Advisory Proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as an Alternative Procedure to Supplement the Dispute-Settlement Mechanism under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Q3 Social Sciences
Dooyoung Kim
{"title":"Advisory Proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as an Alternative Procedure to Supplement the Dispute-Settlement Mechanism under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea","authors":"Dooyoung Kim","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whereas the Seabed Disputes Chamber within the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“the Tribunal”) is expressly mandated to give an advisory opinion at the request of the Assembly or Council of the International Seabed Authority under Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the Convention”), the advisory jurisdiction of the Tribunal in its full composition is not explicitly provided for under Part XV of the Convention or in the Statute of the Tribunal annexed to the Convention. In order to provide the Tribunal with an advisory function, a proposal was first presented when the Tribunal was preparing its Rules in 1996. This proposal was accepted and was embodied in article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal. Paragraph 2 of article 138 provides for a body eligible to make a request to the Tribunal for an advisory opinion. Eligibility can be accorded to “whatever body is authorized by or in accordance with the agreement to make the request to the Tribunal.” Under article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, the eligibility to request an advisory opinion of the Court is restricted to the General Assembly, the Security Council, other organs and specialized agencies which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, but there is no such express provision in the Convention or the Statute of the Tribunal restricting the organizations or bodies eligible to request an advisory opinion of the Tribunal. Accordingly, a provision in an international agreement relating to the purposes of the Convention which empowers a body to make a request for an advisory opinion to the Tribunal may be sufficient for it to entertain such a request. In view of this liberal and flexible approach with regard to the eligibility requirement under paragraph 2 of article 138 of the Rules, States may feel free to seek an advisory opinion in law of the sea matters from the Tribunal through a body, permanent or ad hoc, created by an agreement for the purpose of transmitting a request for an advisory opinion to the Tribunal. Furthermore, in light of the non-binding nature of an advisory opinion to be given by the Tribunal under article 138 of its Rules, States may also wish to use the advisory proceedings before the Tribunal, when appropriate, as a means of dispute resolution in law of the sea matters as was frequently the case before the Permanent Court of International Justice from 1922 to 1935. When States elect to use the advisory proceedings before the Tribunal for dispute settlement, these proceedings may function as an alternative means to supplement the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under Part XV of the Convention.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1116","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Whereas the Seabed Disputes Chamber within the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“the Tribunal”) is expressly mandated to give an advisory opinion at the request of the Assembly or Council of the International Seabed Authority under Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the Convention”), the advisory jurisdiction of the Tribunal in its full composition is not explicitly provided for under Part XV of the Convention or in the Statute of the Tribunal annexed to the Convention. In order to provide the Tribunal with an advisory function, a proposal was first presented when the Tribunal was preparing its Rules in 1996. This proposal was accepted and was embodied in article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal. Paragraph 2 of article 138 provides for a body eligible to make a request to the Tribunal for an advisory opinion. Eligibility can be accorded to “whatever body is authorized by or in accordance with the agreement to make the request to the Tribunal.” Under article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, the eligibility to request an advisory opinion of the Court is restricted to the General Assembly, the Security Council, other organs and specialized agencies which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, but there is no such express provision in the Convention or the Statute of the Tribunal restricting the organizations or bodies eligible to request an advisory opinion of the Tribunal. Accordingly, a provision in an international agreement relating to the purposes of the Convention which empowers a body to make a request for an advisory opinion to the Tribunal may be sufficient for it to entertain such a request. In view of this liberal and flexible approach with regard to the eligibility requirement under paragraph 2 of article 138 of the Rules, States may feel free to seek an advisory opinion in law of the sea matters from the Tribunal through a body, permanent or ad hoc, created by an agreement for the purpose of transmitting a request for an advisory opinion to the Tribunal. Furthermore, in light of the non-binding nature of an advisory opinion to be given by the Tribunal under article 138 of its Rules, States may also wish to use the advisory proceedings before the Tribunal, when appropriate, as a means of dispute resolution in law of the sea matters as was frequently the case before the Permanent Court of International Justice from 1922 to 1935. When States elect to use the advisory proceedings before the Tribunal for dispute settlement, these proceedings may function as an alternative means to supplement the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under Part XV of the Convention.
国际海洋法法庭的咨询程序,作为补充《联合国海洋法公约》第十五部分规定的争端解决机制的替代程序
鉴于国际海洋法法庭海底争端分庭(“法庭”)的明确任务是应国际海底管理局大会或理事会根据《联合国海洋法公约》(“《公约》”)第十一部分提出的请求,提出咨询意见,《公约》第十五部分或《公约》所附的《法庭规约》都没有明确规定法庭的全部组成的咨询管辖权。为了使法庭具有咨询职能,在1996年法庭编写其《规则》时首次提出了一项建议。这项建议被接受,并载于《法庭规则》第138条。第138条第2款规定了一个有资格向法庭提出咨询意见请求的机构。资格可授予“经协定授权或按照协定授权向法庭提出请求的任何机构”。根据《联合国宪章》第九十六条,请求国际法院发表咨询意见的资格仅限于大会、安全理事会、大会随时授权的其他机关和专门机构,但《公约》或《国际法庭规约》并没有明文规定限制有资格请求国际法庭发表咨询意见的组织或机构。因此,有关《公约》宗旨的国际协定中有一项规定,授权一个机构向法庭提出征求咨询意见的请求,可能足以使法庭接受这种请求。鉴于对《规则》第138条第2款所规定的资格要求采取这种自由和灵活的办法,各国可以自由地通过一项协定所设立的常设或特设机构,向法庭征求关于海洋法问题的咨询意见,目的是向法庭转递咨询意见的请求。此外,鉴于法庭根据其《规则》第138条提出的咨询意见不具约束力,各国也可酌情利用法庭的咨询程序,作为解决海洋法问题争端的手段,正如常设国际法院在1922年至1935年期间经常发生的情况那样。当各国选择利用法庭的咨询程序来解决争端时,这些程序可作为补充《公约》第十五部分规定的强制性程序的一种替代手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Issues in Legal Scholarship
Issues in Legal Scholarship Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Legal Scholarship presents cutting-edge legal and policy research using the format of online peer-reviewed symposia. The journal’s emphasis on interdisciplinary work and legal theory extends to recent symposium topics such as Single-Sex Marriage, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, and Catastrophic Risks. The symposia systematically address emerging issues of great significance, offering ongoing scholarship of interest to a wide range of policy and legal researchers. Online publication makes it possible for other researchers to find the best and latest quickly, as well as to join in further discussion. Each symposium aims to be a living forum with ongoing publications and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信