دامنة شمول آیین‌های اجباری حل اختلاف کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها در پرتو آرای قضایی و داوری

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی- دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

سازِکار حل اختلاف کنوانسیون­ 1982 ملل متحد در خصوص حقوق دریاها بر چهار آیین قضایی و داوری بنا نهاده شده است؛ بدین گونه که دیوان بین ­المللی دادگستری، دیوان بین­ المللی حقوق دریاها و دادگاه­های داوری موضوع ضمیمه­ های هفتم و هشتم کنوانسیون به‌طور موازی واجد صلاحیت اجباری رسیدگی به اختلافات ناشی تفسیر یا اجرای کنوانسیون هستند. با این وصف، دامنة شمول آیین ­های اجباری بنابر مواد 297 و 298 کنوانسیون محدود شده است. از یک سو، ماده 297 پاره­ای از اختلافات را از حوزة شمول آیین ­های اجباری خارج می­کند و از سوی دیگر، طبق ماده 298 هر کشور متعاهد مجاز است انواع مشخصی از اختلافات را از شمول آیین ­های اجباری مستثنا کند. ساختار پیچیده و واژه ­پردازی مبهم این دو ماده، راه را بر بحث­ها و تردیدهای گوناگون دربارة حیطة شمول آیین­ های اجباری گشوده است. همچنین دربارة شمول آیین­ های اجباری کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها بر اختلافات سرزمینی ابهامی اساسی وجود دارد. این همه سبب شده است که مراجع قضایی و داوری برای احراز صلاحیت خود دربارة اختلافات ناشی از کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها به تبیین و تفسیر دامنة شمول آیین­ های اجباری حل اختلاف آن بپردازند. این نوشتار بر آن است که با توجه آرای قضایی و داوری، دامنة شمول آیین­ های اجباری حل اختلاف کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها را بررسی کند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Scope of the Law of the Sea Convention’s Compulsory Dispute Settlement Procedures in Light of Judicial and Arbitral Decisions

نویسنده [English]

  • Sassan Seyrafi
Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Tehran, Faculty of Law and Political Science
چکیده [English]

The dispute-settlement system of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention is based on four judicial and arbitral procedures. The International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and arbitral tribunals under Annexes VII and VIII of the Convention have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes concerning its interpretation or application. Nonetheless, the scope of these compulsory procedures has been restricted by Articles 297 and 298 of the Convention. On the one hand, Article 297 sets out exceptions to the compulsory procedures. Article 298, on the other, allows States Parties to exclude specific categories of disputes from the compulsory procedures. Yet, the complex structure and ambiguous wording of these two Articles has given way to controversy and uncertainty about the scope of the compulsory dispute-settlement procedures. Furthermore, there is great uncertainty about the applicability of the compulsory procedures to territorial disputes connected to the Law of the Sea Convention. Consequently, judicial and arbitral bodies have had to explain and interpret the scope of the Convention’s compulsory dispute-settlement procedures. This paper aims to examine the scope of the Law of the Sea Convention’s compulsory dispute-settlement procedures in light of judicial and arbitral decisions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Law of the Sea Convention
  • Compulsory Dispute Settlement Procedures
  • International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
  • Annex VII. Arbitration
  • Optional Exceptions
  • Territorial Disputes
  • competence
  • الف. فارسی

    • سون، لویی بی و دیگران؛ حقوق بین­الملل دریاها، ترجمه: محمد حبیبی مجنده، جنگل، 1395.
    • طلایی، فرهاد؛ حقوق بین­الملل دریاها، جنگل، 1396.
    • میرعباسی، سیدباقر و سید‌حسین سادات میدانی؛ دادرسی­های بین­المللی: دیوان بین­المللی دادگستری در تئوری و عمل، جنگل، 1385.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    • Duy Phan, Hao et al. (eds.), The Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation: A Victory for UNCLOS and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, World Scientific Publishing, 2019.
    • Karaman, Igor V., Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012.
    • Klein, Natalie, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    • Simma, Bruno et al. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2012.
    • Tanaka, Yoshifumi, The International Law of the Sea, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2019.

     

    - Articles

    • Allen, Stephen, “Article 297 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Scope of Mandatory Jurisdiction”, Ocean Development & International Law, vol. 48, nos. 3–4, 2017.
    • Boyle, Alan E., “Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 46, 1997.
    • Harrison, James, “Defining Disputes and Characterizing Claims: Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in Law of the Sea Convention Litigation”, Ocean Development & International Law, 2017, vol. 48, nos. 3–4, pp. 269–83.
    • Klein, Natalie, “The Vicissitudes of Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 32, 2017.
    • Murphy, Sean D., “International Law Relating to Islands”, Collected courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 386, 2017.
    • Oxman, Bernard, “Courts and Tribunals: The ICJ, ITLOS and Arbitral Tribunals,” in Donald Rothwell, et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, Oxford University Press, 2015.
    • Trevisanut, Seline, “Twenty Years of Prompt Release of Vessels: Admissibility, Jurisdiction, and Recent Trends”, Ocean Development & International Law, vol. 48, nos. 3-4, 2017.
    • Volterra, Robert G., et al., “The Characterisation of the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 33, 2018.
    • Whomersley, Chris, "The South China Sea: The Award of the Tribunal in the Case Brought by Philippines against China - A Critique" Chinese Journal of International Law, vol. 15, no. 2, 2016.
    • White, Michael, “Prompt Release Cases in ITLOS”, in Tafsir Malick Ndiaye and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
    • Zou, Keyuan & Qiang Ye, “Interpretation and Application of Article 298 of the Law of the Sea Convention in Recent Annex VII Arbitrations: An Appraisal”, Ocean Development & International Law, vol. 48, nos. 3–4, 2017.

     

    - Cases

    • Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago), Award of 11 April 2006, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXVII, pp.147-251.
    • The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherland v Russia), Jurisdiction, Award of 26 November 2014, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXXII, pp. 187-204.
    • Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXXI, pp. 359-606.
    • The Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 25 May 2019, available at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_26/C26_Order_25.05.pdf
    • Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections of the Russian Federation, Award of 21 February 2020, available at https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/9272
    • The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy V. India), Award of 21 May 2020, available at: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/16500
    • Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 February 2017, I.C.J. Reports 2017, pp. 4-54.
    • The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95- 111.
    • M/V “Norstar” (Panama v. Italy), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 4 November 2016, ITLOS Reports 2016, p. 44-113.
    • M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Judgment of 28 May 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, pp. 4-48.
    • Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Award of 4 August 2000, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXIII, pp. 1-57.
    • The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Award of 29 October 2015, paras. 150-1, available at: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2579
    • The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Merits, Award of 12 July 2016, available at https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086