PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF SEA TRIBUNAL

PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF SEA TRIBUNAL

Judge L. Dolliver M. Nelson, President of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon, outlined features of the Tribunal and some of the cases over which it had special jurisdiction.

He said the Tribunal was one of the institutions established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the others being the International Seabed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.  The Tribunal held its first session in October 1996, and had since been functioning as a judicial institution.  During its first year, the Tribunal developed its own rules of procedure, guidelines concerning the preparation and presentation of cases before it and the resolution of the internal practice of the Tribunal.

Its Statute provided for the establishment of a Seabed Disputes Chamber and for Special Chambers.  The Special Chambers included the Chamber of Summary Procedure and the two chambers formed by the Tribunal in 1997 –- the Chamber for Fisheries Dispute and the Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes.  The Seabed Dispute Chamber had mandatory jurisdiction over all activities in the maritime area beyond national jurisdiction.

Describing how the Tribunal worked, Judge Nelson said States parties to the Convention might declare their preference for settling disputes relating to the Convention -- choosing the Tribunal, the International Court of Justice, arbitration or special arbitration.  The Tribunal had heard 12 cases, most of which involved provisional measures or prompt release -– situations in which the Tribunal had “compulsory jurisdiction”.  If the parties to a dispute did not choose a particular mechanism for resolving a case, the matter would go to arbitration.  He said arbitration had a very important residual role in dispute settlement, and he mentioned some specific cases, such as the Singapore-Malaysian case concerning reclamation activities in the Straights of Jolior separating the two countries.  Arbitration was thus an important mechanism for dispute settlement.

He pointed out that on the face of it, all disputes concerning interpretation of the Convention could be submitted to binding dispute settlement, except under the provisions of the Convention relating to boundary disputes which could be submitted to conciliation, military activities and matters being dealt with by the Security Council.  Issues relating to military activities on the seas were very important, and the United States, which was not a party to the Convention, was again revisiting it.  Judge Nelson expressed the hope that the United States would accede to the Convention, and added that that would enhance the authority of the Convention.  He said the United States was looking at the problem of military activities and how it could exclude such activities from the competence of binding dispute settlement.

Judge Nelson said disputes concerning fishing activities, exclusive economic zones and marine scientific research could also be excluded from dispute settlement.  Those issues could be submitted for conciliation. Reports of the Tribunal’s Conciliation Commission had political significance that ought to be taken seriously by States.

He also spoke about the Convention’s provision relating to questions on which the Tribunal had a special or almost compulsory jurisdiction, such as the prompt release of vessels.  The provision required a State that had detained a vessel on certain charges, to release it and/or its crew upon the posting of a reasonable bond.  The other case where the Tribunal had special jurisdiction was the prescription of provisional measures pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.

The important thing about the cases he had referred to, he said, was that they dealt with the protection of the environment.  The Tribunal was thus, dealing more and more with the environment, and that should be encouraged.  “What has come out of those cases, is that the Tribunal has placed great emphasis on the fundamental importance of cooperation in the protection and preservation of the environment”, he observed.  Some of the measures it had issued had helped parties in dealing with their dispute.

He stressed the importance of ratification of the Convention by countries like Canada, an important maritime State.  Canada had chosen the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for arbitration of disputes.  He commended the Canadian Government for its action, and commented that the impression was created that States were getting accustomed to the Tribunal and respecting it.  Every ratification and accession to the Convention of the order of Canada’s could only enhance the authority not only of the Tribunal but the rule of law, he said.

In a question and answer session, he explained the distinction between binding and non-binding disputes settlement, as well as the question of conciliation.  He noted that conciliation and mediation were not binding in law.  He noted the reference to judicial settlement of disputes in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.

A correspondent observed that he had not seen the name of a woman among the Tribunal’s judges and asked whether that would change in the future.  Judge Nelson hoped States would follow the example set in the election of the first woman judge for the International Court of Justice.  It was something that States should bear in mind, he added.

He told a correspondent that the absence of the United States from parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea affected the instrument because of the importance of the country.  He noted that the United States had played an important part in the negotiations on the law of the sea and that many of its interests had been protected.  The 1994 Agreement on the implementation of the Convention modified it to, again, suit the interests of the United States.  He hoped the United States would ratify the Convention soon because it would certainly make it much more universal and effective.

* *** *