Analysis of Provisions of Settlement of Disputes

under the Law of Sea Convention.

Project submitted to:
Dr.Vikesh Ram Tripathi
(Assistant Professor)

Project submitted by:

Sirshendu Mazumdar
Semester IV, Roll No. 152
Batch XIII
23.10.2017

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.

1
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work entitled Analysis of Provisions of Settlement of

Disputes under the Law of Sea Convention, submitted to the "HNLU", is a record of original

work done by me under the guidance of "Dr.Vikesh Ram Tripathi, Faculty in- charge,

HNLU.

Sirshendu Mazumdar

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled, Analysis of Provisions of Settlement of Disputes
under the Law of Sea Convention submitted by Sirshendu Mazumdar in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the award of "Graduate Course" in "BA LLB" at the "Hidayatullah
National Law University" is an authentic work carried out by him under my supervision and
guidance.

To the best of my knowledge, the matter embodied in the project has not been submitted to
any other University / Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

Dr.Vikesh Ram Tripathi

Assistant Professor, HNLU

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the topic Analysis of Provisions of Settlement of Disputes

under the Law of Sea Convention because it has significant importance in the current

scenario.

I express my deepest regard and gratitude for our Faculty of International Law. Their

consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense

help in understanding and carrying out the importance of the project report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement, this

project would not have been a reality.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing

extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet.

SirshenduMazumdar

4
 TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION...................................................................................................................... 2

CERTIFICATE ........................................................................................................................ 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF CONTENT........................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6

Research Methodology ............................................................................................................ 8

Rationale of the Study ............................................................................................................. 8

Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 8

Sources of Data ......................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2: THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISMS OF THE

CONVENTION ........................................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER 3: THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA

(ITLOS)................................................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 4: ARBITRATIONS AND SPECIAL ARBITRATIONS .............................. 15

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 20

5
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
UNCLOS III had as its basic objective the adoption of a comprehensive Law of the Sea
Convention. It was therefore the intention of the negotiators and the drafters of the LOSC to
establish a constitution for the oceans that would find universal acceptance. The LOSC,
besides providing for a legal regime for manifold uses and aspects of the oceans, also
contains one of the longest and most intricate dispute settlement provisions ever drafted. 1.
Like many of the provisions in the Convention, the negotiations on the dispute settlement part
took place in informal meetings rather than in open debates with formal records, andtherefore
strictly speaking travauxprparatoires of the LOSC do not exist. However, some of the
delegates who participated in UNCLOS III have traced the major developments in the
negotiations, and drafts of the dispute settlement provisions in academic writing.

The compulsory dispute settlement provisions under the Convention have been called a
central component of the package deal that emerged from UNCLOS III. It is argued that the
position of the dispute settlement provisions of the LOSC has been strengthened by their
incorporation into the LOSC itself as opposed to an attachment as an optional protocol. Such
a decision that made it a part and parcel of the whole LOSC has been called a major
development, a unique aspect and a big step forward in the development of international
law.2
Few authors have however explored this issue in depth. It is arguable that its effect would not
have had as much merit had they been annexed to the LOSC as an optional protocol. During
UNCLOS III, some states had decried the establishment of a regime for binding third party
dispute settlement. The alternative option suggested by this group was to have dispute
settlement provisions not as a part of the LOSC but to have the same annexed to it like an
optional protocol. Nonetheless, the majority felt that not having the dispute settlement
provisions as an integral part of the LOSC could weaken it and jeopardise its ratification and
acceptance worldwide. This decision arguably owes its making to the failure of the dispute
settlement provisions of the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the law of the sea. The 1958

1
Cesare P R Romano The Settlement of Disputes under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: How Entangled
Can We Get? (2004) 103 (1) J Intl L & Diplo 84, 87 [The Settlement of Disputes under LOSC How
Entangled Can We Get?].
2
Ocean Governance and the United Nations, above n 20, 32. See also Elisabeth Mann Borgese The Process of
Creating an Ocean Regime to Protect the Oceans Resources in Jon M Van Dyke, DurwoodZaelke and Grant
Hewison (eds) Freedom for the Seas in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony
(Island Press, Washington DC, 1993) 23.

