The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, serves as a thorough framework for maritime governance, addressing critical aspects such as navigation rights, marine resource management, and environmental conservation. Part XV is fundamental to this framework, delineating the processes for the peaceful resolution of disputes stemming from the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Articles 279-298 delineate procedures for both voluntary and obligatory dispute resolution, with the objective of promoting peaceful conflict resolution among states.
Comprehensive Structure of Part XV
Part XV of UNCLOS comprises three sections. Section 1 (Articles 279-285) emphasizes the duty to settle disputes amicably, establishing a foundation for conciliatory resolutions prior to engaging in judicial actions. Section 2 (Articles 286-296) delineates mandatory procedures for instances in which consensual resolution is unsuccessful. Section 3 (Articles 297-299) delineates particular exceptions and limits, permitting governments to exclude specific categories of disputes, including those related to military operations or maritime boundaries.
Article 279, the foundation of Part XV, stipulates that all issues concerning the Convention must be resolved amicably. Articles 280 and 281 provide flexibility by allowing parties to consent to any peaceful resolution method; nevertheless, if an agreement is not achieved within a reasonable timeframe, UNCLOS procedures may be used.
Voluntary Mechanisms: Examples and Flexibility
UNCLOS allows governments to seek consensual resolution mechanisms prior to engaging in binding procedures. In the case of Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago (2004), both nations first sought to negotiate their maritime boundaries but finally opted for arbitration under Annex VII. The tribunal's ruling harmonised equitable principles with third-state rights, illustrating that conversations may occur prior to formal arbitration where consensus is unattainable.
Compulsory Mechanisms: ITLOS and Arbitration
If voluntary measures fail, Section 2 mandates coercive processes, directing unresolved disputes to binding forums such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or specialized arbitral tribunals. ITLOS plays a crucial role in disputes concerning navigation rights, environmental protection, and fisheries management, frequently issuing binding verdicts and requiring provisional actions.
A notable ITLOS case is Bangladesh v. Myanmar (2012), which concerned a maritime boundary dispute in the Bay of Bengal. The tribunal utilized the equidistance method to delineate both the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf, encompassing the outer continental shelf-a precedent for ITLOS. The case highlighted ITLOS's ability to address intricate border disputes, aiding in the advancement of international maritime law.
In Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea (M/V Saiga Case No. 2), ITLOS reiterated the principles of navigational freedom and the rapid release of detained vessels. Guinea apprehended the M/V Saiga for alleged customs infractions; however, ITLOS determined that the detention contravened UNCLOS, mandating compensation and the vessel's prompt release. This case reaffirmed the rights to quick release and freedom of navigation in accordance with UNCLOS norms.
Provisional Measures and Prompt Release
Article 290 grants ITLOS and Annex VII tribunals the power to impose provisional measures to avert irreversible damage or safeguard the interests of the parties involved. The Malaysia v. Singapore case (2003) regarding land reclamation in the Straits of Johor underscored the application of interim measures for environmental safeguarding. ITLOS instructed both nations to cooperate on environmental evaluations, demonstrating the tribunal's function in reconciling development with ecological conservation.
Article 292 stipulates the immediate release of boats and sailors held by coastal states upon the provision of a bond. The Monte Confurco Case (Seychelles v. France) exemplifies a significant incident in which ITLOS affirmed the principle that detentions should not be unduly extended, thereby protecting vessel operators from economic detriment.
Limitations and Exemptions to Compulsory Procedures
Section 3 delineates constraints on the otherwise mandatory dispute resolution mechanism. Article 297 excludes disputes concerning a state's exercise of sovereign rights inside its Exclusive Economic Zone, with the exception of matters pertaining to environmental preservation. Article 298 permits governments to exclude binding adjudication for particular categories of disputes, including those concerning military operations or historical claims.
An illustrative case is the Enrica Lexie Incident between Italy and India, during which Italian marines fatally shot two Indian fisherman. Italy cited Article 298, categorizing the issue as a military dispute beyond the compulsory jurisdiction of UNCLOS. The case emphasized the intricacies of withdrawing from contractual processes and illuminated difficulties in classifying specific conflicts.
Conclusion
The dispute resolution system under UNCLOS is a resilient yet flexible framework that integrates both voluntary and mandatory processes. By providing several forums, such as ITLOS, the ICJ, and arbitral tribunals, it caters to different types of disputes while maintaining the rule of law in international waters. Landmark cases have enhanced marine governance through UNCLOS dispute mechanisms, promoting cooperative conflict settlement and sustainable ocean management.
The author is a law student who graduated from the American International University-Bangladesh
