عنوان مقاله [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.