6
Geneva Conventions provided for dispute settlement provisions in an optional protocol rather
than as a part within the substantive body of laws. The 1958 Geneva Conventions brought
about the law of the sea of that time in the form of four treaties. The Convention on Fishing
and the Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (Fishing Convention) had its
own inbuilt dispute settlement provisions. But the Optional Protocol of Signature concerning
the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol) was to govern dispute settlement
under the other three Conventions. It is noteworthy that to date no dispute has been referred
under the Optional Protocol or the Fishing Convention.
Out of a total of 44 states that had originally signed the Optional Protocol, only 37 states
actually followed it up with ratifications, definitive signatures or successions. Countries such
as the United States, Canada and China, which had initially signed the Optional Protocol,
refrained from finally ratifying and accepting it. Moreover, out of an average number of 52
states that became parties to the other four conventions, the Optional Protocol had only 37
parties. Industrialised countries like Japan and Russia, which had actively participated in the
other 1958 Geneva Conventions, chose not to get involved with the Optional Protocol at all.
Taking all this into account, it would be fair to say that the dispute settlement provisions as an
optional protocol of signature to the law of the sea had failed. Therefore, the delegates at
UNCLOS III decided to keep the dispute settlement provisions integrated within the LOSC
itself.
The dispute settlement provisions of the Convention may not be perfect, but are arguably the
best that could be attained, given the many political forces that governed UNCLOS III. These
provisions are available so as to protect the respective rights of parties, and to provide an
expeditious and effective settlement in case a dispute is referred to them.

7
Research Methodology
This project report is based on Descriptive Research Methodology.
Secondary and Electronic resources have been largely used to gather information and data
about the topic.
Books and other reference as guided by Faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this
project a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred. Footnotes
have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a
particular provision of law.

Rationale of the Study

This study is conducted to analyse theDispute Settlement Mechanism under the Law of Sea
Convention.

Objectives
1.To study the history of the LOSC.
2.To analyse the provisions regarding the settlement of dispute under LOSC

Sources of Data
Secondary and Electronic resources have been largely used to gather information and data
about the topic.
Books and other reference as guided by Faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this
project a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred. Footnotes
have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a
particular provision of law.

8
 CHAPTER 2: THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISMS OF THE
CONVENTION
The core dispute settlement provisions in the LOSC are laid down in Part XV, and are
divided into three Sections
(i) General Provisions,
(ii) Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions, and
(iii) Limitations and Exceptions to Applicability to Section 2.
The dispute settlement provisions of the LOSC are also found in its Annexes V VIII, and
other dispute settlement provisions remain scattered in the LOSC and its Annexes of which
Section 5 of Part XI, dealing with dispute settlement with respect to activities in the Area,393
deserve mention.394 However, the present part is confined to looking at Part XV alone,
primarily because it comprises the backbone of the Conventions dispute settlement
machinery.
General provisions
Two basic principles of dispute settlement can be identified from the provision in Section 1.
First, states parties are obliged to settle disputes by peaceful means. This obligation
becomes clear from an analysis of Articles 279, 283 and 285.
Secondly, states parties have been granted high degree of flexibility in choosing the
means to settle their disputes. This theme can be identified from an analysis of
Articles 280, 281, 282 and 284.
Article 279 stipulates that the basic obligation of states parties is to settle all disputes that
concern the interpretation or application of the LOSC by peaceful means. Article 283 obliges
states parties to a dispute to initiate and maintain an effective system for exchange of views
and talks with regard to the settlement of disputes.
Article 285 provides that entities other than states are free to have recourse to the provisions
under this Section to peacefully settle their disputes arising pursuant to Section 5 of Part XI.
Article 280 stipulates that states parties may at any time mutually agree to refrain from using
the dispute settlement provisions of the LOSC and settle a dispute between them by any
peaceful means of their choice.
Under Article 281, if the parties agree to settle a dispute by any peaceful means of their
choosing, the procedures under Part XV can only be invoked if no settlement is reached, and
the agreement between them excludes no further procedure. Further, if the parties have

