Book contents
- The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies
- The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties and Documents
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction and Theoretical Framework
- 2 Coastal States’ Rights and Obligations under the Law of the Sea
- 3 Flag States’ Rights and Obligations under the Law of the Sea
- 4 Maritime Entitlement and Maritime Delimitation
- 5 Protection of the Marine Environment
- 6 Procedural Rules on Dispute Settlement
- 7 Contribution of UNCLOS Tribunals to the Development of the Law of the Sea
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2023
Book contents
- The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies
- The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties and Documents
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction and Theoretical Framework
- 2 Coastal States’ Rights and Obligations under the Law of the Sea
- 3 Flag States’ Rights and Obligations under the Law of the Sea
- 4 Maritime Entitlement and Maritime Delimitation
- 5 Protection of the Marine Environment
- 6 Procedural Rules on Dispute Settlement
- 7 Contribution of UNCLOS Tribunals to the Development of the Law of the Sea
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary 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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Adede, AO, The System for Settlement of Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Drafting History and a Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff 1987).Google Scholar
Allen, S, ‘Article 297 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Scope of Mandatory Jurisdiction’ (2017) 48(3–4) ODIL 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloisi, R and Meernik, J, Judgment Day: Judicial Decision Making at the International Criminal Tribunals (CUP 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (Princeton University Press 2014).Google Scholar
Álvarez, J, ‘What Are International Judges for? The Main Functions of International Adjudication’ in Romano, Cesare, Alter, Karen and Shany, Yuval (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (OUP 2013).Google Scholar
Anand, RP, ‘The Role of Individual and Dissenting Opinions in International Adjudication’ (1965) 13(3) ICLQ 788.Google Scholar
Anderson, D, ‘Developments in Maritime Boundary Law and Practice’ in Colson, David A and Smith, Robert W (eds), International Maritime Boundaries, vol V (Brill Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Anderson, D, ‘Islands and Rocks in the Modern Law of the Sea’ in Nordquist, Myron H (ed), The Law of the Sea: US Accession and Globalisation (Martinus Nijhoff 2012).Google Scholar
Anderson, DH, ‘Some Aspects of the Use of Force in Maritime Law Enforcement’ in Boschiero, Nerina and others (eds), International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (Springer 2011).Google Scholar
Andreone, G, ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Antunes, NM and Becker-Weinberg, V, ‘Entitlement to Maritime Zones and Their Delimitation: In the Doldrums of Uncertainty and Unpredictability’ in Oude Elferink, Alex G, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law – Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Bankes, N, ‘Precluding the Applicability of Section 2 of Part XV of the Law of the Sea Convention’ (2017) 48(3–4) ODIL 239.Google Scholar
Barnes, RA, ‘Flag States’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), Oxford Handbook on Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Barnes, RA, ‘The Continuing Vitality of UNCLOS’ in Barrett, Jill and Barnes, Richard (eds), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2017).Google Scholar
Barnes, RA, Freestone, D and Ong, D, ‘The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects’ in Barnes, Richard, Freestone, David and Ong, David (eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (OUP 2006).Google Scholar
Barrett, J, ‘The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Living Treaty?’ in Barrett, Jill and Barnes, Richard (eds), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2017).Google Scholar
Becker, MA, ‘Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC)’ (2015) 109(4) AJIL 851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker-Weinberg, V, ‘The Interpretation and Application of the Freedom of Navigation and Flag State Jurisdiction in the M/V “Norstar” and the M/T “San Padre Pio” Cases’ (2021) 9 Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 108.Google Scholar
Beckman, R and Sun, Z, ‘The Relationship between UNCLOS and IMO Instruments’ (2017) 2 Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencze, M and Yein, Ng G, ‘Measuring the Unmeasurable?’ in Bencze, Mátyás and Ng, Gar Yein (eds), How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning (Springer 2018).Google Scholar
Berman, F, ‘The International Court of Justice as an “Agent” of Legal Development?’ in Tams, Christian J and Sloan, James (eds), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (OUP 2013).Google Scholar
Bernard, L, ‘Historic Rights and the Exclusive Economic Zone’ (2021) 18 Indonesian J Int’L 161.Google Scholar
Bernard, L, ‘The Effect of Historic Fishing Rights in Maritime Boundaries Delimitation’ in Scheiber, Harry N. and Kwon, Moon Sang (eds), Securing the Ocean for the Next Generation (Berkeley Law School 2013).Google Scholar
Birnie, P, Boyle, A and Redgwell, C, International Law and the Environment (3rd ed, OUP 2009).Google Scholar
Bjorke, E, ‘The Vienna Rules, Evolutionary Interpretation and the Intention of the Parties’ in Bianchi, Andrea, Peat, Daniel and Windsor, Matthew (eds), Interpretation of International Law (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Blitza, E, ‘Article 206’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Blokker, NM, ‘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’ in Del Vecchio, Angela and Virzo, Roberto (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals (Springer 2019).Google Scholar
Bodansky, DM, ‘Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law’ (1995) 3(1) IJGLS 105.Google Scholar
Boyle, A, ‘Developments in the International Law of Environmental Impact Assessments and Their Relation to the Espoo Convention’ (2011) 20(3) RECIEL 227.Google Scholar
Boyle, A, ‘UNCLOS Dispute Settlement and the Uses and Abuses of Part XV’ (2014) 47 Revue Belge De Droit International 182.Google Scholar
Boyle, A and Chinkin, C, ‘UNCLOS III and the Process of International Law-Making’ in Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff 2007).Google Scholar
Brown, ED, ‘Rockall and the Limits of National Jurisdiction of the UK’ (1978) 2 Marine Policy 181.Google Scholar
Buergenthal, T, ‘Lawmaking by the ICJ and Other International Courts’ (2009) 103 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 403.Google Scholar
Buga, I, ‘Between Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea Convention: Subsequent Practice, Treaty Modification, and Regime Interaction’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Buga, I, ‘Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals’ (2012) 27 IJMCL 59.Google Scholar
