File #2605: "2019_Book_InterpretationsOfTheUnitedNati.pdf"
Text
1|Preface|5
1|Contents|7
1|The Contribution of Benedetto Conforti to the International Law of the Sea|10
2|1 Introduction. The Functionalist Theory in the Book “Il regime giuridico dei mari”|11
2|2 The Geneva Codification and the Application of the Functionalistic Theory to Individual Cases|12
2|3 His Writings During the Period of Crisis of the Principle of “Freedom of the Seas” and of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea|14
2|4 Italy, the Mediterranean and the Law of the Sea|17
2|5 His Final Writings|19
2|References|20
1|The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’ in the International Jurisprudence Relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|23
2|1 Introduction|23
2|2 The Relevance of Good Faith|25
2|3 The Interplay Between the Interpretative Criteria Under Article 31(1) VCLT|27
2|4 Systemic Integration|35
2|5 Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of UNCLOS|41
2|6 Conclusions|43
2|References|45
1|Part I: The International Court of Justice and the Interpretation of UNCLOS|47
2|La coutume, la CNUDM et la Cour internationale de Justice|48
3|1 Introduction|48
3|2 Recension des dispositions de la CNUDM qualifiées de coutumières par la Cour internationale de Justice|52
3|3 Une méthode d’identification parfois contestable|55
3|4 Conclusion|60
3|References|62
2|L’interprétation de l’article 121 de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer par la Cour internationale de Justice|65
3|1 Introduction|65
3|2 Une interprétation à la lumière vacillante du droit coutumier|68
4|2.1 Un éclairage sur la définition et le régime des îles|68
4|2.2 Un contre-jour sur le concept de ‘rochers’|72
3|3 Une interprétation à l’ombre du droit de la délimitation maritime|75
4|3.1 Une éclipse partielle du régime des îles dans le cadre des délimitations décidées|75
4|3.2 Un assombrissement de la distinction entre ‘îles’ et ‘rochers’|79
3|References|82
1|Part II: The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea and the Interpretation of UNCLOS|84
2|The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea|129
3|1 Introduction|129
3|2 The Jurisdictional Test and Case 17|131
3|3 The Debate in Case 21|132
3|4 The Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea|136
3|5 Concluding Remarks|139
3|References|141
2|The Interpretative Value of the Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind and the Interests and Needs of Developing Countries in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|142
3|1 The Development-Oriented Nature of the Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea|143
3|2 The Legal and Institutional Regime After the 1994 Implementation Agreement|144
3|3 The Effective Participation of Developing States in the Activities in the Area as the Cornerstone of Part XI of the Convention|148
3|4 A Critical Reappraisal of the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011 on Responsibilities and Obligations of State Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area|150
3|References|153
2|Governance of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea: The Role of the Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention|85
3|1 Introduction|85
3|2 The INJUGOVIN of ITLOS: SPLOS|88
4|2.1 A ‘Constitution for the Seas and Oceans’ Without Strong Organizational Structures|88
4|2.2 SPLOS as a ‘Specialized Mini General Assembly’|89
4|2.3 Nature, Functions and Powers of SPLOS|90
4|2.4 SPLOS Practice|90
3|3 Some Concluding Observations|94
3|References|95
2|The Contribution of the ITLOS to Strengthening the Regime for the Protection of the Marine Environment|97
3|1 Introduction|98
3|2 Environmental Principles in the UNCLOS|99
3|3 Relevant Case-Law of the ITLOS|100
4|3.1 Validity of the Precautionary Approach|100
4|3.2 Duty to Cooperate|101
4|3.3 Scope of Environmental Principles|102
3|4 Assessment|108
3|References|110
2|The Requirement of Urgency in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS Concerning Provisional Measures|111
3|1 Introduction|111
3|2 The Requirement of Urgency in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS|113
4|2.1 Urgency as a Distinct Requirement|113
4|2.2 Provisional Measures Without Reference to Urgency|115
4|2.3 Summary|118
3|3 The Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Irreparable Prejudice|118
4|3.1 Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Risk of Irreparable Prejudice in the ICJ Jurisprudence|118
