1 5 United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea, 1982: A Commentary (Shabtai Rosenne & Louis B. Sohn eds., 1989) (edited by two participants in the discussions); see Rosenne, Shabtai, UNCLOS III—The Montreux (Riphagen) Compromise, in Realism in Law-Making 169 (Bos, Adriaan & Siblesz, Hugo eds., 1986)Google Scholar.

2 See Bernard, H. Oxman, The Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Tenth Session (1981), 76 AJIL 1 (1982)Google Scholar, and the articles (some with J. R. Stevenson) cited there, in footnote 1, about earlier sessions.

3 Adede, A. O., The System Forsettlement of Disputes Under The United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea (1987)Google Scholar.

4 39 ILM 1359 (2000)Google Scholar; see Kwiatkowska, Barbara, Case Report: Southern Bluefin Tuna (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), 95 AJIL 162 (2001)Google Scholar.

5 The Tribunal decided that it was without jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the dispute on the ground that, in the dispute settlement provisions of a separate agreement, the parties had excluded by implication “any further procedure,” within the meaning of Article 281(1) of the Convention, including the procedures under Article 286.

6 39 ILM at 1395-401.

7 42 ILM 1187 (2003).

8 This point was brought out by Bernard, H. Oxman in The Rule of Law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 7 Eur. J. Int’l L. 353, 367 (1996)Google Scholar.

9 All of the Tribunal’s decisions are available at <http://www.itlos.org> and in the ITLOS Reports series.

10 Interim Measures, 1972 ICJ Rep. 12 (Aug. 17). The measures were later modified and their duration extended. The applicant, to whom the catch limits applied, was careful to respect them.

11 Examples include the 2000 Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific, the 2001 Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South-East Atlantic, the 1996 protocol to the 1972 (London) Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter, and the 2002 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.

12 See, e.g., Rayfuse, Rosemary, The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under the Law of the Sea Convention, 36 Victoria U. Wellington l. Rev. 683 (2005)Google Scholar; Serdy, Andrew, The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half-Hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse, 36 Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 713 (2005)Google Scholar.

13 As many pointed out during the negotiations themselves; see, for example, the report of the British Branch in International Law Association, Report of The Fifty-Seventh Conference of The International Law Association 444 (1976).

14 Richard, B. Bilder, Some Limitations of Adjudication as an International Dispute Settlement Technique, 23 Va. J. Int’l. L. 1 (1982)Google Scholar.

15 Leading, as in the case of the Chaisiri Reeferbefore the Tribunal, to a quick settlement of outstanding issues.