Buzan, B, ‘Negotiating by Consensus: Developments in Technique at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea’ (1981) 75(2) AJIL 324.Google Scholar
Caddell, R, ‘Platforms, Protestors and Provisional Measures: The Arctic Sunrise Dispute and Environmental Activism at Sea’ in Ambrus, Mónika and Wessel, Ramses A (eds), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (T.M.C. Asser Press 2014).Google Scholar
Caminos, H and Molitor, MR, ‘Progressive Development of International Law and the Package Deal’ (1985) 79(4) AJIL 871.Google Scholar
Cançado Trindade, AA, ‘Precaution’ in Viñuales, Jorge E. (ed), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Chinkin, C, ‘Dispute Resolution and the Law of the Sea: Regional Problems and Prospects’ in Crawford, James and Rothwell, Donald (eds), The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region: Developments and Prospects (Martinus Nijhoff 2012).Google Scholar
Chircop, A, ‘The International Maritime Organization’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Christie, DR, ‘The Conservation and Management of Stocks Located Solely within the Exclusive Economic Zone’ in Hey, Ellen (ed), Developments in International Fisheries Law (Kluwer Law International 1999).Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015 – Part I’ (2016) 31(4) IJMCL 555.Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘Revealing a Mosaic: International Jurisprudence concerning the Non-Fisheries Elements of the Exclusive Economic Zone Regime’ in Jensen, Øystein (ed), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention (Edward Elgar 2020).Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘Some Reflections on the Operation of the Dispute Settlement System of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea During Its First Decade’ in Freestone, David, Barnes, Richard, and Ong, David (eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (OUP 206).Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in Rothwell, Donald and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2018).Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘The Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Continuity and Novelty in the Law of Maritime Boundary Delimitation’ (2012) 1(1) Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 137.Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?’ (2007) 22 IJMCL 383.Google Scholar
Churchill, R, ‘The LOSC Regime for Protection of the Marine Environment – Fit for the Twenty-First Century?’ in Rayfuse, Rosemary Gail (ed), Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar 2015).Google Scholar
Churchill, R and Lowe, V, The Law of the Sea (3rd ed, Manchester University Press 1999).Google Scholar
Cogliati-Bantz, VP, ‘International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Hoshinmaru (Japan v Russian Federation) and Tomimaru (Japan v Russian Federation), Prompt Release Judgments of 6 August 2007’ (2009) 58(1) ICLQ 241.Google Scholar
Cogliati-Bantz, VP, ‘Introductory Note to The M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (ITLOS)’ (2014) 53(6) ILM 1161.Google Scholar
Colson, DA, ‘The Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf between Neighboring States’ (2003) 97 AJIL 91.Google Scholar
Colson, DA and Hoyle, P, ‘Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal get it Right?’ (2003) 34 ODIL 59.Google Scholar
Corell, H, ‘Oversight of the Implementation of the Global Ocean Regime: The Role of the United Nations’ in Vidas, Davoe and Onstreng, Willy (eds), Orders for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century (Kluwer Law International 1999).Google Scholar
Craik, N, The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment: Process, Substance and Integration (CUP 2008).Google Scholar
Crawford, J, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law, General Course on Public International Law (Hague Academy of International Law 2014).Google Scholar
Cullet, P, ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibility’ in Viñuales, Jorge E. (ed), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Czybulka, D, ‘Article 192’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Czybulka, D, ‘Article 237’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
De Baere, G, Chane, AL and Wouters, J, ‘The Contributions of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law: A Framework for Analysis’ in De Baere, G and Wouters, J (eds), Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law (Edward Elgar 2015).Google Scholar
de Sadeleer, N, Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (OUP 2002).Google Scholar
Devaney, JG and Tams, CJ, ‘In Re Arbitration Between the Italian Republic and the Republic of India Concerning the ‘Enrica Lexie’ Incident’ (2021) 115 AJIL 513.Google Scholar
Del Vecchio, A and Virzo, R (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals (Springer 2019).Google Scholar
Djalal, H, ‘“Due Regards” and “Abuse of Rights” in UNCLOS’ in Wu, Shicun, Valencia, Mark and Hong, Nong (eds), UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the South China Sea (Routledge 2015).Google Scholar
Dupuy, F and Dupuy, P-M, ‘A Legal Analysis of China’s Historic Claims in the South China Sea’ (2013) 107 American Journal of International Law 124.Google Scholar
Eichberger, FS, ‘The Legal Effect of ICJ Advisory Opinions Redefined? The Mauritius/Maldives Delimitation Case – Judgment on Preliminary Objections’ (2021) 22(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 1.Google Scholar
Evans, MD, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Evans, MD, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Whatever Next?’ in Barrett, Jill and Barnes, Richard (eds) Law of the Sea: UNCLOs as a Living Treaty (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2017).Google Scholar
Evans, MD, ‘Relevant Circumstances’ in Oude Elferink, Alex G, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Evans, MD and Lewis, R, ‘The Regime of Islands’ in Jensen, Øystein (ed), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention: The Role of International Courts and Tribunals (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020).Google Scholar
Faccio, S, ‘“Human Habitation or Economic Life of their Own”: The Definition of Features between History, Technology and the Law’ (2021) 42 Liverpool Law Review 15.Google Scholar
Ferrell, JK, ‘Controlling Flags of Convenience: One Measure to Stop Overfishing of Collapsing Fish Stocks’, (2005) 35 Envtl L 323.Google Scholar
Fietta, S, ‘Arbitral Tribunal Decision Guyana v. Suriname’ (2008) 46 International Legal Materials 164.Google Scholar
Forteau, M, ‘The Legal Nature and Content of ‘Due Regard’ Obligations in Recent International Case Law’ (2019) 34 IJMCL 1.Google Scholar
Foster, C, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (CUP 2013).Google Scholar
Franckx, E, ‘Reasonable Bond in the Practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (2002) 32(2) CWILJ 303.Google Scholar