9
agreed on a time limit, Part XV procedures can be utilised only on the expiry of the time
limit.
Article 282 provides for a situation where disputant states parties are also signatories to an
agreement of a general, regional or bilateral nature. If under such agreement they have bound
themselves to use a dispute settlement procedure that would entail a binding decision, such a
procedure would have precedence over those in Part XV of the LOSC. As will be seen later
in this chapter, it is this provision that proved to be a hurdle for the jurisdiction of an Annex
VII arbitral tribunal in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case Australia and New Zealand v Japan.
Article 284 provides that any party to the dispute may invite the other to submit the dispute
to conciliation. However, if the other party rejects the invitation or abstains from accepting it
by its inaction, the process fails. In a case where the invitation is accepted, it is again left to
the parties to choose the procedure to be adopted for the conciliation either under Annex V,
section 1, or another conciliation procedure. Again, if the parties are unable to reach an
agreement with regard to the procedure, the process is terminated midway and parties are free
to initiate the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under Part XV, Section 2 of
the LOSC, after an exchange of views.

Compulsory procedures
Section 2 contains provisions for compulsory procedures for dispute settlement leading to
binding decisions.
Article 286 provides that, subject to the provisions laid down under Section 3, compulsory
procedures under Section 2 can be initiated only where no settlement has been achieved by
recourse to Section 1 procedures.
Article 287 lays down the choice of procedure, which is available to disputant parties for
settling their disputes. At the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the LOSC, or any time
thereafter, states have the option of choosing by means of a declaration, one or more of the
forums available for settling their disputes. Scholars have viewed such choice of procedures
differently, and their opinions range from positive support for the smorgasbord approach to
strong criticism for the cafeteria approach. The choice of forums is extends to
(i) ITLOS,
(ii) ICJ,
(iii) an arbitral tribunal, and
(iv) a special arbitral tribunal.

10
The residual jurisdiction is vested on the arbitration procedures under Annex VII in cases
where a state party is not covered by a declaration in force with regard to its choice of
procedure, and where both parties have not selected the same procedure.
Article 288 gives jurisdiction to the forums under Article 287 over all disputes relating to the
interpretation or application of the LOSC submitted to them under Part XV. The jurisdiction
of any court or tribunal also extends to any dispute emanating from any international
agreement related to the purposes of the LOSC. SDC of ITLOS or any other arbitral tribunal
referred to in Part XI Section 5 of the LOSC would have jurisdiction over disputes in
accordance with the procedure specified therein. Should there be any challenge as to the
jurisdiction of a court or tribunal, it is completely within the competence of the forum in
question to decide conclusively on the validity of such jurisdiction.
Article 289 lays down that a court or tribunal having jurisdiction in a dispute involving
scientific or technical issues may at the request of a party or on its own accord choose at least
two scientific or technical experts to guide it. Experts should preferably be chosen from a list
prepared in accordance with Article 2 of Annex VIII, and would not have the right to vote in
the adjudicative process.
Under Article 290, a court or a tribunal to which a dispute has been submitted may prescribe
appropriate provisional measures pending its final decision. The provisional measures may be
revoked or modified when the conditions that led to their prescription no longer subsist. The
provisional measures may be prescribed, modified or revoked only at the request of a party to
the dispute, and after the parties to the dispute have been given an opportunity of being heard.
The other provisions on provisional measures, and the jurisprudence under it so far shall be
discussed in part III of this chapter.
Article 292 provides that a petition for the prompt release of a vessel or its crew may be
brought before any court or tribunal mentioned in Article 287 (1). Such petition could be
brought on the ground that the authorities of the detaining state have acted in contravention of
the provisions of the LOSC in not releasing the vessel or its crew upon posting of a
reasonable bond or other financial security. In case the parties fail to agree upon a forum
within 10 days from the time of detention, the question may be posed before the forum
chosen by the detaining state under Article 287 or finally to ITLOS. Such an application for
prompt release may also be made by or on behalf of the flag state of the vessel. The court or
tribunal is only required to deal with the question of release without going into the merits of
any case that might be pending before a domestic forum of the detaining state involving the

