Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 7
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Yu, Mincai 2016. The South China Sea dispute and the Philippines Arbitration Tribunal: China's policy options. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 70, Issue. 3, p. 215.


    Nemeth, Stephen C. Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin Nyman, Elizabeth A. and Hensel, Paul R. 2014. Ruling the Sea: Managing Maritime Conflicts through UNCLOS and Exclusive Economic Zones. International Interactions, Vol. 40, Issue. 5, p. 711.


    2014. The Effectiveness of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Reaching for the Stars?. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), Vol. 108, p. 359.


    2013. Solving Disputes for Regional Cooperation and Development in the South China Sea.


    Konstantinidis, Ioannis 2011. Dispute settlement in the law of the sea, the extended continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal and the CLCS: some preliminary observations on the basis of the case Bangladesh/Myanmar before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 267.


    McDorman, Ted L 2000. Global ocean governance and international adjudicative dispute resolution. Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 43, Issue. 2-3, p. 255.


    Schiffman, Howard S. 1998. The dispute settlement mechanism of UNCLOS: A Potentially Important Framework for Marine Wildlife Management. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 293.


    ×
  • International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 46, Issue 1
  • January 1997, pp. 37-54

Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction

Abstract

The entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), on 16 November 1994, is probably the most important development in the settlement of international disputes since the adoption of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Not only does the Convention create a new international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), it also makes extensive provision for compulsory dispute-settlement procedures involving States, the International Seabed Authority (“ISBA”), seabed mining contractors and, potentially, a range of other entities. Implementation of the Convention has spawned a number of inter-State disputes to add to the cases already before the International Court. The initiation of the ITLOS not only opens up new possibilities for settling these disputes but it also has implications for the future role of the International Court and ad hoc arbitration in the law of the sea and more generally. It contributes to the proliferation of international tribunals and adds to the potential for fragmentation both of the substantive law and of the procedures available for settling disputes. Judges Oda and Guillaume have argued that the ITLOS is a futile institution, that the UNCLOS negotiators were misguided in depriving the International Court of its central role in ocean disputes and that creation of a specialised tribunal may destroy the unity of international law. The law of the sea, both judges argue, is an essential part of international law and any dispute concerning the application and interpretation of that law should be seen as subject to settlement by the International Court.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International & Comparative Law Quarterly
  • ISSN: 0020-5893
  • EISSN: 1471-6895
  • URL: /core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×