Franckx, E, ‘The Regime of Islands and Rocks’ in Attard, David J, Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Martínez Gutiérrez, Norman A (eds), The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, vol I: The Law of the Sea (OUP 2014).Google Scholar
Franckx, E and Bernatar, M, ‘The “Duty” to Co-Operate for States Bordering Enclosed or Semi-Enclosed Seas’ (2013) 31 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs 66.Google Scholar
Freestone, D and Oude Elferink, AG, ‘Flexibility and Innovation in the Law of the Sea: Will the LOS Convention Amendment Procedures Ever Be Used?’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude (ed), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Friedheim, RL, ‘Fishing Negotiations at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea’ (1991) 22 ODIL 209.Google Scholar
Gao, J, ‘Comments on Guyana v Suriname’ (2009) 8 Chinese Journal of International Law 191.Google Scholar
García-Revillo, MG, ‘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’ in Del Vecchio, A and Virzo, R (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals (Springer 2019).Google Scholar
Gaunce, J, ‘On the Interpretation of the General Duty of “Due Regard”’ (2018) 32 Ocean Yearbook Online 1.Google Scholar
Gautier, P, ‘The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Rule of Law’ in Geert De De, Baere G and Wouters, J (eds), Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law (Edward Elgar 2015).Google Scholar
Gavouneli, M, ‘Protection Standards for the Marine Environment: Updating Part XII of the Law of the Sea Convention?’ in Minas, Stephen and Diamond, Jordan (eds), Stress Testing the Law of the Sea (Brill 2018).Google Scholar
Gray, C and Kingsbury, B, ‘Developments in Dispute Settlement: Inter-State Arbitration Since 1945’ (1993) 63(1) BYBIL 97.Google Scholar
Greenwood, C, ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 97.Google Scholar
Gudlaugsson, ST, ‘Natural Prolongation and the Concept of the Continental Margin for the Purposes of Article 76’ in Nordquist, Myron N, Moore, John Norton and Heidar, Tomas H (eds), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limits (Martinus Nijhoff 2004).Google Scholar
Guggisberg, S, The Use of CITES for Commercially-Exploited Fish Species: A Solution to Overexploitation and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing? (Springer 2015).Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, D, ‘Article 87’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, D, ‘Article 91’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, D, ‘Article 92’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Gullett, W, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration’s Contribution to the Concept of Juridical Islands’ (2018) 47 CIL 5.Google Scholar
Guo, J, ‘The Developments of Marine Environmental Protection Obligation in Article 192 of UNCLOS and the Operational Impact on China’s Marine Policy – A South China Sea Fisheries Perspective’ (2020) 120 Marine Policy Journal 1.Google Scholar
Hamamoto, S, ‘The Genesis of the ‘Due Regard’ Obligations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (2019) 2019 IJMCL 34.Google Scholar
Harris, C, ‘Incidental Determinations in Proceedings under Compromissory Clauses’ (2021) 70(2) ICLQ 417.Google Scholar
Harrison, J, ‘Article 73’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Harrison, J, ‘Defining Disputes and Characterizing Claims: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in Law of the Sea Convention Litigation’ (2017) 48(3–4) ODIL 269.Google Scholar
Harrison, J, Saving the Oceans Through Law: The International Legal Framework for the Protection of the Marine Environment (OUP 2017).Google Scholar
Harrison, J, ‘The Law of the Sea Convention Institutions’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Harrison, J and Morgera, E, ‘Article 62’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Heere, WP (ed), International Law and Its Sources: Liber Amicorum Maarten Bos (Kluwer Law International 1989).Google Scholar
Helfer, LR, ‘The Effectiveness of International Adjudicators’ in Romano, Cesare, Alter, Karen and Shany, Yuval (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (OUP 2013).Google Scholar
Hernandez, G, ‘International Judicial Lawmaking’ in Brolmann, Catherine and Radi, Yannick (eds), Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking (Edward Elgar 2016).Google Scholar
Hernandez, G, ‘Interpretative Authority and the International Judiciary’ in Bianchi, Andrea, Peat, Daniel and Windsor, Matthew (eds), Interpretation in International Law (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Hernandez, G, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (OUP 2014).Google Scholar
Hey, E, ‘Reviewing Implementation of the LOS Convention and Emerging International Public Law’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude (ed), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Hey, E, ‘The Fisheries Provisions of the LOS Convention’ in Hey, Ellen (ed), Developments in International Fisheries Law (Kluwer Law International 1999).Google Scholar
Horowitz, D, ‘The Catch of Poseidon’s Trident: The Fate of High Seas Fisheries in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case’ (2001) 25 MULR 810.Google Scholar
Hua, Z, ‘The Development of International Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals: A Case Study of Due Diligence Obligation’ (2021) 9 Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 132.Google Scholar
Ikeshima, T, ‘The “Reasonableness” of Unreasonable Arguments in Prompt Release Cases in the ITLOS’ (2010) 6 Waseda Global Forum 107.Google Scholar
Ishii, Y, ‘Introductory Note to Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): Provisional Measures Order (ITLOS)’ (2019) 58 International Legal Materials 1147.Google Scholar
Jennings, RY, ‘The Internal Judicial Practice of the International Court of Justice’ (1988) 59 BYBIL 31.Google Scholar
Jensen, Ø, ‘Maritime Boundary Delimitation beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The International Judiciary and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’ (2015) 84 NJIL 580.Google Scholar
Jensen, Ø, ‘Reflections’ in Jensen, Øystein (ed), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention: The Role of International Courts and Tribunals (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020).Google Scholar
Jensen, Ø, The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Law and Legitimacy (Brill 2014).Google Scholar
Jensen, Ø, ‘The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Jesus, JL, ‘Commentary on Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal’ in Rao, P. Chandrasekhara and Gautier, Ph. (eds), The Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea : A Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff 2006).Google Scholar
Jia, BB, ‘The Notion of Natural Prolongation in the Current Regime of the Continental Shelf: An Afterlife?’ (2013) 12(1) CJIL 87.Google Scholar
Kaikobad, K, and others, ‘United Kingdom Materials on International Law 2004’ (2004) 75(1) BYIBL Law 595.Google Scholar
Kammerhofer, J, ‘Uncertainty in the Formal Sources of International Law: Customary International Law and Some of Its Problems’ (2004) 15 EJIL 523.Google Scholar
Karim, MDS, ‘Litigating Law of the Sea Disputes Using the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System’ in Klein, Natalie (ed), Litigating International Law Disputes: Weighing the Options (CUP 2014).Google Scholar
Kasoulides, GC, Port State Control and Jurisdiction: Evolution of the Port State Regime (Springer 1993) 75, cited in Rayfuse, Rosemary Gail (ed), Non-Flag State Enforcement in High Seas Fisheries (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004).Google Scholar
Kateka, JL, ‘Advisory Proceedings before the Seabed Disputes Chamber and before the ITLOS as a Full Court’ (2013) 17(1) MPYBUNLO 159.Google Scholar
Kaye, SM, ‘The Use of Multiple Boundaries in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Law and Practice’ (1998) 19 Aust. YBIL 49.Google Scholar
Kim, DY, ‘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’ (2010) 11 Issues in Legal Scholarship 1.Google Scholar
Kim, HJ, ‘Natural Prolongation: A Living Myth in the Regime of the Continental Shelf?’ (2014) 45 ODIL 374.Google Scholar
Klein, N, ‘Islands and Rocks after the South China Sea Arbitration’ (2016) 34 Australian Yearbook of International Law 21.Google Scholar
Klein, N, ‘The Vicissitudes of Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention’ (2017) 32(2) IJMCL 332.Google Scholar
Knox, JH, ‘The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment’ (2002) 96 AJIL 291.Google Scholar
Koers, AW, ‘The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of The Sea – Some Remarks on Its Contribution towards the Making of International Law’ in Heere, Wybo P and Bos, Maarten (eds), International Law and Its Sources: Liber Amicorum Maarten Bos (T.M.C. Asser Institute 1989).Google Scholar
Koh, T, ‘UNCLOS at 30: Some Reflections’ in de Castillo, Lilian (ed), Law of the Sea: From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea , Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos (Brill 2015).Google Scholar
Kojima, C, ‘South China Sea Arbitration and the Protection of the Marine Environment: Evolution of UNCLOS Part XII Through Interpretation and the Duty to Cooperate’ (2015) 21 Asian Yearbook of International Law 166.Google Scholar
Kong, L, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (2011) 10 Chinese Journal of International Law 651.Google Scholar
Kopela, S, ‘Historic Fishing Rights in the Law of the Sea and Brexit’ (2019) 32 LJIL 32.Google Scholar
Kopela, S, ‘Historic Titles and Historic Rights in the Law of the Sea in the Light of the South China Sea Arbitration’ (2017) 48 ODIL 2.Google Scholar
Kopela, S, ‘Port-state Jurisdiction, Extraterritoriality and the Protection of Global Commons’ (2016) 47 Ocean Development and International Law 89.Google Scholar
Kunoy, B, ‘The Admissibility of a Plea to an International Adjudicative Forum to Delimit the Outer Continental Shelf Prior to the Adoption of Final Recommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’ (2010) 25 IJMCL 237.Google Scholar
Kunoy, B, ‘The Scope of Compulsory Jurisdiction and Exceptions Thereto under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (2020) 58 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 78.Google Scholar
Kunoy, B, ‘The Terms of Reference of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: A Creeping Legal Mandate’ (2012) 25 LJIL 109.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowska, B, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 1989).Google Scholar
Kwiatkowska, B, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal Did Get It right: A Commentary and Reply to the Article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle’ (2003) 34 ODIL 369.Google Scholar
Lachs, M, ‘Some Reflections on the Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Law’ (1983) 10 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 239.Google Scholar
Lagoni, R, ‘Offshore Bunkering in the Exclusive Economic Zone’ in Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff 2007).Google Scholar
Laing, EA, ‘ITLOS Procedures and Practices: Bond’ in Moore, John Norton and Nordquist, Myron H (eds), Current Marine Environmental Issues and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 2001).Google Scholar
Lando, M, ‘Judicial Uncertainties Concerning Territorial Sea Delimitation Under Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (2017) 70 ICLQ 589.Google Scholar
Lando, M, ‘The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Comments on the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission’ (2016) 29(2) LJIL 441.Google Scholar
Lathrop, CG, ‘The Provisional Equidistance Line’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, H, The Development of International Law by the International Court (Stevens & Sons 1958).Google Scholar
Leanza, U and Caracciolo, MC, ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone’ in Attard, David, Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Gutierrez, Norman A Martinez (eds) The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, vol I: The Law of the Sea (OUP 2014).Google Scholar
Lee, S, ‘UNCLOS and the Obligation to Cooperate’ in Clive Schofield, Maritime Energy Resources in Asia: Legal Regimes and Cooperation, National Bureau of Asian Research 2012.Google Scholar
Lee, S and Bautista, L, ‘Historic Rights’ in Jensen, Øystein (ed), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020).Google Scholar
Lepard, BD, Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications (CUP 2010).Google Scholar
Letsas, G, ‘The ECHR as a Living Instrument in Føllesdal, A, Peters, B and Ulfstein, G (eds), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (CUP 2003).Google Scholar
Letts, D, McLaughlin, R and Nasu, H, ‘Maritime Law Enforcement and the Aggravation of the South China Sea Dispute: Implications for Australia’ (2017) 34 Australian Year Book of International Law 53.Google Scholar
Li, H, ‘Coastal State Jurisdiction in the “Norstar” Case at the ITLOS’ (2020) 19 Chinese Journal of International Law 177, 180.Google Scholar
Liao, X, The Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Towards a Common Approach to Maritime Boundary-Making (CUP 2021).Google Scholar
Liao, X, ‘The LOSC as a Package Deal and Its Implications for Determination of Customary International Law’ (2020) 35 IJMCL 704.Google Scholar
Liliansa, D, ‘The Necessity of Indonesia’s Measures to Sink Vessels for IUU Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone’ (2020) 10 Asian J. Int. Law 1.Google Scholar
Lowe, V and Tzanakopoulos, A, ‘The Development of the Law of the Sea by the International Court of Justice’ in Tams, Christian J and Sloan, James (eds), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (OUP 2013).Google Scholar
Lucky, A, ‘The Issues Concerning the Continental Shelf: Reflections’ (2015) 17 ICLR 95.Google Scholar
