In the MV “Norstar” Case (Norstar Case), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) produced two reasoned decisions. In the first, the Tribunal established jurisdiction over the relevant dispute and the admissibility of Panama's claims. In the second, it found that Italy had violated Panama's right to freedom of navigation on the high seas. In the latter decision, the Tribunal relied on an expansive understanding of flag state jurisdiction—prompting a vociferous joint dissent by seven of its twenty-three judges. The majority's understanding of the jurisdictional exclusivity of the flag state as extending to prescriptive as well as enforcement jurisdiction is a significant expansion of flag state rights—and will have a corresponding impact on the way that shipping is regulated internationally.

On April 2, 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS or Tribunal) rendered an advisory opinion on the rights and obligations of flag states and coastal states regarding illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). ITLOS confirmed that the full Tribunal—not just its Seabed Disputes Chamber—has jurisdiction to render advisory opinions, a matter of controversy that had previously been untested. The Tribunal also held that under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or Convention), flag states have a “due diligence” obligation to ensure that vessels flying their flag do not engage in IUU fishing activities, and that the flag state may be held liable if that obligation of due diligence is breached. In addition, the Tribunal clarified that where fisheries competence has been transferred from a state to an international organization, it is the organization, not the flag state, that may face liability for a failure to have taken adequate measures to prevent IUU fishing. Finally, the Tribunal confirmed that coastal states have a duty to consult and cooperate with each other in the sustainable management of shared stocks and highly migratory species.

In the first criminal piracy decision by a United States court in nearly a century, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal piracy statute’s reference to the “law of nations” explicitly ties the scope of the offense to evolving customary international law definitions of the crime. The court went on to find that under current customary and treaty law, attempted piracy falls within the scope of the international crime. In doing so, it joined several courts in nations around the world that have confronted the issue as a result of the outbreak of Somali piracy that began in 2008.

The disputes relating to prompt release constitute an important part of the case law of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The frequency of the use of prompt release proceedings may be explained by the fact that illegal fisheries have increased owing to the exhaustion of biological resources. Considering that the exhaustion of renewable resources entails a serious problem, conflicts regarding illegal fisheries and the detention of vessels and crews will increase. This study examines the procedure for prompt release under Article 292 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by focusing on the case law of the Tribunal. In particular, this study addresses the issues concerning substantive and procedural requirements provided in Article 292, locus standi, the relation between proceedings of the Tribunal and of domestic courts, and criteria for evaluating ‘reasonable’ bond.