presidency. Keywords equity, International Court of Justice, maritime delimitation, Sir Robert Jennings

The jurisprudence of the newly established International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany, was inaugurated by two Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea M/V Saiga cases, which resulted from the arrest on October 28, 1997, of the oil tanker M/V Saiga, flying the Saint Vincent's flag, by Guinean Customs patrol boats off the coast of West Africa. The cases have been paralleled by proceedings in national (Guinean) courts. This article surveys the first two decisions delivered by the Tribunal in application of the respective provisions of the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (Articles 292 and 290, respectively) and the 1997 ITLOS Rules - i.e., the M/V Saiga Judgment of December 4, 1997 (Case No. 1) concerning an innovatory procedure of prompt release of the vessel and its crew and the M/V Saiga (Provisional Measures) Order of March 11, 1998. The Order marks the incidental phase of the M/V Saiga (Merits) proceedings (Case No. 2), which are scheduled for completion by the ITLOS by mid-1999. While examining the first two instances in which the ITLOS exercised its residual compulsory jurisdiction applicable to urgent matters of prompt release and provisional measures, the author also pays special attention to the comparative practice of the International Court of Justice. The analysis justifies commending the ITLOS for inauguration of its practice by an expeditious administration of international justice and by giving an appreciable expression to the critical concern for preservation of judicial consistency. Keywords International Court of Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, prompt release of vessels, provisional measures of protection, settlement of ocean disputes

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 all-purpose 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. Keywords international arbitration, International Court of Justice, acquisition of territorial sovereignty, modern effectivites, equitable maritime delimitation, equidistance, single line, islands, navigational and resource factors