Lyons, Y, Luu, QH and Tkalich, P, ‘Determining High-tide Features (or Islands) in the South China Sea under Article 121(1): A Legal and Oceanography Perspective’ in Jayakumar, S and others (eds), The South China Sea Arbitration: The Legal Dimension (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).Google Scholar
Macdonald, R, ‘The Charter of the United Nations in Constitutional Perspective’ (1999) 20 Australian Year Book of International Law 205.Google Scholar
MacLachlan, C, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 279.Google Scholar
Macnab, R, ‘The Case for Transparency in the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf in Accordance with UNCLOS Article 76’ (2004) 35 ODIL 1.Google Scholar
Magnússon, BM, ‘Is There a Temporal Relationship between the Delineation and the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles?’ (2013) 28 IJMCL 465.Google Scholar
Magnússon, BM, The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm: Delineation, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement (Brill 2016).Google Scholar
Marotta Rangel, V, ‘Settlement of Disputes Relating to the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf: The Role of International Courts and Arbitral Tribunals’ (2006) 21(3) IJMCL 347.Google Scholar
Marr, S, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: The Precautionary Approach and Conservation and Management of Fish Resources’ (2000) 11(4) EJIL 815.Google Scholar
Matland, DF, ‘Re-evaluating the Status of Flags of Convenience Under International Law’ (1990–1991) 23 Vand J Transnat’l L 1017.Google Scholar
Matz-Lück, N, ‘Final Provisions’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Matz-Lück, N and Fuchs, J, ‘Marine Living Resources’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Matz-Lück, N and van Doorn, E, ‘Due Diligence Obligations and the Protection of the Marine Environment’ (2017) 42 L’Observateur des Nations Unies 177.Google Scholar
McConnell, ML, ‘ITLOS and the Tale of the Tenacious ‘Genuine Link’ in Jensen, Øystein (ed), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020).Google Scholar
McDorman, T, ‘An International Law Perspective on Insular Features (Islands) and Low-tide Elevations in the South China Sea’ (2017) 32 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 298.Google Scholar
McDorman, T, ‘Rights and Jurisdiction over Resources in the South China Sea: UNCLOS and the ‘nine-dash line’ in Jayakumar, S., Koh, Tommy and Beckman, Robert (eds), The South China Sea Disputes and Law of the Sea (Edward Elgar 2014).Google Scholar
McDorman, T, ‘The Continental Shelf Regime in the Law of the Sea Convention: A Reflection on the First Thirty Years’ in Freestone, David (ed), The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention at 30: Successes, Challenges and New Agendas (Brill 2013).Google Scholar
McDougal, MS, Burke, WT and Vlasic, IA, ‘The Maintenance of Public Order at Sea and the Nationality of Ships’ (1960) 54(1) The American Journal of International Law 25.Google Scholar
McRae, D, ‘The Applicable Law’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Merrills, JG, ‘The Place of International Litigation in International Law’ in Klein, Natalie (ed), Litigating International Law Disputes: Weighing the Options (CUP 2014).Google Scholar
Merkouris, P, Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and the Principle of Systemic Integration: Normative Shadows in Plato’s Cave (Brill 2015).Google Scholar
Meshel, T, ‘The Evolution of Interstate Arbitration and the Peaceful Resolution of Transboundary Freshwater Disputes’ (2016) 1 JIDS 361.Google Scholar
Miles, C, ‘The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v Italy)’ (2020) 114 American Journal of International Law 116.Google Scholar
Moeckli, D and White, ND, ‘Treaties as ‘Living Instruments’ in Kritsiotis, Dino and Bowman, Michael (eds), Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (CUP, 2018).Google Scholar
Morgan, DL, ‘A Practitioner’s Critique of the Order Granting Provisional Measures in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case’ in Moore, John Norton and Nordquist, Myron H (eds), Current Marine Environmental Issues and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 2001).Google Scholar
Mossop, J, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration and New Zealand’s Maritime Claims’ (2017) 15 New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 265.Google Scholar
Mowbray, A, ‘The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2005) 5(1) Human Rights Law Review 57.Google Scholar
Nagtzaam, G and Guilfoyle, D, ‘Ramming Speed’: The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the Law of Protest’ (2018) 44 Monash University Law Review 360.Google Scholar
Nawab, , ‘Other Sources of International Law. Are Judicial Decisions of the International Court of Justice a Source of International Law?’ (1979) 19 Indian JIL 526.Google Scholar
Ndiaye, TM, ‘The Advisory Function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (2010) 9 CJIL 565.Google Scholar
Nelson, LDM, ‘The Continental Shelf: Interplay of Law and Science’, in Ando, Nisuke and others (eds), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol 2 (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar
Nguyen, LN, ‘Expanding the Regulatory Scope of LOSC for Environmental Issues through the Rule of Reference: Potentials and Limits’ (2022) 52 Ocean Development & International Law 419.Google Scholar
Nguyen, LN, ‘Principled Challenges: Between Collective Interest and Individual Freedom’ in De Lucia, Vito, Elferink, Alex Oude and Nguyen, Lan Ngoc (eds), International Law and Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Reflections on Justice, Space, Knowledge and Power (Brill 2022).Google Scholar
Nguyen, LN, ‘UNCLOS Tribunals and the Development of the Outer Continental Shelf Regime’ (2018) 67(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, LN and Tran, YH, ‘Coastal States’ Enforcement Power over Fishing Activities in the South China Sea: Where is the Line under International Law?’ (2019) 37 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs 110–145.Google Scholar
Nordquist, MH (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, vol I (Martinus Nijhoff 1985).Google Scholar
Nordquist, MH United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, vol II (Martinus Nijhoff 1985).Google Scholar
Nordquist, MH United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, vol III (Martinus Nijhoff 1985).Google Scholar
Nordquist, MH United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary, vol IV (Martinus Nijhoff 1985).Google Scholar
Nordquist, MH United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary, vol V (Martinus Nijhoff 1985).Google Scholar
Nordquist, MH and Phalen, WG, ‘Interpretation of UNCLOS Article 121 and Itu Aba (Taiping) in the South China Sea Arbitration Award’ in International Marine Economy (Brill Nijhoff Publishers 2017).Google Scholar
North, R, ‘Traditional Fishing Rights in International Law: The South China Sea Arbitration’ (2017) 36 UTLR 101.Google Scholar
Noyes, JE, ‘Compulsory Third-Party Adjudication and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (1989) 4 Conn J Int’l L 675.Google Scholar
