Abstract
Abstract The article argues that the Law of the Sea Convention’s (LOSC) dispute settlement system (DSS) is attuned only to certain types of disputes (bilateral) and does not allow for the effective enforcement of obligations erga omnes reflected in the Convention. Mechanisms established to address enforcement of communitarian norms specifically are scarce in international law and the traditional bilateral structure of adjudicatory dispute settlement circumscribes the ability of states to act as advocates of the international community to which obligations erga omnes are owed. The article identifies the obligations erga omnes reflected in the LOSC and assesses the extent to which its dispute settlement framework is suited to address their breach. It is submitted that some of the community interest obligations of the LOSC are “left behind” by the function of the system itself.
Highlights
The present article argues that the Law of the Sea Convention’s (LOSC) dispute settlement system (DSS) does not allow for the effective enforcement of via free accessFasia obligations erga omnes reflected in the Convention.[1]
Mechanisms established to address enforcement of communitarian norms are scarce in international law and the traditional bilateral structure of adjudicatory dispute settlement circumscribes the ability of states to act as advocates of the international community to which obligations erga omnes are owed
At the time of its conclusion, the LOSC DSS was praised for its innovative character
Summary
The present article argues that the Law of the Sea Convention’s (LOSC) dispute settlement system (DSS) does not allow for the effective enforcement of. Fasia the Court includes the prohibition against aggression, slavery, racial discrimination, and genocide,[27] as well as the right of people to self-determination[28] and rules of international humanitarian law that embody “elementary considerations of humanity.”[29] It would have been interesting to see whether the ICJ – if it had upheld its jurisdiction – would have affirmed the existence of an obligation erga omnes to nuclear disarmament.[30]. The IDI has defined erga omnes as “obligations under general international law that a state owes in any given case to the international community, in view of its common values and its concern for compliance, so that a breach of that obligation enables all states to take action.”. Both the ICJ and the ILC have predicted that “the scope of the concept will necessarily evolve over time.”[38]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