11
same issue. A further discussion on the provisions of Article 292 and the disputes that have
been invoked under it follows in part II of this chapter.
Article 293 provides that the provisions of the LOSC as well as other rules of international
law not incompatible with the provisions of the LOSC would need to be applied by a court or
tribunal under Part XV.433 A court or a tribunal is also empowered to decide a case in
accordance with what is just and good, provided the parties to the dispute agree.
Article 294 provides that a court or a tribunal to which a dispute under Article 297 is
submitted shall examine whether the claim represents an abuse of the legal process or
whether it is prima facie well founded. On receipt of the application, it is the duty of the court
or tribunal to notify the other party or parties to the application so received, and designate a
reasonable time limit within which the parties to the dispute may request it to make a
determination on the nature of the case. Parties to the dispute have been guaranteed their right
to make preliminary objections in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure.
Article 295 provides that local remedies must be exhausted where required by international
law, for disputes submitted under Part XV.
Finally, Article 296 stipulates that the decision of a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over
disputes covered under Section 2 of Part XV are final, and must be complied with by all the
parties to the dispute. Further, any such decision would only extend to and bind the parties to
the case, and only with respect to that particular dispute in which it has been rendered.

Limitations and Exceptions

Section 3 of Part XV contains provisions that limit the applicability of and provide exceptions
to the operation of compulsory dispute settlement procedures. Article 297 lays down some
automatic limitations to the procedures under Section 2, and refers to disputes involving three
specific areas (i) coastal state sovereignty and jurisdiction,441 (ii) marine scientific
research,442 and (iii) fisheries. The provisions dealing with disputes about marine scientific
research and fisheries have a similar approach, and most of such disputes continue to be
covered within the scope of Section 2 leaving only a few specific disputes to be excluded.

12
CHAPTER 3: THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF
THE SEA (ITLOS)
The establishment of the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea is to bring the system of
dispute settlement of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea into full operation. It
is the latest international judicial institutions which was established after the entry into force
of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea in November 1994. It convened its first
session at its seat in Hamburg on 1 October 1996 and began its work from thereon. For a
period of one year of its organizational phase, it has adopted three documents: the Rules of
Tribunal, the Guidelines concerning the Preparation and Presentation of Cases before the
Tribunal, and the Resolution on the Internal Judicial Practice of Cases before the Tribunal .
The Tribunal has decided 13 cases so far. Of these cases, seven cases related to prompt
release proceedings, four cases related to provisional measures, and one case concerning the
Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South Eastern Pacific
Ocean between Chile and European Community, and the other one is the M/V SAIGA case
between Saint Vincent, the Grenadines and Guinea. In accordance with article 15 of the
Statute, the Tribunal may form special chambers. The Tribunal forms annually a Chamber of
Summary Procedure. In prompt release cases under Article 292 of the Convention, it would
be more appropriate in time to come if such cases were referred to the Chamber of
SummaryProcedure. The Tribunal has formed two other Chambers, one to deal with fisheries
disputes and the other with marine environment dispute. In 2000, for example, at the request
of Chile and the European Community, the Tribunal formed a special chamber to deal with a
dispute concerning the conservation and sustainable exploitation of swordfish stocks in the
Southeastern Pacific Ocean. This is a unique case between an international organization and a
State that has been attracted by the contentious jurisdiction of a world court. Under Part XV
of the UNCLOS, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over certain types of legal disputes between
states parties concerning the interpretation and application of law of the sea convention or
international agreement related to the purpose of the Convention. Unless parties agree
otherwise, the Tribunals jurisdiction becomes obligatory in respect of prompt release of
vessels under article 292 and provisional measures under article 290, paragraph 5, of the
Convention. The Seabed Disputes Chamber of the Tribunal enjoys almost exclusive
jurisdiction in relation to activities in the international seabed area6 . It has competence
rationemateriae which goes further and comprises contracts or plans of works, acts of
omission, refusal of contracts, legal issues arising in the negotiation of the contract, and

13
disputes where it is alleged that liability has been incurred, in order to name only subject
matters expressly mentioned in Article 187 of the convention.
The Seabed Disputes Chamber is established as an expert body of the International Tribunal
for Law of the Sea, which has a vital role to settle disputes concerning activities in the deep
seabed mining. The judges who serve in the Chamber are selected among those of the
Tribunal.
The Seabed Disputes Chamber has jurisdiction over disputes with respect to activities in the
Area, as defined in article 1 of the convention, falling within the categories referred to in
article 187 of the convention. Parties to such disputes may be States Parties, the International
seabed Authority, the Enterprise, state enterprise and natural or juridical persons in
accordance with the agreement.

