Category Archives: Jurisprudence

PCA: Timor-Leste and Australia reach agreement on maritime boundary treaty

Through a series of confidential meetings with a Conciliation Commission in The Hague, Timor-Leste and Australia have reached agreement on the complete text of a draft treaty which delimits the maritime boundary between them in the Timor Sea. This draft treaty also addresses the legal status of the Greater Sunrise gas field, the establishment of a Special Regime for Greater Sunrise, a pathway to the development of the resource, and the sharing of the resulting revenue. The Parties will now pursue their domestic approval processes in order to proceed with the signing of the Treaty. More information on this treaty is available here.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice

ITLOS: Judgment on the Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire Dispute

The Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, constituted to deal with the Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), delivered its Judgment. Among other points, it unanimously rejected Ghana’s claim that Côte d’Ivoire is estopped from objecting to the “customary equidistance boundary” and it found that Ghana did not violate the sovereign rights of Côte d’Ivoire. The Award may found here. A reaction by Tullow Oil plc, who explores the Tweneboa Enyenra Ntomme (TEN) oil fields on Ghana’s side of the delimitation line, may be found here.

ITLOS

The single maritime boundary, taken from the Judgment (p. 150).

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence, Non-governmental Organizations

PCA: Timor-Leste and Australia Maritime Boundary Conciliation (update)

The conciliation proceedings between the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, pursuant to article 298 and Annex V of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has reached “agreement on the central elements of a maritime boundary delimitation between them in the Timor Sea”, on the 30 August 2017.

For more information see Press Release No. 9, and, generally, PCA Case No. 2016-10. Previous reporting may be found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence

PCA: Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) Award on Compensation

The Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS in the matter of the Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) has rendered its Award on Compensation (see previous posts here and here). In a decision dated 10 July 2017, the Tribunal unanimously determined the quantum of compensation owed by Russia to the Netherlands. The Award may be found here. The press release, which also features the quantum of compensation, may be found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence

PCA: Arbitration Between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia

In the arbitration concerning a territorial and maritime dispute between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, the Tribunal issued a unanimous Final Award on 29 June 2017.

For more information see the Final Award, press release and case page. Croatia has responded it is not bound by the Final Award and shall not implement it, here. Slovenia’s responses may be found here.

slo-croPCA

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence

PCA: Coastal State Rights (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation) – Rules of Procedure Adopted

On the 12 May 2017, the arbitration tribunal in respect of, Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), PCA Case No. 2017-06, held its first procedural meeting. On the 18 May 2017 the Rules of Procedure were adopted.

For more information see the press release and Rules of Procedure. The Case View may be found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence

WTO: US ‘Dolphin Safe’ Labeling – Retaliatory Measures

The World Trade Organization (WTO) arbitrator’s decision, released 25 April 2017, in respect of DS381: US — Tuna II (Mexico), provided “Mexico may request authorization from the [Dispute Settlement Body] DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations […] at a level not exceeding USD 163.23 million per annum”. The dispute originally arises from the 2013 US tuna labeling policy (since modified and further challenged), which was used as the basis to assess the “level of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Mexico”.

For further information see here, and the reported decision here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence