Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:36:17.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The M/V “Saiga” (No.2. Case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment

International Tribunal For The Law Of The Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Louise De La Fayette
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 1 July 1999, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rendered its first judgment on the merits in the M/V “Saiga” (No.2) case (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea)1, thereby completing the settlement of a dispute which began with the M/V “Saiga” case (hereinafter the Saiga No.1)2 in the form of an application for prompt release under Article 292 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention). Unlike the decision in the Saiga No.1, which evidenced a deeply split Tribunal, the judgment on the merits was by an overwhelming majority of 18 to 2 on all but two paragraphs of the dispositif.3

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments And Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 467 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

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. See Tribunal's website http://www.un.org/Depts/los, and 38 I.L.M. 1323 (1999).

2. See Tribunal's website, op. cit., 110 I.L.R. 736 or 37 I.L.M. 360 (1998); and summary and comments by Lowe, Vaughan, “The M/V Saiga: the First Case in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea” 48 I.C.L.Q. 187 (1999).Google Scholar

3. Judges Warioba and Ndiaye considered that the application was not admissible, because the Saiga was not registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines at the relevant time. The other exceptions to unanimity were votes of 17 to 3 on para.11 regarding the delay in the release of the Saiga, and 13 to 7, on para. 13 regarding costs.

4. By a majority of 12–9, against the vigorous protests of the minority, which included the President and the Vice-President.

5. The M/V “Saiga” (No.2), (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Order, 11 Mar. 1998, paras.1–9; 39.

6. In the Exchange of Letters and the Order of 20 Feb. 1998, the commencement of proceedings was deemed to be 22 Dec. 1997, the date of the notification of arbitration by St. Vincent. Presumably, the purpose of the back-dating was to enable the request for provisional measures of 13 Jan. 1998 to be heard as an aspect of the case before the Tribunal.

7. Guinea had argued that the measures taken against the Saiga were pursuant to Guinea's fisheries jurisdiction in the EEZ and that she had not accepted any means of dispute settlement, apart from her national law. Order, op. cit., supra n.5, para.22

8. Judgment, paras.46–54.

9. Ibid., paras.55–74.

10. United Nations Convention on Conditions for the Registration of Ships, adopted at Geneva, 7 Feb. 1986; (1986) 7 United Nations Law of the Sea Bulletin 87.

11. FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted 24 Nov. 1993, not in force; (1994) 33 I.L.M. 968.Google Scholar

12. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 Dec. 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, adopted at New York 4 Aug. 1995. not in force; (1995) 34 I.L.M. 1542.Google Scholar

13. Judgment, para.83.

14. Ibid., para.87.

15. Ibid., paras.89–102.

16. Ibid., paras.103–109.

17. Judgment, para.110.

18. Ibid., paras.111–118.

19. Ibid., paras.119 and 123.

20. Ibid., para.124.

21. Ibid., paras.125 and 128.

22. Judgment, para.127.

23. Sec judgment on the Court's website www.icj–cij.org or at 37 I.L.M. 162 (1998).

24. Ibid., paras.129–136.

25. Ibid., paras.137–138.

26. Ibid., paras.139–141.

27. Ibid., paras.142–144.

28. Judgment, paras.145–152.

29. Ibid., paras. 153 and 157.

30. Ibid., para.154.

31. Ibid., para.155. Here, the Tribunal did not cite the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Corfu Channel case.

32. Op. cit., Art.22, para.l(f) on the inspection of foreign fishing vessels at sea.

33. Ibid., para.158.

34. UN Fish Stocks Agreement, paras.160–162.

35. Ibid., paras. 163–170.

38. Ibid., para.171.

39. Several judges dissented on this point, believing that Guinea should have paid the costs of both parties.

40. Unfortunately, space does not permit a description, much less analysis of the issues concerning the presentation of evidence, the burden of proof, the standard of proof, the law regarding quantum of damages, all the arguments for and against the validity of the registration of the Saiga, etc.