4|3.2 Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Risk of Irreparable Prejudice in the ITLOS Jurisprudence|120
4|3.3 Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Considerations of Humanity in the ITLOS Jurisprudence|122
4|3.4 Summary|123
3|4 The Time Frame for Determining the Urgency of the Situation|124
4|4.1 Interpretation of Art. 290(1) and (5)|124
4|4.2 Two Types of Urgency|125
3|5 Conclusions|127
3|References|128
1|Part III: Arbitral Tribunals and the Interpretation of UNCLOS|156
2|The Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: The Influence of the Land Sovereignty Dispute|192
3|1 Background. The Dispute Between Mauritius and the United Kingdom on Sovereignty Over the Chagos Archipelago|193
3|2 The Award in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration|195
3|3 Ambiguities of the Award with Respect to the Determination of the Scope of Jurisdiction of Part XV UNCLOS Courts and Tribunals|198
4|3.1 The Dependence of the Identity of the Coastal State on the Land Sovereignty Dispute|199
4|3.2 The Determination of the Real Dispute Underlying Mauritius’ First and Second Submissions|204
4|3.3 The Tribunal’s Approach in Determining That It Had Jurisdiction in Relation to Mauritius’ Fourth Submission|205
3|4 The Alleged Incompatibility of the Marine Protected Area with the UNCLOS: The Persistent Relevance of the Land Sovereignty Dispute|209
4|4.1 The Influence of the Land Sovereignty Dispute on the Determination of the Source of Mauritius’ Rights: The Tribunal’s Cautiousness About the Application of the Lancaster House Undertakings|210
4|4.2 Ambiguities in the Interpretation of Articles 2(3) and 56(2) UNCLOS|213
4|4.3 Ambiguities in the Interpretation of Article 194 UNCLOS|215
3|5 A contrario. The Less the Land Sovereignty Dispute Was Relevant, the Clearer the Interpretation of the UNCLOS Was: The Obligation to Exchange Views under Article 283|218
3|6 The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration Beyond the International Law of the Sea|219
3|References|223
2|The Law of Maritime Delimitation in the Croatia/Slovenia Final Award|225
3|1 Introduction|225
3|2 Overview of the Dispute and Previous Attempts at Resolution|227
4|2.1 Brief Remarks on the Tribunal’s Task and the Applicable Law|230
3|3 Determinations in Respect of the Bay of Piran|232
4|3.1 Analysis|235
5|3.1.1 The Status of the Waters Within the Bay|237
5|3.1.2 Delimitation of the Waters Within the Bay|245
5|3.1.3 Regime for the Use of the Bay|247
3|4 Delimitation of the Territorial Sea|249
3|5 Slovenia’s Junction to the High Seas|255
3|6 Concluding Observations|261
3|References|262
2|The Provisional Measures in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident Case|157
3|1 The Orders on Provisional Measures in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident Case|157
3|2 The prima facie Jurisdiction and the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal|159
3|3 The Follow Up of the Order Adopted ex Art. 290(5) UNCLOS and the Resulting ‘Arrangement’ in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident Case|160
3|4 The Situation of Marine Latorre|163
3|5 Evaluation on the Question 5 Put at the End of the Hearings|164
3|6 Considerations of Humanity in the AT Order: Judiciary Empathy or Legal Criterion?|166
3|7 The Interpretation of Art. 293 UNCLOS and the International Customary Rules|168
3|8 Concluding Remarks|170
3|References|171
2|Non-participation in Arbitral Proceedings Under Annex VII United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Arctic Sunrise and South China Sea Compared|173
3|1 Introduction|173
3|2 Law on Non-participation|174
3|3 Arctic Sunrise|175
3|4 South China Sea|183
3|5 Comparing the Two Cases|189
3|References|190
1|Part IV: The Interpretation of UNCLOS by Other International Tribunals and Bodies|266
2|La Cour de justice et la représentation de l’Union européenne devant le Tribunal international du droit de la mer|303
3|1 Introduction|303
3|2 Les faiblesses de l’arrêt|305
4|2.1 Le non examen de la question de la recevabilité de la requête|305
4|2.2 L’insuffisance de l’argumentation|307
3|3 Les limites de la juridiction de la Cour|308
4|3.1 Les carences des traités|308
4|3.2 La nature de la question|310
3|4 Les limites de la saisine du juge|311
4|4.1 La faiblesse de la Commission|312
4|4.2 La désunion de la représentation extérieure|313
3|References|315