14
 CHAPTER 4: ARBITRATIONS AND SPECIAL ARBITRATIONS

As previous noted, the Arbitration is one of the four means for settlement of disputes
concerning the interpretation or application as stated in article 287 of the Convention. The
Arbitration under Annex VII is used for the settlement of disputes between parties that have
not made a declaration of choosing procedure or for parties that have not accepted the same
procedure for settlement of the dispute. A party to the dispute may bring its case before
Arbitration by written notification addressed to the other party. The notification shall be
accompanied by a statement of the claim and the ground on which it is based. The Arbitration
is composed of five members preferably chosen from the list of arbitrators. A list of
arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Every State Party shall be entitled to nominate four arbitrators to constitute the list. The
arbitrators, which the parties have nominated, shall have similar qualification to those
nominated for member of the Tribunal. When the case is brought before the Arbitration, the
party instituting the proceedings shall appoints one member to be chosen preferably from the
list of arbitrators, who may be its national. The other party against which the case is made,
within 30 days of receipt of the notification addressed by the party that brings the case, also
appoints one member among its nationals in the list. The other three members shall be
appointed by agreement between the parties and they shall be chosen preferably from the list
and shall be nationals of the third States unless the parties otherwise agree. The parties will
choose one among the three members as a President. If the party against which the case is
brought does not do so within that period or the parties are not able to reach an agreement on
the appointment, the President of the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea, upon request
and in consultation with the parties, shall make the necessary appointment. In accordance
with article 5 of Annex VII of the Convention, the arbitral tribunal shall determine its own
procedure, assuring to each party a full opportunity to be heard and to present the case. All
decisions of the arbitral tribunal demand a majority vote of its members. In case there is an
equality of vote the President will have a casting vote. The award mentions the subject matter
of the dispute and states the reasons on which it is based, and the name of the members who
have participated. The award shall be final and without appeal, unless the parties to the
dispute have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure. It will be binding upon the parties.

Special Arbitration A special arbitral tribunal is established under Annex VIII of the
Convention. It is also one of the four means for settling dispute concerning the interpretation

15
or application of the articles of the Convention relating to: (1) fisheries, (2) protection and
preservation of the marine environment, (3) marine scientific research, or (4) navigation,
including pollution from vessels and by dumping. A party to the dispute may submit their
case to the special arbitral tribunal by written notification addressed to the other party or
parties to the dispute. A statement of the claim and the grounds on which it is based
accompanies the notification. The special arbitral tribunal consists of five members to be
preferably chosen from a list of experts. The list of experts shall be established and
maintained in respect of each of the field of fisheries, protection and preservation of the
marine environment, marine scientific research, and navigation, including pollution from
vessels and by dumping. The list of expert shall be drawn up and maintained, in the field of
fisheries by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in the field of
protection and preservation of the marine environment by the United Nations Environment
Programme, in the field of marine scientific research by the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission, in the field of navigation, including pollution from vessels and
by dumping, by the International Maritime Organization. Each state party is entitled to
nominate two experts for each field to constitute the appropriate list. They are required to
have competence in the legal, scientific or technical aspect of such field, and enjoy the
highest reputation for fairness and integrity. When the case is submitted to the special arbitral
tribunal, the party instituting the proceeding appoints two members, of who one may be its
national, from the list of experts relating to the matters in the dispute. The other party against
which the case is brought, within 30 days of receipt of notification addressed by the party that
submitted the case appoints two members to be chosen preferably from the list relating to the
matters in the dispute, one of whom may be its national. The parties to the dispute shall by
agreement appoint the President of the special arbitral tribunal, chosen preferably from the
appropriate list, who shall be national of the third State. If the parties to the dispute are unable
to reach agreement on the appointment of the President, the Secretary General of the United
Nations, at a request of a party to the dispute, shall appoint the President. Likewise, If the
party against which the case is made has not made appointment of two members to be chosen
preferably from the appropriate list or lists relating to the matters in the dispute, the Secretary
General of the United Nations, at the request of the party instituting the proceedings, shall
make an appointment. The procedures of the special arbitral tribunal to decide the case
submitted by the parties to the dispute are not different from those of the arbitral tribunal82.
In conclusion, the establishment of United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea and of the
International Tribunal for law of the sea clearly shows that the world has established
16
legislative and judiciary power in the field of ocean affairs. At the same time, State Parties
that wish to use this new institution, have to make their declaration of choosing the
procedures for settling their dispute. It strongly believes that the International Tribunal and
other three procedures will play an important role to assure a peaceful maritime boundary and
the sustainable development in the sea.

