| Abstract [eng] |
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea lays out a complex system for settlement of disputes relating to the law of the sea matters and coordinates various methods of dispute settlement: from measures traditionally known under public international law to compulsory dispute settlement. Moreover, in its dispute settlement system it establishes a new judicial institution the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The foremost chapters of this paper discuss general features of this dispute settlement system, objectives which led to the adoption of compulsory jurisdiction and main reasons for establishing the new Tribunal. Further it examines problems concerning the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Primarily analyzed the choice of procedure under Article 287 and States’ declarations made thereunder it appears that the Tribunal has very limited compulsory jurisdiction for the disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention. This results from the policy of drift. Further this paper comments on the relevant cases concerning the interpretation of Articles 281 and 282, namely Southern Bluefin Tuna and Mox Plant arbitrations, also the judgement of European Court of Justice in Mox Plant. Moreover, it deals with the impact of the acceptance by all parties to a dispute of the International Court of Justice compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2 of Court’s Statute. The second part of the paper discusses the Tribunal’s compulsory jurisdiction in claims for provisional measures and claims for prompt release of vessels. These two types of jurisdiction comprise the majority of applications to the Tribunal. Analyzed the requirements in Article 290 for determining prima facie jurisdiction and the urgency for prescribing provisional measures remarks of rather loose standards and proactive role of the Tribunal are made. Eventually the limited nature and the purposes of the procedure under Article 292 are considered, also issues related to the nationality of ships and definition of the flag State, which are interpreted not too strictly. Finally, practical aspects concerning confiscation of a detained vessel analyzed. |
