press conference by president of international tribunal for law of sea

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was the central element of dispute settlements in a rule-of-law system covering 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface, Tribunal President Rüdiger Wolfrum told correspondents at Headquarters this afternoon.

At a press conference on the sixteenth Meeting of States Parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, he said that, during its 10 years of existence, the Tribunal had decided 12 of its 13 cases within a month from application, which, compared to other courts, presented an “Olympic record”.  Although only 13 cases had been brought, the 21 judges of the Tribunal, housed in a modern and efficient building in Hamburg, certainly could address more cases if States brought them.

He said the Convention covered all maritime activities, ranging from navigation to fishing, exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, deep seabed mining, exploitation of energy and maritime research.  All those activities could, to some extent, compete with each other, such as, for instance, oil exploitation in busy shipping or fish-spawning areas.  A major issue was establishing the outer limits of the continental shelf (the part of continents under seawater) that stretched beyond 200 nautical miles.  Other issues included protection of the marine environment, climate change, declining fish stocks and “traffic rules” for ships in busy areas such as those off the coast of the Netherlands.

He said that other major problems included competing jurisdictions between coastal and other States with long-distance fishing fleets over, among other things, fishing rights, and between whaling States and those interested in protecting whales.  A new issue that the Convention and the Tribunal might have to deal with was terrorism at sea.  Piracy, the old form of terrorism at sea, was also on the rise, according to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).  There were particular conventions to deal with new forms of piracy, but the Tribunal might also have to deal with that question.

Answering a correspondent’s question on how the Tribunal would deal with a tanker disaster and its consequences, such as fishermen’s loss of income, and a sea devoid of life with consequences for tourism, among others, he said that the “MARPOL” Convention [International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)] had established a compensation fund for quick financial help in such cases.  It was financed from contributions everybody made when they bought gas or heating oil.  Nowadays the fund could also compensate for environmental losses and the Tribunal could decide cases on the basis of international agreements.  But so far, decisions had often been taken by national courts.

Responding to a question about the Tribunal’s role in piracy, he said pirates and terrorists should be stopped by States.  A case for the Tribunal would be one where a State had stopped and seized a ship considered to be involved in piracy, and it turned out to be a normal yacht that had not immediately obeyed orders to stop and the injured party asked for compensation.  States also had an obligation to fight piracy.  Pirates often needed assistance on shore and the question was whether the coastal State concerned had lived up to its obligations under the Convention.

Asked how he felt about an agreement between the European Union and Morocco that would allow European countries (mainly Spain and Portugal) to fish off the coast of Western Sahara, he said that whether that territory was part of Morocco or not was a matter to be decided by the United Nations and such a case would have to be brought by a State.  The Tribunal did not have the right of initiative.

To a question about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a dispute between a State party to the Convention and a non-State party in the international seabed area, he said that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction over the seabed area.  The International Seabed Authority had been established for that reason and even had a “Seabed Dispute Chamber”.  If a non-State party engaged in seabed activities, then such activities would be contrary to the Convention, which was not binding on that State.  In reality, however, it was not practical to bring such cases to the Tribunal.  The General Assembly or the Security Council could deal with them.  No industry based in a non-State party, however, would dare to risk significant investment in deep-sea mining, for instance, on such unsafe legal grounds.

In response to another question, he cited a hypothetical case in which a ship was attacked in the Straits of Magellan when that waterway was being blocked, saying that was first of all a security issue.  In the Lockerbie case, the Security Council had said that the interruption of international traffic was a threat to international peace.  As for the relationship between the Security Council and the Tribunal, the judicial body was not governed by the United Nations Charter, which gave the Council precedence in matters of security.  If the Council dealt with such a matter, the Tribunal could deal with the same matter as well.  The involvement of the Security Council did not bar a decision by the Tribunal.

Asked how the Tribunal would handle a case brought as a consequence of climate change, he said the Tribunal had a particular competence in respect of protecting the environment, which included climate, and it had good mechanisms to include scientific advice.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record