2|The Relationship Between International Trade Law and the Law of the Sea in the WTO Dispute Settlement Practice|317
3|1 Introduction|318
3|2 The Reference to UNCLOS in the Appellate Body Report on US-Shrimp|320
3|3 The Relevance of External Treaties for the Interpretation of WTO Law|323
3|4 Overlapping Jurisdictions Between UNCLOS and WTO: The Chile-Swordfish Case and the EU-Herring Dispute|326
3|5 The Interaction Between UNCLOS and WTO in the Light of Art. XX GATT|331
3|6 The Implications of the Doha Development Round for the Relationship Between UNCLOS and WTO|336
3|References|339
2|Les liens entre la CEDH et le droit de la mer dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme|267
3|1 Introduction|267
3|2 La notion de « juridiction » à la lumière des pouvoirs d’un Etat contractant sur les espaces maritimes|268
3|3 L’interprétation de la CEDH par rapport au droit de la mer|272
3|4 L’interprétation du droit de la mer par la Cour européenne|275
3|5 Conclusion|280
3|References|281
2|The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|282
3|1 Introduction|282
3|2 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the European Union Legal Order|284
3|3 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the European Court of Justice|286
3|4 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in European Court of Justice Case Law: From the Commission v. United Kingdom Case (C-146/89, July 1991) to the Parliament v. Council Case (C-263/14, June 2016)|288
3|5 Final Considerations|299
3|References|300
1|Part V: Specific Issues Related to the Interpretation of UNCLOS|342
2|The Use of Experts by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Annex VII Arbitral Tribunals|400
3|1 Introduction|400
3|2 The Role of ex parte Experts Under UNCLOS Litigation: A Point of Convergence|402
3|3 The Assessor-Like Expert of Art. 289 UNCLOS: “An Innovation” with No Practice|405
3|4 Tribunal-Appointed Experts: Towards a “Common” Practice?|407
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|411
3|References|412
2|‘Considerations of Humanity’ in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS and UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunals|414
3|1 The Origin and Development of ‘Considerations of Humanity’ in International Law and Jurisprudence|414
3|2 ‘Considerations of Humanity’ in ITLOS Jurisprudence|421
3|3 ‘Considerations of Humanity’ in the Jurisprudence of UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunals|429
3|4 Final Considerations|434
3|References|436
2|Discretionary Power of Coastal States and the Control of Its Compliance with International Law by International Tribunals|343
3|1 Introduction|343
3|2 Limitations to the Judicial Control Deriving from the Nature of the Discretionary Power of the Coastal State|344
4|2.1 Controlling the Respect by the Coastal State of the Limits of Its Discretion|344
4|2.2 Standards Applied by the Judge|349
5|2.2.1 Reasonableness as a Standard of Judicial Review|349
5|2.2.2 The Standard of Reasonableness in the Provisions of the UNCLOS|352
4|2.3 The Degree (or Intensity) of Judicial Review: Restricted Judicial Review|353
3|3 Procedural Limitations to Judicial Control Provided in the UNCLOS, Particularly in Art. 297|357
4|3.1 The Scope of the Limitation in the Light of Recent Case Law|357
5|3.1.1 Scope of Disputes Under Art. 297(2) and (3)|357
5|3.1.2 Categories of Disputes Concerning Sovereign Rights or Jurisdiction of the Coastal State Which Are Subject to Compulsory Procedures|360
5|3.1.3 Exhaustive Enumeration of Cases Subject to Compulsory Settlement of Disputes?|363
4|3.2 Procedural Aspects in the Light of Recent Jurisprudence|366
5|3.2.1 The Objection to Jurisdiction on the Basis of Art. 297(2) or (3)|366
5|3.2.2 The Exception to Jurisdiction in Certain Incidental and Special Proceedings|368
5|3.2.3 Relationship Between Arts. 297 and 298|372
5|3.2.4 The Application of Jurisdictional Exceptions Pertaining to Discretionary Power Beyond the UNCLOS|372
3|4 Concluding Remarks|373
3|References|374
2|Between Consent and Effectiveness: Incidental Determinations and the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Tribunals|376
3|1 Introduction|376
3|2 Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Proceedings|377
3|3 The Power to Make Incidental Determinations Over Substantive Issues|382
3|4 Scope and Limits of Incidental Determinations: The Chagos Test|385
3|5 Legal Effects of Incidental Determinations|392
