Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:31:50.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands v. Russia); In re Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands v. Russia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eugene Kontorovich
Eugene Kontorovich*
Affiliation:
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 96 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Arctic Sunrise (Neth. v. Russ.), ITLOS Case No. 22, Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures, Order of Nov. 22, 2013 [hereinafter Prov. Measures]. The order and other ITLOS documents cited herein are available at the tribunal’s website, http://www.itlos.org.

2 In re Arctic Sunrise (Neth. v. Russ.), PCA Case No. 2014-02, Merits (UNCLOS Annex VII Arb. Trib. Aug. 14, 2014) [hereinafter Merits]. The award and other documents relating to the arbitration cited herein are available at the tribunal’s website, http://www.pca-cpa.org.

3 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397, available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/ [hereinafter UNCLOS].

4 See ITLOS Statute, UNCLOS, supra note 3, Annex VI, Art. 28; see also ICJ Statute, Art. 53.

5 Prov. Measures, para. 41 (quoting Russian Federation, Declaration [under Art. 298] (Mar. 12, 1997), in UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Declarations and Statements, at http://www.un.org/depts/los/conventions_agreements/convention_declarations.htm); see also Anna Dolidze, The Arctic Sunrise and NGOs in International Judicial Proceedings, ASIL INSIGHT (Jan. 3, 2014).

6 Netherlands Report on Compliance with the Provisional Measures Prescribed by the Tribunal on 22 November 2013, Arctic Sunrise (Neth. v. Russ.) (Dec. 2, 2013).

7 Violence against and endangerment of such platforms is dealt with specifically in the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Mar. 10, 1988, S. Treaty Doc. NO. 101-1 (1989), 1678 UNTS 304 [hereinafter Fixed Platforms Protocol]. The protocol does not provide for authority to seize vessels in the EEZ. Merits, para. 278.

8 See Fixed Platforms Protocol, supra note 7.

9 Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, 11 UN GAOR Supp. No. 9 at 253, 285, para. 1(ii), UN Doc. A/3159 (1956).

10 M/V Saiga (No. 2)(St. Vincentv.Guinea), ITLOS Case No.2, Merits Judgment of July 1, 1999, 2 ITLOS Rep. 4, para. 147.

11 See Allen, Craig H., Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A Functional Interpretation Adaptable to Emerging Maritime Law Enforcement Technologies and Practices, 20 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 309, 320 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (noting U.S. position that hot pursuit remains continuous despite periods of observational interruption).

12 Gilmore, William C., Hot Pursuit: The Case of R. v. Mills and Others, 44 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 949, 951–52, 955–56 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See UNCLOS, Report of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of States Parties, UN Doc. SPLOS/277 (July 14, 2014). In discussing ITLOS’s annual report, several delegations vaguely observed that “the importance of participating in [dispute resolution] procedures and complying with the binding decisions resulting therefrom was emphasized.” Id., para. 36.

14 In re Arbitration Between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Oct. 29, 2015).