Identifying 'Exclusionary Agreements': Agreement Type as a Procedural Limitation in UNCLOS Dispute Settlement
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
StandardStandard
Yn: Ocean Development & International Law, Cyfrol 52, Rhif 2, 26.05.2021, t. 113-142.
Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolyn › Erthygl › adolygiad gan gymheiriaid
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Identifying 'Exclusionary Agreements': Agreement Type as a Procedural Limitation in UNCLOS Dispute Settlement
AU - Roberts, Hayley
N1 - 18 month embargo
PY - 2021/5/26
Y1 - 2021/5/26
N2 - The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is heralded as a constitution for the oceans, and as part of this, provides for a compulsory dispute settlement procedure entailing binding decisions. However, case law and academic commentary have highlighted significant issues in definitively identifying other agreements that could preclude these compulsory procedures – a concept permitted by the Convention in certain circumstances. This paper begins to explore this challenge by contending that the type of agreement plays a significant role in whether or not it could be determined to be an ‘exclusionary agreement’. In doing so, the article conducts a systematic interpretation of Articles 281 and 282 UNCLOS, underpinned by the application of relevant provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This provides a conclusive basis as to whether the status of an agreement as an ‘ad hoc agreement’ (specific; adopted for the dispute) or an ‘existing agreement’ (general; adopted prior to the dispute) holds any significance in the context of these articles.
AB - The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is heralded as a constitution for the oceans, and as part of this, provides for a compulsory dispute settlement procedure entailing binding decisions. However, case law and academic commentary have highlighted significant issues in definitively identifying other agreements that could preclude these compulsory procedures – a concept permitted by the Convention in certain circumstances. This paper begins to explore this challenge by contending that the type of agreement plays a significant role in whether or not it could be determined to be an ‘exclusionary agreement’. In doing so, the article conducts a systematic interpretation of Articles 281 and 282 UNCLOS, underpinned by the application of relevant provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This provides a conclusive basis as to whether the status of an agreement as an ‘ad hoc agreement’ (specific; adopted for the dispute) or an ‘existing agreement’ (general; adopted prior to the dispute) holds any significance in the context of these articles.
KW - Dispute settlement
KW - jurisdiction
KW - law of the sea
KW - procedure
KW - treaty interpretation
U2 - 10.1080/00908320.2021.1886448
DO - 10.1080/00908320.2021.1886448
M3 - Article
VL - 52
SP - 113
EP - 142
JO - Ocean Development & International Law
JF - Ocean Development & International Law
SN - 0090-8320
IS - 2
ER -