17
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The system established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to the
settlement of law of the sea disputes certainly constitutes a step forward in comparison with
the traditional dispute settlement mechanisms. It forms an integral part of the Convention and
includes compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. Of course, several major
disputes are exempted from compulsory dispute settlement. This cannot be seen as a negative
development. Some disputes require political decisions within the framework of the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Direct negotiations between the parties to a dispute play a
great role in this regard. While providing for more than one adjudicating body, the drafters of
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea did not perceive any danger to the unity of
international law. These bodies fulfil complementary needs. It is to be hoped that each body,
although autonomous in itself, will have due regard to the decisions rendered by the other
adjudicating bodies, thus ensuring the harmonious development of the law of the sea. At the
same time, it may be noted that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not foresee
uniformity of interpretation as a necessary objective.

Little information is available regarding the extent to which States Parties have made use of
the dispute settlement mechanisms provided for in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The effect of the provisions in Part XV, section 1 is necessarily a matter of speculation. There
has been very limited invocation of the compulsory procedures provided for in Part XV,
section 2. Whereas, as of January 2011, 18 cases have been submitted to the ITLOS (of these,
only four cases were instituted by special agreement of the parties and the remaining on
account of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ITLOS), five cases involving important issues
concerning the law of the sea have been submitted to arbitration. It is doubtful as to how far
these submissions to arbitration may be seen as preferred procedure of States Parties. The
frequency with which dispute settlement mechanisms are invoked is not the only way to
measure their significance. In some cases the very existence of these mechanisms has acted
as a restraint on arbitrary actions of States or promoted voluntary compliance.
Under-utilization of the dispute settlement provisions, if any, is not due to any serious
shortcomings or ambiguity in such provisions. The underlying reasons for this are political
rather than legal. In the final analysis, these provisions, however perfect they are, can come to
life only when litigants make use of them. It is worth noting that the dispute settlement
mechanisms in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, when tested, have underlined their

18
usefulness in the resolution of law of the sea disputes by peaceful means in accordance with
Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations (Art. 279 UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea). What is also important to realize is that all disputing parties under the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, whether they be States, international organizations, or
multinational corporations, can seek redress through independent judicial institutions. This is
a step forward in the development of a coherent international legal order based on justice and
equity.
States Parties could also usefully explore having recourse to a dispute-settlement body as a
partner in preventive diplomacy rather than as an alternative of last resort. The experience of
the ITLOS in this regard is a useful pointer in this direction.

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Convention:
United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.

Writings:

MH Nordquist (ed) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Nijhoff
Dordrecht 198589) vol 5.
LB Sohn The Importance of the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in MH Nordquist and JN Moore
(eds), Entry into Force of the Law of the Sea Convention (Nijhoff The Hague 1995)
26577.
J Charney The Implications of Expanding International Dispute Settlement Systems:
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (1996) 90 AJIL 6975.
AE Boyle Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of
Fragmentation and Jurisdiction (1997) 46 ICLQ 3754.
TA Mensah The Dispute Settlement Regime of the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (1998) 2 MaxPlanckYrbkUNL 30723.
JG Collier and V Lowe Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea in JG Collier and
V Lowe (eds) The Settlement of Disputes in International Law (Oxford University
Press Oxford 1999) 8495.

Website:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/settlement_of_disputes.htm

https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/law-of-the-sea-dispute-settlement-

mechanism/

http://wcl.american.libguides.com/c.php?g=563260&p=3877822

20