ITLOS Practice on Prompt Release of Vessels

Document Type : ISI

Authors

1 PhD Student‏ ‏Department of Humanitarian and Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) ‎Branch Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor Law Department, University of Isfahan

Abstract

Sometimes the competent authorities of the coastal state detain foreign ships for violating national or international law and regulations. As a rule, the ship suspected of committing an offense should remain in custody until the end of the investigation so that judicial or administrative authorities can rule out the possibility of enforcement. Prolonging the time and process of detention can have a lot of losses. One cannot justify unilaterally the immediate and unconditional resolution of some problems, since the possibility of enforcement by the coastal judiciary will be lost. Has the ITLOS been able to establish a uniform and coordinated approach to immediate release? This mechanism is embodied in the 1982 Convention, and the Tribunal in its various judgments has balanced the interests of the coastal states and the flag-bearer with regard to the conditions of immediate release and the determination of the standards for reasonable guarantee, and the appropriate procedure in this regard. The Tribunal's approach to immediate release was initially economic, but gradually shifted to human rights issues, and is now a top priority for the immediate release of the captain and crew, and ultimately the ship itself.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    الف) فارسی

    1. پی. چاندراسی، رائو خارا (1384). «دادگاه بین­ المللی حقوق دریاها: یک ارزیابی». ترجمة علی قاسمی، مجلة حقوقی، شمارة 33، ص270-245. در: https://www.sid.ir/fa/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=50595 (20 اردیبهشت 1400).
    2. تاناکا، یوشیفومی (1395). حقوق بین ­الملل دریاها. ترجمة آرمین طلعت، تهران، انتشارات شهر دانش.
    3. تروس، تولیو (1389). «دزدی دریایی، حقوق دریاها و توسل به زور: تحولات خارج از سواحل سومالی». ترجمة عباسعلی کدخدایی و آقاحسینی دهاقانی، ویژه­نامة مجلة حقوقی بین ­المللی، ص104-85.

            در: http://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20150203085407-9905-13.pdf  (22 مهر 1399).

    1. حبیب نوری، علی ­عبدالله (1385). «بررسی آزادی سریع کشتی ­های خارجی توقیف­ شده براساس کنوانسیون 1982 حقوق دریاها، آراء دیوان بین­ المللی». مجلة دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، شمارة 72، ص357-325.

          در:  https://journals.ut.ac.ir/article_25184.html (15 آذر 1400).   

    1. چرچیل، رابین؛ لو، آلن (1367). حقوق بین ­الملل دریاها. ترجمة بهمن آقایی، تهران، دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین ­المللی.
    2. زواره طباطبایی، فائزه (1378). «تسریع در آزادسازی کشتی و خدمه در کنوانسیون 1982 حقوق دریاها». پایان­ نامة کارشناسی ارشد حقوق بین­ الملل دانشگاه تهران.
    3. سابگا، چارلز آر؛ نامراتا آمارناث (1392). «معمای دزدی دریایی و معیارهای حقوقی قابل اعمال». ترجمة علی­ اکبر سیاپوش، مجموعة مقالات تحولات حقوق بین­ الملل دریاها، ص251-237.
    4. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1392). «تحول در مفهوم دزدی دریایی و آثار آن در پرتو حقوق بین ­الملل». مجموعة مقالات تحولات حقوق بین ­الملل دریاها، ص236-230.
    5. فتحی، بهرام (1394). «نقش دیوان بین ­الملل حقوق دریاها در حفظ محیط زیست دریایی». پایان­ نامة کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی (تهران مرکز).
    6. محبی، محسن؛ هادی آذری (1395). «دعوای متقابل در دیوان بین­ المللی حقوق دریاها: دستاورد قرار دوم نوامبر 2012 در قضیة کشتی ویرجینیا جی». مجلة حقوقی بین­ المللی، شمارة 55، ص52-31.

     DOI: 10.22066/CILAMAG.2016.23522

    1. نثاری ثانی، زهرا (1393). «مقایسة آراء دیوان بین ­المللی دادگستری و دیوان بین­ الملل حقوق دریاها در قضایای مرتبط با حقوق ماهی ­گیری». پایان ­نامة کارشناسی ارشد دانشکدة حقوق دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی (تهران مرکز).