3|6 Concluding Remarks|396
3|References|397
1|Contents|7
1|The Contribution of Benedetto Conforti to the International Law of the Sea|10
2|1 Introduction. The Functionalist Theory in the Book “Il regime giuridico dei mari”|11
2|2 The Geneva Codification and the Application of the Functionalistic Theory to Individual Cases|12
2|3 His Writings During the Period of Crisis of the Principle of “Freedom of the Seas” and of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea|14
2|4 Italy, the Mediterranean and the Law of the Sea|17
2|5 His Final Writings|19
2|References|20
1|The ‘General Rule of Interpretation’ in the International Jurisprudence Relating to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|23
2|1 Introduction|23
2|2 The Relevance of Good Faith|25
2|3 The Interplay Between the Interpretative Criteria Under Article 31(1) VCLT|27
2|4 Systemic Integration|35
2|5 Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of UNCLOS|41
2|6 Conclusions|43
2|References|45
1|Part I: The International Court of Justice and the Interpretation of UNCLOS|47
2|La coutume, la CNUDM et la Cour internationale de Justice|48
3|1 Introduction|48
3|2 Recension des dispositions de la CNUDM qualifiées de coutumières par la Cour internationale de Justice|52
3|3 Une méthode d’identification parfois contestable|55
3|4 Conclusion|60
3|References|62
2|L’interprétation de l’article 121 de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer par la Cour internationale de Justice|65
3|1 Introduction|65
3|2 Une interprétation à la lumière vacillante du droit coutumier|68
4|2.1 Un éclairage sur la définition et le régime des îles|68
4|2.2 Un contre-jour sur le concept de ‘rochers’|72
3|3 Une interprétation à l’ombre du droit de la délimitation maritime|75
4|3.1 Une éclipse partielle du régime des îles dans le cadre des délimitations décidées|75
4|3.2 Un assombrissement de la distinction entre ‘îles’ et ‘rochers’|79
3|References|82
1|Part II: The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea and the Interpretation of UNCLOS|84
2|The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea|129
3|1 Introduction|129
3|2 The Jurisdictional Test and Case 17|131
3|3 The Debate in Case 21|132
3|4 The Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea|136
3|5 Concluding Remarks|139
3|References|141
2|The Interpretative Value of the Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind and the Interests and Needs of Developing Countries in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|142
3|1 The Development-Oriented Nature of the Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea|143
3|2 The Legal and Institutional Regime After the 1994 Implementation Agreement|144
3|3 The Effective Participation of Developing States in the Activities in the Area as the Cornerstone of Part XI of the Convention|148
3|4 A Critical Reappraisal of the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011 on Responsibilities and Obligations of State Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area|150
3|References|153
2|Governance of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea: The Role of the Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention|85
3|1 Introduction|85
3|2 The INJUGOVIN of ITLOS: SPLOS|88
4|2.1 A ‘Constitution for the Seas and Oceans’ Without Strong Organizational Structures|88
4|2.2 SPLOS as a ‘Specialized Mini General Assembly’|89
4|2.3 Nature, Functions and Powers of SPLOS|90
4|2.4 SPLOS Practice|90
3|3 Some Concluding Observations|94
3|References|95
2|The Contribution of the ITLOS to Strengthening the Regime for the Protection of the Marine Environment|97
3|1 Introduction|98
3|2 Environmental Principles in the UNCLOS|99
3|3 Relevant Case-Law of the ITLOS|100
4|3.1 Validity of the Precautionary Approach|100
4|3.2 Duty to Cooperate|101
4|3.3 Scope of Environmental Principles|102
3|4 Assessment|108
3|References|110
2|The Requirement of Urgency in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS Concerning Provisional Measures|111
3|1 Introduction|111
3|2 The Requirement of Urgency in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS|113
4|2.1 Urgency as a Distinct Requirement|113
4|2.2 Provisional Measures Without Reference to Urgency|115
4|2.3 Summary|118
3|3 The Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Irreparable Prejudice|118
4|3.1 Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Risk of Irreparable Prejudice in the ICJ Jurisprudence|118
4|3.2 Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Risk of Irreparable Prejudice in the ITLOS Jurisprudence|120
4|3.3 Inter-Linkage Between Urgency and Considerations of Humanity in the ITLOS Jurisprudence|122
4|3.4 Summary|123
3|4 The Time Frame for Determining the Urgency of the Situation|124
4|4.1 Interpretation of Art. 290(1) and (5)|124
4|4.2 Two Types of Urgency|125
3|5 Conclusions|127
3|References|128
1|Part III: Arbitral Tribunals and the Interpretation of UNCLOS|156
2|The Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: The Influence of the Land Sovereignty Dispute|192
3|1 Background. The Dispute Between Mauritius and the United Kingdom on Sovereignty Over the Chagos Archipelago|193
3|2 The Award in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration|195
3|3 Ambiguities of the Award with Respect to the Determination of the Scope of Jurisdiction of Part XV UNCLOS Courts and Tribunals|198
4|3.1 The Dependence of the Identity of the Coastal State on the Land Sovereignty Dispute|199
4|3.2 The Determination of the Real Dispute Underlying Mauritius’ First and Second Submissions|204
4|3.3 The Tribunal’s Approach in Determining That It Had Jurisdiction in Relation to Mauritius’ Fourth Submission|205
3|4 The Alleged Incompatibility of the Marine Protected Area with the UNCLOS: The Persistent Relevance of the Land Sovereignty Dispute|209
4|4.1 The Influence of the Land Sovereignty Dispute on the Determination of the Source of Mauritius’ Rights: The Tribunal’s Cautiousness About the Application of the Lancaster House Undertakings|210
4|4.2 Ambiguities in the Interpretation of Articles 2(3) and 56(2) UNCLOS|213
4|4.3 Ambiguities in the Interpretation of Article 194 UNCLOS|215
3|5 A contrario. The Less the Land Sovereignty Dispute Was Relevant, the Clearer the Interpretation of the UNCLOS Was: The Obligation to Exchange Views under Article 283|218
3|6 The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration Beyond the International Law of the Sea|219
3|References|223
2|The Law of Maritime Delimitation in the Croatia/Slovenia Final Award|225
3|1 Introduction|225
3|2 Overview of the Dispute and Previous Attempts at Resolution|227
4|2.1 Brief Remarks on the Tribunal’s Task and the Applicable Law|230
3|3 Determinations in Respect of the Bay of Piran|232
4|3.1 Analysis|235
5|3.1.1 The Status of the Waters Within the Bay|237
5|3.1.2 Delimitation of the Waters Within the Bay|245
5|3.1.3 Regime for the Use of the Bay|247
3|4 Delimitation of the Territorial Sea|249
3|5 Slovenia’s Junction to the High Seas|255
3|6 Concluding Observations|261
3|References|262
2|The Provisional Measures in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident Case|157
3|1 The Orders on Provisional Measures in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident Case|157
3|2 The prima facie Jurisdiction and the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal|159
3|3 The Follow Up of the Order Adopted ex Art. 290(5) UNCLOS and the Resulting ‘Arrangement’ in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident Case|160
3|4 The Situation of Marine Latorre|163
3|5 Evaluation on the Question 5 Put at the End of the Hearings|164
3|6 Considerations of Humanity in the AT Order: Judiciary Empathy or Legal Criterion?|166
3|7 The Interpretation of Art. 293 UNCLOS and the International Customary Rules|168
3|8 Concluding Remarks|170
3|References|171
2|Non-participation in Arbitral Proceedings Under Annex VII United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Arctic Sunrise and South China Sea Compared|173
3|1 Introduction|173
3|2 Law on Non-participation|174
3|3 Arctic Sunrise|175
3|4 South China Sea|183
3|5 Comparing the Two Cases|189
3|References|190
1|Part IV: The Interpretation of UNCLOS by Other International Tribunals and Bodies|266
2|La Cour de justice et la représentation de l’Union européenne devant le Tribunal international du droit de la mer|303
3|1 Introduction|303
3|2 Les faiblesses de l’arrêt|305
4|2.1 Le non examen de la question de la recevabilité de la requête|305
4|2.2 L’insuffisance de l’argumentation|307
3|3 Les limites de la juridiction de la Cour|308
4|3.1 Les carences des traités|308
4|3.2 La nature de la question|310
3|4 Les limites de la saisine du juge|311
4|4.1 La faiblesse de la Commission|312
4|4.2 La désunion de la représentation extérieure|313
3|References|315
2|The Relationship Between International Trade Law and the Law of the Sea in the WTO Dispute Settlement Practice|317
