prima facie
have jurisdiction.
420
See article 16 of the 1993 Convention.
638
i n t e r nat i o na l l aw
only apply where no settlement had been reached using the other means
agreed by the parties and the agreement between the parties does not ex-
clude any further procedure. Since article 16 of the 1993 Convention fell
within the category of procedures agreed by the parties and thus within
article 281(1), the intent and thus the consequence of article 16 was to re-
move proceedings under that provision from the reach of the compulsory
procedures of the 1982 Convention.
421
Accordingly, the extent to which
the compulsory procedures of the 1982 Convention apply depends on the
circumstances and, in particular, the existence and nature of any other
agreement between the parties relating to peaceful settlement.
422
Outside the framework of the 1982 Convention, states may adopt a vari-
ety of means of resolving disputes, ranging from negotiations, inquiries,
423
conciliation
424
and arbitration
425
to submission to the International Court
of Justice.
426
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
427
The Tribunal was established as one of the dispute settlement mechanisms
under Part XV of the Law of the Sea Convention. The Statute of the
421
See 119 ILR, pp. 549–52.
422
See also B. Oxman, ‘Complementary Agreements and Compulsory Jurisdiction’, 95 AJIL,
2001, p. 277. Note that the Arbitral Tribunal established under Annex VII of the Conven-
tion in the
Mox
case, between Ireland and the UK, suspended hearings on 13 June 2003
due to uncertainty as to whether relevant provisions of the Convention fell within the
competence of the European Community or member states: see Order No. 3 of 24 June
2003 and Order No. 4 of 14 November 2003, 126 ILR, pp. 257 ff. and 310 ff. See also the
decision of the European Court of Justice of 30 May 2006, Case C-459/03,
Commission
v.
Ireland
.
423
E.g. the
Red Crusader
incident, 35 ILR, p. 485. See further on these mechanisms, below,
chapters 18 and 19.
424
E.g. the
Jan Mayen Island Continental Shelf
dispute, 20 ILM, 1981, p. 797; 62 ILR, p. 108.
425
E.g. the
Anglo-French Continental Shelf
case, Cmnd 7438; 54 ILR, p. 6.
426
E.g. the
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries
case, ICJ Reports, 1951, p. 116; 18 ILR, p. 84; the
North
Sea Continental Shelf
cases, ICJ Reports, 1969, p. 16; 41 ILR, p. 29 and others referred to
in this chapter.
427
See e.g. P. C. Rao and R. Khan,
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Law and
Practice
, The Hague, 2001; P. C. Rao and P. Gautier,
Rules of the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea: A Commentary
, The Hague, 2006; M. M. Marsit,
Le Tribunal du Droit
de la Mer
, Paris, 1999; A. E. Boyle, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
and the Settlement of Disputes’ in
The Changing World of International Law in the 21st
Century
(eds. J. Norton, M. Andenas and M. Footer), The Hague, 1998; D. Anderson, ‘The
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’, in
Remedies
in
International Law
(eds. M. D.
Evans and S. V. Konstanidis), Oxford, 1998, p. 71; J. Collier and V. Lowe,
The Settlement
of Disputes in International Law
, Oxford, 1999, chapter 5; Churchill and Lowe,
Law of the
Sea
, chapter 19; Merrills,
International Dispute Settlement
, chapter 8; Nguyen Quoc Dinh
et al.
,
Droit International Public
, p. 912, and G. Eiriksson,
The International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea
, The Hague, 2000. See also www.itlos.org.
t h e l aw o f t h e s e a
639
Tribunal
428
provides that it shall be composed of twenty-one independent
members enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and
of recognised competence in the field of the law of the sea, while the
representation of the principal legal systems of the world and equitable
geographical distribution are to be assured.
429
Judges are elected for nine-
year terms by the states parties to the Convention.
430
The Statute also
allows for the appointment of ad hoc judges. Article 17 provides that
where the Tribunal includes a member of the nationality of one of the
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |