Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:04:42.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Bernard H. Oxman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2019

Bernard H. Oxman
Bernard H. Oxman*
Affiliation:
University of Miami School of Law.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The chair of the panel, Professor Alina Miron, asked Professor Oxman to address the following: Undoubtedly the first use of the mechanism of compulsory conciliation under Annex V of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by Timor-Leste was a tremendous success, though not devoid of obstacles. What are the lessons that can be learned from this first experience? How different from the judicial mechanisms were the Commission's functions and procedures?

Type
Adjudicators, Negotiators, and the Evolution of Maritime Delimitation Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 112 , 2018 , pp. 288 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © by The American Society of International Law 2019 

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 The Report and Recommendations of the Compulsory Conciliation Commission Between Timor-Leste and Australia on the Timor Sea was subsequently issued on May 9, 2018 (PCA Case No. 2016-10). Annex 21 to the Report contains the Comprehensive Package Agreement of August 30, 2017. Annex 28 contains the Treaty signed by the Parties on March 6, 2018. The report, annexes, and other documents and information regarding the conciliation cited below are available on the Permanent Court of Arbitration website.

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, Art. 297, paras. 2(b), 3(b), Art. 298, para. 1(a), 1833 UNTS 397 (hereinafter UNCLOS).

3 Id. Art. 298, para. 1(a).

4 Conciliation Commission Decision on Australia's Objections to Competence, Sept. 19, 2016, paras. 93–99.

5 UNCLOS, supra note 2, Arts. 279, 301.

6 See Oxman, Bernard H., The Principle of Due Regard, in The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Rule of Law: 1996–2016, at 108 (Int'l Trib. L. Sea, 2017)Google Scholar.

7 UNCLOS, supra note 2, Art. 300.

8 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Som. v. Kenya), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, para. 132 (Int'l Ct. Just. Feb. 2, 2017), citing Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 9, at 30.

9 Conciliation Commission Decision on Competence, supra note 4, para. 22, citing Competence Hearing Tr. (Final) 349:10–12.

10 PCA Press Release (Apr. 3, 2017).