3|1 Introduction|318
3|2 The Reference to UNCLOS in the Appellate Body Report on US-Shrimp|320
3|3 The Relevance of External Treaties for the Interpretation of WTO Law|323
3|4 Overlapping Jurisdictions Between UNCLOS and WTO: The Chile-Swordfish Case and the EU-Herring Dispute|326
3|5 The Interaction Between UNCLOS and WTO in the Light of Art. XX GATT|331
3|6 The Implications of the Doha Development Round for the Relationship Between UNCLOS and WTO|336
3|References|339
2|Les liens entre la CEDH et le droit de la mer dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme|267
3|1 Introduction|267
3|2 La notion de « juridiction » à la lumière des pouvoirs d’un Etat contractant sur les espaces maritimes|268
3|3 L’interprétation de la CEDH par rapport au droit de la mer|272
3|4 L’interprétation du droit de la mer par la Cour européenne|275
3|5 Conclusion|280
3|References|281
2|The European Court of Justice and the Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea|282
3|1 Introduction|282
3|2 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the European Union Legal Order|284
3|3 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the European Court of Justice|286
3|4 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in European Court of Justice Case Law: From the Commission v. United Kingdom Case (C-146/89, July 1991) to the Parliament v. Council Case (C-263/14, June 2016)|288
3|5 Final Considerations|299
3|References|300
1|Part V: Specific Issues Related to the Interpretation of UNCLOS|342
2|The Use of Experts by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Annex VII Arbitral Tribunals|400
3|1 Introduction|400
3|2 The Role of ex parte Experts Under UNCLOS Litigation: A Point of Convergence|402
3|3 The Assessor-Like Expert of Art. 289 UNCLOS: “An Innovation” with No Practice|405
3|4 Tribunal-Appointed Experts: Towards a “Common” Practice?|407
3|5 Conclusive Remarks|411
3|References|412
2|‘Considerations of Humanity’ in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS and UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunals|414
3|1 The Origin and Development of ‘Considerations of Humanity’ in International Law and Jurisprudence|414
3|2 ‘Considerations of Humanity’ in ITLOS Jurisprudence|421
3|3 ‘Considerations of Humanity’ in the Jurisprudence of UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunals|429
3|4 Final Considerations|434
3|References|436
2|Discretionary Power of Coastal States and the Control of Its Compliance with International Law by International Tribunals|343
3|1 Introduction|343
3|2 Limitations to the Judicial Control Deriving from the Nature of the Discretionary Power of the Coastal State|344
4|2.1 Controlling the Respect by the Coastal State of the Limits of Its Discretion|344
4|2.2 Standards Applied by the Judge|349
5|2.2.1 Reasonableness as a Standard of Judicial Review|349
5|2.2.2 The Standard of Reasonableness in the Provisions of the UNCLOS|352
4|2.3 The Degree (or Intensity) of Judicial Review: Restricted Judicial Review|353
3|3 Procedural Limitations to Judicial Control Provided in the UNCLOS, Particularly in Art. 297|357
4|3.1 The Scope of the Limitation in the Light of Recent Case Law|357
5|3.1.1 Scope of Disputes Under Art. 297(2) and (3)|357
5|3.1.2 Categories of Disputes Concerning Sovereign Rights or Jurisdiction of the Coastal State Which Are Subject to Compulsory Procedures|360
5|3.1.3 Exhaustive Enumeration of Cases Subject to Compulsory Settlement of Disputes?|363
4|3.2 Procedural Aspects in the Light of Recent Jurisprudence|366
5|3.2.1 The Objection to Jurisdiction on the Basis of Art. 297(2) or (3)|366
5|3.2.2 The Exception to Jurisdiction in Certain Incidental and Special Proceedings|368
5|3.2.3 Relationship Between Arts. 297 and 298|372
5|3.2.4 The Application of Jurisdictional Exceptions Pertaining to Discretionary Power Beyond the UNCLOS|372
3|4 Concluding Remarks|373
3|References|374
2|Between Consent and Effectiveness: Incidental Determinations and the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Tribunals|376
3|1 Introduction|376
3|2 Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Proceedings|377
3|3 The Power to Make Incidental Determinations Over Substantive Issues|382
3|4 Scope and Limits of Incidental Determinations: The Chagos Test|385
3|5 Legal Effects of Incidental Determinations|392
3|6 Concluding Remarks|396
3|References|397