Oellers-Frahm, K, ‘Lawmaking Through Advisory Opinions?’ in von Bogdandy, Armin and Venzke, Ingo (eds), International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance (Springer 2012).Google Scholar
Okanawa, P, ‘Procedural Obligations in International Environmental Agreements’ (1997) 67 BYBIL 275.Google Scholar
Oral, N, ‘The South China Sea Arbitral Award: Casting Light on Article 121 of UNCLOS, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals’ (2017) 16(2) The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 354.Google Scholar
Orrego Vicuna, F, ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under International Law’ (1989), 40 ICLQ 232.Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, AG, ‘Artificial Islands, Installations and Structures’, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, AG, ‘ITLOS’ Approach to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles in the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case: Theoretical and Practical Difficulties’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Seršić, Maja and Šošić, Trpimir M. (eds), Contemporary Developments in International Law: Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas (Brill 2016).Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, AG, Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, AG, ‘The Arctic Sunrise Incident: A Multi-faceted Law of the Sea Case with a Human Rights Dimension’ (2014) 29 IJMCL 2.Google Scholar
Oude Elferink, AG, ‘The Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The Relationship between the CLCS and Third Party Dispute Settlement’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude and Rothwell, Donald (eds), Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Brill 2004).Google Scholar
Oude, Elferink AG, Henriksen, T and Busch, SV, ‘Conclusions’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Oude, Elferink AG, Henriksen, T and Busch, SV, ‘The Judiciary and the Law of Maritime Delimitation’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Oxman, B, ‘Courts and Tribunals: The ICJ, ITLOS and Arbitral Tribunals’ in Rothwell, Donald R and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (OUP 2015).Google Scholar
Oxman, B, ‘The Rule of Law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (1996) 7 EJIL 353.Google Scholar
Pardo, A, ‘The New Law of the Sea and Some of Its Implications’ (1987) 4 J L & Env’t 1.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J and Elsig, M, ‘The Politics of Treaty Interpretation. Variations and Explanations across International Tribunals’ in Dunoff, Jeffrey L and Pollack, Mark A (eds), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations. The State of the Art (CUP 2013).Google Scholar
Pellet, A, ‘Article 38’ in Zimmermann, et al, The Statute of the International Court of Justice : A Commentary (2nd ed, OUP 2012).Google Scholar
Petersen, N, ‘Lawmaking by the International Court of Justice – Factors of Success’ in von Bogdandy, Armin and Venzke, Ingo (eds), In Whose Name?: A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication (OUP 2014).Google Scholar
Pineschi, L, ‘The Duty of Environmental Impact Assessment in the First ITLOS Chamber’s Advisory Opinion: Towards the Supremacy of the General Rule to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment as a Common Value?’ in Boschiero, Nerina and others (eds), International Courts and the Development of International Law (Springer 2013).Google Scholar
Plakokefalos, I, ‘Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area Advisory Opinion’ (2012) 24(1) Journal of Environmental Law 133.Google Scholar
Prescott, V and Schofield, C, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World (2nd ed, Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Proelss, A (ed), ‘Article 56’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Proelss, A (ed), ‘The Contribution of the ITLOS to Strengthening the Regime for the Protection of the Marine Environment’ in Del Vecchio, Angela and Virzo, Roberto (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals (Springer 2019).Google Scholar
Proelss, A (ed), ‘The Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone in Perspective: Legal Status and Resolution of User Conflicts Revisited’ (2012), Ocean Yearbook Online 26.Google Scholar
Proelss, A (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Pulvenis, JF, ‘FAO, Ocean Governance, and the Law of the Sea’ in Scheiber, Harry N. and Paik, Jin-Hyun (eds), Regions, Institutions and the Law of the Sea (Brill 2013).Google Scholar
Rao, PC, ‘Delimitation Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Settlement Procedures’ in Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff 2007).Google Scholar
Rashbrooke, G, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Forum for the Development of Principles of International Environmental Law?’ (2004) 19(4) IJMCL 515.Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R, ‘The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under the Law of the Sea Convention’ (2005) 36 VUWLR 683.Google Scholar
Rosenne, S, ‘International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: 1996–97 Survey’ (1998) 13 IJMCL 487.Google Scholar
Rosenne, S, ‘Obstacles and Opportunities – Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning’ in Bencze, Mátyás and Ng, Gar Yein (eds), How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning (Springer 2018).Google Scholar
Ringbom, H, ‘Introduction’ in Ringbom, Henrik (ed), Jurisdiction over Ships (Brill 2014).Google Scholar
Ringbom, H, ‘Ships in ABNJ – Broadening Jurisdictional Opportunities for Non-flag States’ in De Lucia, Vito, Elferink, Alex Oude, and Nguyen, Lan Ngoc (eds), International Law and Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Brill 2022).Google Scholar
Romano, CPR, ‘The Shift from the Consensual to the Compulsory Paradigm in International Adjudication: Elements for a Theory of Consent’ (2007) 39 NYUJILP 4.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D and Stephens, T, The International Law of the Sea (2nd ed, Hart Publishing 2016).Google Scholar
Ruys, T and Soete, A, ‘Creeping’ Advisory Jurisdiction of International Courts and Tribunals? The Case of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (2016) 29(1) LJIL 155.Google Scholar
Sage-Fuller, B, The Precautionary Principle in Marine Environmental Law: With Special Reference to High Risk Vessels (Routledge 2013).Google Scholar
Sand, PH, ‘The Evolution of International Environmental Law’ in Bodansky, Daniel, Brunnée, Jutta and Hey, Ellen (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (OUP 2008).Google Scholar
Sands, P and Peel, J, Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd ed, CUP 2012).Google Scholar
Scalieri, E, ‘Discretionary Power of Coastal States and the Control of Its Compliance with International Law by International Tribunals’ in Del Vecchio, Angela and Virzo, Roberto (eds), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals (Springer 2019).Google Scholar