    ب) خارجی

    12. Barnes, Richard (2009). Property Rights and Natural Resources. Bloomsbury Academic.

    13.Churchill, Robin (2006). “Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2004”. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol21, No1, pp1-14. DOI:10.1163/157180806776639457

    14. Franckx, Erik (2002). “Reasonable Bondin the Practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”..Cal W Intl L J, pp. 303-342. (Accessed: 13 March 2019) https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=cwilj

    15. Fallon, Liza, Lorne K. Kriwoken (2010).“International Influence of an Australian Nongovernment Organization in the Protection of Patagonian Toothfish”. Published online: 24 Jun 2010, pp. 221-266. DOI: 10.1080/00908320490467323

    16. Little, Laura, Marcos A. Orellana (2004). “Can CITES Play a Role in Solving the Problem of IUU Fishing? The Trouble with Patagonian Toothfish”. Yearbook Colo J Envtl L & Poly21.https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPagehandle=hein.journals/colenvlp16&div= 27&id=&page=(Accessed: 10 June 2019)

    17. Hayashi, Moritaka (2004). “Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing: Global and Regional Responses”. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp. 95-123. DOI: 10.1163/9789047406297_007

    18. Oxman, Bernard H (1996). “Observations on Vessel Release under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (IJMCL), Vol.11, issue.2, pp.201-215. DOI:10.1163/157180896X00078

    19. Rothwell Donald R, Tim Stephens (2004). “Illegal Southern Ocean Fishing and Prompt Release: Balancing Coastal and Flag State Rights and Interests”. International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ), Vol53, Issue1, pp. 171-187. DOI: 10.1093/iclq/53.1.171

    20. Rao, Patibandla Chandrasekhara (2011). “Law of the Sea, Settlement of Disputes”. Encyclopedia Entries, Max planck of public International Law (EMPIL), paras 4,5,7,8,12, 34,35,37 https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law- 9780199231690-e58  (Accessed: 18 June 2019)

    21. Schiffman, Howard S (2001). “UNCLOS and Marine Wildlife Disputes: Big Splash orBarely a Ripple?”. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy (JIWLP), pp.257-278.

        DOI:10.1080/13880290109353990

    22.Schmidt, Carl-Christian (2005).“Economic Drivers of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing”. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law(IJMCL), Volume 20, Issue 3, pp. 479-507. DOI:10.1163/157180805775098630

    23. Serdy, Andrew, Michael Bliss (2004). Prompt Release of Fishing Vessels: State Practice in the Light of the Cases before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.

    24. Treves, Tullio, (1998). “The Procedure before the International Tribunal forthe Law of the Sea: The Rules of the Tribunal and Related Documents”. Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL), Vol11, Issue3, pp.565-594.

        DOI:10.1017/S0922156598000405

    25. Treves, Tullio (2010). “Human Right and the law of the Sea”. Berkely Journal of International Law, Volume 28, Issue1, pp.1-14.  https://www.berkeleyjournalofinternationallaw.com/volume28-1 (Accessed: 15April 2019)

    Documents

    26. Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

    27. Rules of The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

    28. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    29. Statement by JUDGE JOSÉ LUIS JESUS, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, The Gilberto Amado Memorial Lecture, held during the 61st Session of the International Law Commission, Geneva, 15 July 2009.

    Cases

    30. The M/V “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadinesv. Guinea(, 1997, paras, 52, 66, 30, 86.

    31. The “Camouco” Case (Panamav. France), 2000, paras 24, 25, 28, 64, 66, 68, 69, 74, 78.

    32. The “Camouco” Case, Judge Treves dissenting, 2000, paras 7, 9.

    33. The “Camouco” Case, Judge Wolfrum dissenting, (2000, para3, 16.

    34. The “Camouco” Case, 2000, Judge Anderson dissenting, para 4.

    35. The “Monte Confurco” Case (Seychellesv. France,2000,paras, 2, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 38, 28, 72, 76, 86, 89, 93.

    36. The “Monte Confurco” Case, Judge Jesus dissenting, 2000, paras 6-7, 32.

    37. The “Monte Confurco” Case, Judge Anderson dissenting, 2000, para3-5.

    38. The “Volga” Case (Russian Federationv. Australia), 2002.

    39. The “Volga” Case, statement by James Crawford at Public sitting, ITLOS/PV 02/02 12 December 2002.

    40. The “Juno Trader” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadinesv. Guinea-Bissau,2004, paras 7, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 43, 50, 51, 52, 61, 87, 89, 91, 93, 99.

    41. The “Juno Trader” Case, Judge Chandrasekhara RAO, 2004.

    42. The “Hoshinmaru” Case (Japanv. Russian Federation), 2007, paras, 1, 29, 35, 40, 62, 63, 73.

    43. The “Hoshinmaru” Case, Judge Treves dissenting, 2007.

    Sites

    44. www.itlos.org

    45. http://www.un.org

Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies
Volume 7, Issue 2
August 2022
Pages 433-451

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics