magnify
Home Posts tagged "ITLOS"

Comments on ITLOS, M/T “San Padre Pio” Case (Switzerland v. Nigeria), Provisional Measures Order (6 July 2019)

Published on July 31, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

Introduction

On July 6, 2019, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its provisional measures order in the M/T “San Padre Pio” case between Switzerland and Nigeria. The summary of the case is available here. In short, the Nigerian navy intercepted and arrested the M/T “San Padre Pio,” a motor tanker flying the flag of Switzerland, while it was engaged in one of several ship-to-ship transfers of gasoil in Nigeria’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The Master and the three officers were detained in prison before they were released and returned to the vessel upon the provision of bail (see Order, paras. 30-41). The Tribunal prescribed that (a) Switzerland shall post a bond or other financial security; (b) Switzerland shall undertake to ensure that the Master and the three officers are available and present at the criminal proceedings in Nigeria, if the Annex VII arbitral tribunal finds Nigeria’s measures do not constitute a violation of the Convention; and (c) Nigeria shall immediately release the vessel, its cargo and the Master, and the three officers to leave the territory and maritime areas under the jurisdiction of Nigeria (Order, para. 146).

Provisional measures are designed to protect the rights of the parties pending the final decision in a dispute. The Convention provides that the measures shall be appropriate to the circumstances so as to preserve the rights of the Parties pending the final decision of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal (UNCLOS, Article 290(1)), and the order has to be prescribed only when the urgency of the situation so requires (ibid, Article 290(5)). It follows that the Tribunal shall ensure that the rights of the two parties are equally preserved and shall not prejudge the question of the jurisdiction of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal or the merits themselves.

However, this order demonstrated the Tribunal’s willingness to take a pro-active approach to provisional measures yet again. While this tendency was already pointed out when the Arctic Sunrise provisional measures order was prescribed (see Guilfoyle & Miles, p.272), the present case seems to have further expanded its reach. The rest of this Post will examine (1) whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the urgency test was consistent with Convention and previous cases; and (2) whether the Tribunal’s decision equally preserved the rights of state parties. Read the rest of this entry…

 
Tags:

Deep Seabed Mining in the Area: is international investment law relevant?

Published on July 10, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

The last decade has seen a renewed interest in the commercial exploitation of deep seabed minerals located beyond national jurisdiction. However, the respective responsibilities of deep sea miners and of their sponsoring states in this process have not been clarified fully. This short piece argues that international investment law is part of the legal framework applicable to the relationship between the deep sea miner and the state sponsoring it. More specifically, it attempts to demonstrate that deep sea mining operations can constitute a foreign-owned investment within the territory of a host state. Thus, when accepting to sponsor deep sea mining activities, states need to be mindful of the additional disciplines imposed by international investment law. 

The seabed beyond national jurisdiction (named as the “Area” by UNCLOS) is known to contain valuable mineral resources including copper, nickel, zinc and rare earth metals which have become particularly valuable because of recent technological innovations. The International Seabed Authority has awarded twenty-nine exploration contracts to a variety of state and private corporate bodies for vast zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Foreign capital has become increasingly involved in this economic activity. Thus, Nauru Ocean Resources, a Nauruan entity which was granted an exploration contract in 2011, is a subsidiary of the Australian corporation Deepgreen Mineral Corp. UK Seabed Mineral Resources is a subsidiary of the well-known Lockheed Martin. However these activities are controversial and there exist glaring gaps in the scientific knowledge of the ecosystems where deep sea mining is supposed to take place. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Delineating the Exclusivity of Flag State Jurisdiction on the High Seas: ITLOS issues its ruling in the M/V “Norstar” Case

Published on June 4, 2019        Author: 
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 10 April 2019, the International Tribunal of the Sea (ITLOS) gave its judgment in the long-awaited – though somewhat quietly received – M/V “Norstar” (Panama v Italy) case. The Tribunal ruled (by 15 votes to 7) that by arresting and detaining the Panamanian-flagged vessel, the M/V “Norstar”, Italy had violated Article 87(1) of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by undermining the vessel’s freedom of navigation. This is the first time that Article 87 has been in direct contention before an international tribunal, and in ruling that Italy contravened the principle the judgment arguably buttresses a quite expansive reading of the exclusive flag state jurisdiction principle under Article 92 UNCLOS.

Whilst the case had previously thrown up interesting jurisdictional and procedural questions at the preliminary objections stage – discussed elsewhere by Mirko Forti here – in this post I will confine my discussion primarily to the ruling on freedom of navigation, insofar as the Tribunal found that Italy’s attempt to exert prescriptive jurisdiction over what were otherwise lawful activities on the high seas violated Article 87(1). In doing so, I will highlight how the Tribunal’s understanding of the exclusive flag state jurisdiction principle arguably runs counter to a notable trend in the academic literature, which was reflected in a somewhat forceful seven-judge dissenting opinion, to treat the principle in a much more circumscribed way. I will also comment on the way in which Italy’s argument in the case seems to put it somewhat at odds with its position in the ongoing Enrica Lexie arbitration – discussed previously by Douglas Guilfoyle here, and Hari Sankar here.

I will first set out the background to and facts of the case before turning to discuss the contentious position on high seas jurisdiction. I also offer a few final thoughts on the contrasting, arguably conflicted positions adopted by Italy in this case versus its position in Enrica Lexie. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Part I: Analysis of Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean

Published on October 19, 2017        Author:  and
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Follow by Email

On 23 September 2017, the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rendered an award in Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire. It is only the second case, following the Guyana/Suriname Arbitration of 2007, in which an international adjudicating body has ascertained the meaning and scope of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) within the context of unilateral oil and gas operations in disputed areas.

The Special Chamber delimited the parties’ territorial sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf boundaries within and beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) with the boundary being an unadjusted equidistance line favouring Ghana. Other key questions for adjudication were a) Ghana’s claim regarding a long-standing, tacit agreement as to the existence of a maritime boundary and b) Côte d’Ivoire’s allegation that, by continuing with oil activities in the disputed area, Ghana had violated its Article 83(1) and (3) UNCLOS obligations to negotiate in good faith and to make every effort through provisional arrangements not to jeopardise or hamper arrival at an agreement.

In its judgment, the Special Chamber reached a number of conclusions which, taken with its Order for the prescription of provisional measures of 25 April 2015, will have significant, practical implications for the future conduct of unilateral oil and gas activities in disputed maritime areas, as well as for the associated rights and obligations incumbent upon States concerned. Read the rest of this entry…