Schatz, VJ, ‘Combating Illegal Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone – Flag State Obligations in the Context of the Primary Responsibility of the Coastal State’ (2016) 7(2) GJIL 383.Google Scholar
Schofield, C, Telesetsky, A and Lee, S, ‘A Tribunal Navigating Complex Waters: Implications of the Bay of Bengal Case’ (2013) 444 ODIL 363.Google Scholar
Schofield, C and Wang, DK-H, ‘The Regime of Islands under UNCLOS: Implications for the South China Sea’ in Schofield, Clive (ed), Maritime Energy Resources in Asia: Legal Regimes and Cooperation (National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report No. 37, February 2012).Google Scholar
Scovazzi, T, ‘ITLOS and Jurisdiction over Ships’ in Ringbom, Henrik (ed), Jurisdiction over Ships (Brill 2014).Google Scholar
Scovazzi, T, ‘The Contribution of the Tribunal to the Progressive Development of International Law’ in Intl. Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ed), The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Rule of Law: 1996–2016 (Martinus Nijhoff 2017).Google Scholar
Scovazzi, T, ‘Where the Judge Approaches the Legislator: Some Cases Relating to the Law of the Sea’ in Boschiero, Nerina and others (eds), International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (Springer 2013).Google Scholar
Serdy, A, ‘The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and Its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate’ (2011) 26 IJCML 355.Google Scholar
Serdy, A and Bliss, M, ‘Prompt Release of Fishing Vessels: State Practice in the Light of the Cases before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude and Rothwell, Donald (eds), Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Martinus Nijhoff 2002).Google Scholar
Sharma, SP, ‘The Single Maritime Boundary Regime and the Relationship between the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone’ (1987) 2 Int’l J Estuarine & Coastal L 203.Google Scholar
Smith, JJ, ‘Evolving to Conservation? The International Court’s Decision in the Australia/Japan Whaling Case’ (2014) 45(4) ODIL 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RW and Thomas, BL, ‘Island Disputes and the Law of the Sea: An Examination of Sovereignty and Delimitation Disputes’ in Norquist, Myron H and Moore, John Norton (eds), Security Flashpoints: Oil, Islands, Sea Access and Military Confrontation (Brill 1998).Google Scholar
Sohn, LB, ‘Voting Procedures in United Nations Conferences for the Codification of International Law’ (1975) 69(2) AJIL 310.Google Scholar
Sohn, LB, and others, Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (2nd ed, Martinus Nijhoff 2014) 79.Google Scholar
Squatrito, T, Young, OR, Follesdal, A and Ulfstein, G (eds), The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Suarez, SV, The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Legal Aspects of their Establishment (Springer 2008).Google Scholar
Swan, J, ‘Fishing Vessels Operating under Open Registers and the Exercise of Flag State Responsibilities: Information and Options 2’, FAO, Fisheries Circular No. 980, 2002.Google Scholar
Swan, J, ‘Port State Measures – From Residual Port State Jurisdiction to Global Standards’ (2016) 31 IJMCL 395.Google Scholar
Symmons, CR, ‘Article 15’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Symmons, CR, ‘Historic Rights in the Light of the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration: What Remains of the Doctrine Now?’ in Jayakumar, S. et al. (eds), The South China Sea Arbitration: The Legal Dimension (Edward Elgar 2018).Google Scholar
Symmons, CR, Historic Waters and Historic Rights in the Law of the Sea: A Modern Reappraisal (2nd ed, Martinus Nijhoff 2019) 27.Google Scholar
Symmons, CR, ‘Maritime Zones from Islands and rocks’ in Jayakumar, S, Koh, Tommy and Beckman, Robert (eds), The South China Sea Disputes and Law of the Sea (Edward Elgar Publishing 2014).Google Scholar
Talmon, S, ‘Article 121’ in Proelss, Alexander (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck, Hart, Nomos 2017).Google Scholar
Talmon, S, ‘The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Part XV Courts and Tribunals’ (2016) 65(4) ICLQ 927.Google Scholar
Talmon, S, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration: Is There a Case to Answer?’ in Talmon, Stefan and Jia, Bing Bing (eds), The South China Sea Arbitration: A Chinese Perspective (Hart Publishing 2014).Google Scholar
Tams, CJ, ‘Meta-Custom and the Court: A Study in Judicial Law-Making’ (2015) 14 LPICT 51.Google Scholar
Tams, CJ, ‘The ICJ as a “Law-Formative Agency”: Summary and Synthesis’ in Tams, Christian J and Sloan, James (eds), The Development of International law by the International Court of Justice (OUP 2013).Google Scholar
Tams, CJ and Tzanakopoulos, A, ‘Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development’ (2010) 23(4) LJIL 781.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (2nd ed, Hart 2006).Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y, ‘Provisional Measures Prescribed by ITLOS and Marine Environmental Protection’ (2014) 108 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 365.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y, ‘Reflections on Historic Rights in the South China Sea Arbitration (Merits)’ (2017) 32 IJMCL 3.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y, ‘Reflections on the Advisory Jurisdiction of ITLOS as a Full Court: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 2015’ (2015) 14 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 318.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y, The South China Sea Arbitration: Toward an International Legal Order in the Oceans (Hart Publishing 2019).Google Scholar
Telesetsky, A, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Seeking the Legitimacy of State Consent’ in Grossman, Nienke and others (eds), Legitimacy and International Courts (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
Tomka, P, ‘The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Progressive Development of International Law’ in The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Rule of Law: 1996–2016 (Brill 2017).Google Scholar
Treves, T, ‘A System for Law of the Sea Dispute Settlement’ in Barnes, Richard, Freestone, David and Ong, David (eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (OUP 2006).Google Scholar
Treves, T, ‘Judicial Lawmaking in an Era of “Proliferation” of International Courts and Tribunals: Development or Fragmentation of International Law?’ in Wolfrum, Rudiger and Röben, V (eds), Developments of International Law in Treaty Making (Springer 2005).Google Scholar
Treves, T, ‘The General Assembly and the Meeting of States Parties in the Implementation of the LOS Convention’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude (ed), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Trevino, CJ, ‘State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Interplay with Investor–State Arbitration Under the Same Treaty’ (2014) 5 JIDS 199.Google Scholar
