DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Legal Transformation of Advisory Procedure of the ITLOS into an Alternative Dispute Settlement Mechanism - From the Evaluation of Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Case No. 21), ITLOS

분쟁해결을 위한 대체적 수단으로서 ITLOS 권고적 의견 절차 활용 - SRFC 권고적 의견 사건(사건번호 21)을 중심으로 -

  • 최지현 (제주대학교 법학전문대학원)
  • Received : 2022.03.07
  • Accepted : 2022.06.13
  • Published : 2022.06.30

Abstract

SRFC (Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission) requested to the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) an advisory opinion relating to the IUU (Illegl, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing (Case No-21 of the ITLOS). Since, in the UNCLOS, there is no article authorizing the jurisdiction of the ITLOS full court's Advisory opinion, so various scholarly opinion wad divided. But ITLOS delivered its Advisory opinion confirming its jurisdictional competence over the Advisory proceedings with its legal opinion about the IUU issues. It opens new possibility of the alternative dispute settlement mechanism of the ITLOS through the advisory procedures. In reality, there has been a view that ICJ (International Court of Justice) could take the part of a kind of dispute settlement through its Advisory procedures. But the advisory procedures of the ITLOS, with no definite clause in UNCLOS about the advisory procedures, which provides more allowances for the function of advisory opinion as the alternative dispute settlement mechanism. ITLOS accepted the requests of the advisory opinion by the State parties through international organization or themselves directly. And the advisory opinion of the ITLOS aims the interpretation and application into the special issues-specially IUU fishing in Case No. 21 of the ITLOS-. Those factors could enable more enhanced role of the ITLOS as an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. But those possibility has contain risk of excessive and unlimited advisory role of the ITLOS. So it is important to focus on the restriction on the role of the State parties in the request of the advisory opinion to the ITLOS. In this regard it is meaningful that the ITLOS has suggested a kind of legal standing in the advisory procedures in that only coastal States could request the Advisory opinion about the IUU in their EEZ. Furthermore the discretionary power of the ITLOS in the Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal could curtail the abuse of the Advisory opinion initiated by the States parties of the UNCLOS. Under this framework, Advisory opinion could broaden more alternative option to the disputes between State parties of the UNCLOS in that after being delivered detailed interpretation of the UNCLOS about the specific issues, States parties could devote themselves to searching for flexible solution for the disputes between State parties. It could obtain legal explanation about the dispute under the Article 297 and Article 298 by detouring the jurisdiction limits through advisory procedures.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2021년도 제주대학교 교원성과지원사업에 의하여 연구되었습니다.

References

  1. Burke C (2017) Article 191. In: Prowless A (ed) Unted nations convention on the law of the sea. C.H.Beck, Munchen, 97 p
  2. d'Argent P (2019) Article 65. In: Zimmermann A, Tams C-J (eds) The statute of the international court of justice: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1795 p
  3. ICJ (1975) Western Sahara, advisory opinion. International Court of Justice, 12 p
  4. ICJ (1989) Applicability of article VI, section 22, of the convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations, advisory opinion. International Court of Justice, 191 p
  5. ICJ (1996) Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, advisory opinion. International Court of Justice, 234 p
  6. ICJ (2004) Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied palestinian territory, advisory opinion. International Court of Justice, p 148
  7. ICJ (2010) Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, advisory opinion. International Court of Justice. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/141 Accessed 1 May 2022
  8. ITLOS (2011) Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the area, advisory opinion. 1 Feb 2011. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/17_adv_op_010211_en.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  9. ITLOS (2013a) Request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. 28 Nov 2013. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/written_statements_round1/C21_Response_Round_1_Australia.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  10. ITLOS (2013b) Request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. 28 November 2013. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/written_statements_round1/C21_Response_Round_1_Ireland.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  11. ITLOS (2013c) Request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. 18 November 2013. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/written_statements_round1/C21_Response_Round_1_Germany.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  12. ITLOS (2013d) Request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/written_statements_round1/C21_Response_Round_1_China.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  13. ITLOS (2013e) Request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/written_statements_round1/C21_Response_Round_1_UK.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  14. ITLOS (2015a) Declaration of judge cot, request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/advisory_opinion_published/2015_21_Decl_Cot-E.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  15. ITLOS (2015b) Request for advisory opinion submitted by the sub-regional fisheries commission, advisory opinion. 2 Apr 2015. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/advisory_opinion_published/2015_21-advopE.pdf Accessed 1 May 2022
  16. Jesus J-L (2006) Article 138, In: Rao P-C, Gautier P (eds) The rules of the international tribunal for the law of the sea: a commentary. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Leiden, 394 p
  17. Kim D-Y (2010a) Advisory proceedings before the international tribunal for the law of the sea as an alternative procedure to supplement the dispute-settlement mechanism under part XV of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Issue Legal Scholar 7(1):4
  18. Kim D-Y (2010b) Advisory proceedings before the international tribunal for the law of the sea as an alternative procedure to supplement the dispute-settlement mechanism under part XV of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Issues in Legal Scholarship 7(1):8-9
  19. Kolb R (2013) The international court of justice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1362 p
  20. Ndiaye T-M (2010) The advisory function of the international tribunal for the law of the sea. Chin J Int Law 9(1):565-587 https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmq022
  21. Oller-Frahm K (2012) Article 96. In: Simma B, Khan D-E, Nolte G, Paulus A, Wessendorf N (eds) The charter of the United Nations: a commentary. Volume II. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1985-1986
  22. Rao P-C, Gautier P (2006) The rules of the international tribunal for the law of the sea: a commentary. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Leiden, 393 p
  23. Serdy A (2017a) Article 297. In Prowless A (ed) United Nations convention on the law of the sea, C.H.Beck, Munchen, 132 p
  24. Serdy A (2017b) Article 298. In Prowless A (ed) Unted Nations convention on the law of the sea, C.H.Beck, Munchen, 134 p
  25. Tanaka Y (2015) Reflections on the advisory opinion of ITLOS as a full court: the ITLOS advisory opinion of 2015. Law Practice Int Court Trib 14:318-339 https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341296
  26. Wolfrum R (2012) Panel II: advisory opinions: are they a suitable alternative for the settlement of international disputes? In: Wolfrum R, Gatzschmann I (eds) International dispute settlement: room for innovations. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 33-123
  27. You K-J (2008) Advisory opinions of the international tribunal for the law of the sea: article 138 of the rules of the tribunal revisited. Ocean Dev Int Law 39(4):360-371 https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320802459128