Trevisanut, S, ‘The Exercise of Administrative Functions by ITLOS: A Comment on Prompt Release Case- Law’ in Boschiero, Nerina and others (eds), International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (Springer 2013).Google Scholar
Trevisanut, S, ‘Twenty Years of Prompt Release of Vessels: Admissibility, Jurisdiction, and Recent Trends’ (2017) 48(3–4) ODIL 300.Google Scholar
Trevisanut, S, Giannopoulos, N and Roland Holst, R, ‘Introduction: Regime Interaction in Ocean Governance’ in Trevisanut, Seline, Giannopoulos, Nikolaos and Holst, Rozemarijn Roland (eds), Regime Interaction in Ocean Governance Problems, Theories and Methods (Brill 2020).Google Scholar
Trouwborst, A, Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law (Kluwer Law International 2002).Google Scholar
Trouwborst, A, ‘The Precautionary Principle in General International Law: Combating the Babylonian Confusion’ (2007) 16 RECIEL 185.Google Scholar
Trouwborst, A, ‘The Work of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (2012) 26 Ocean Yearbook 181.1Google Scholar
Ventura, VAMF, ‘Tackling Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fishing: the ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Flag State Responsibility for IUU fishing and the Principle of Due Diligence’, (2015) 12 Braz J Int’l L 50.Google Scholar
Venzke, I, How Interpretation Makes International Law On Semantic Change and Normative Twists (OUP 2012).Google Scholar
Venzke, I, ‘The Role of International Courts as Interpreters and Developers of the Law: Working out the Jurisgenerative Practice of Interpretation’ (2011) 34 LLAICLR 99.Google Scholar
Vidas, D, ‘The Delimitation of the Territorial Sea, the Continental Shelf, and the EEZ’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude, Henriksen, Tore and Busch, Signe Veierud (eds), Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Case Law: Is It Consistent and Predictable? (CUP 2018).Google Scholar
von Bernstorff, J, ‘Specialized Courts and Tribunals as the Guardians of International Law? The Nature and Function of Judicial Interpretation in Kelsen and Schmitt’ in Follesdal, Andreas and Ulfstein, Geir (eds), The Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing? (OUP 2018).Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, A and Jacob, M, ‘The Judge as Law-Maker: Thoughts on Bruno Simma’s Declaration in the Kosovo Opinion’ in Fastenrath, Ulrich and others (eds), From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma (OUP 2011).Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, A and Venzke, I, ‘Beyond Disputes: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers’ in von Bogdandy, Armin and Venzke, Ingo (eds), International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance (Springer 2012).Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, A and Venzke, I, International Judicial Lawmaking on Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance (Springer 2012).Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, A and Venzke, I, In Whose Name?: A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication (OUP 2014).Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, A and Venzke, I, ‘The Spell of Precedents: Lawmaking by International Court and Tribunals’ in Romano, Cesare, Alter, Karen and Shany, Yuval (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (OUP 2013).Google Scholar
Vukas, B and Vidas, D, ‘Flags of Convenience and High Seas Fishing: The Emergence of a Legal Framework’ in Stokke, Olav Schram, Governing High Seas Fisheries: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes (OUP 2001).Google Scholar
Waldock, H, ‘The International Court of Justice as Seen from the Bar and the Bench’ BYBIL 54 (1983) 4.Google Scholar
Walker, GK, Definitions for the Law of the Sea: Terms Not Defined by the 1982 Convention (Brill 2011).Google Scholar
Weil, P, The Law of Maritime Delimitation – Reflections (Maureen MacGlashan tr, Cambridge Grotius Publications Limited 1989).Google Scholar
Winter, G (ed), Towards Sustainable Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis (IUCN 2009).Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R, ‘Conciliation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in Tomuschat, Christian and others (eds), Conciliation in International Law: The OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration (Brill 2016).Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R, ‘Enforcing Community Interests through International Dispute Settlement: Reality of Utopia’ in Fastenrath, Ulrich and others (eds), From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma (OUP 2011).Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R, ‘The Legal Order for the Seas and Oceans’ in Nordquist, Myron H and Moore, John Norton (eds), Entry into Force of the Law of the Sea Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 1995).Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R, ‘The Role of International Dispute Settlement Institutions in the Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf’ in Lagoni, Rainer and Vignes, Daniel (eds), Maritime Delimitation (Martinus Nijhoff 2006).Google Scholar
Wood, M, ‘Choosing between Arbitration and a Permanent Court: Lessons from Inter-State Cases’ (2017) 32(1) ICSID Review 1.Google Scholar
Wood, M, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and General International Law’ (2007) 22 IJMCL 351.Google Scholar
Wood, M, ‘The Law of the Sea Convention and Agenda 21: Marine Environmental Implications’ in Boyle, Alan and Freestone, David (eds) International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges (OUP 1999).Google Scholar
Yao, H and Liao, X, ‘Natural Prolongation and Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm: Implications of the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case’ (2014) 4 Asian Journal of International Law 281.Google Scholar
Yee, S, ‘En Route to the Final Shape of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System: Some Pivotal Negotiating Procedural Steps Worthy of Consideration by Future Treaty-makers and Leaders in Treaty-making’ (2014) 13 CJIL 185.Google Scholar
Yee, S, ‘The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Potential Jurisdictional Obstacles or Objections’ (2014) 13 CJIL 708.Google Scholar
You, KJ, ‘Advisory Opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal, Revisited’ (2008) 39 ODIL 360.Google Scholar
Young, OR, ‘Commentary on Shirley V. Scott “The LOS Convention as Constitutional Regime for the Oceans’ in Elferink, Alex G Oude (ed), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff 2005).Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A and others, The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd ed, OUP 2012).Google Scholar
Zou, K and Ye, Q, ‘Interpretation and Application of Article 298 of the Law of the Sea Convention in Recent Annex VII Arbitrations: An Appraisal’ (2017) 48(3–4) ODIL 331.Google Scholar
Zwinge, T, ‘Duties of Flag States to Implement and Enforce International Standards and Regulations – And Measures to Counter Their Failure to Do So’ (2011) 10(2) JIBL 297.Google Scholar