Abstract
This contribution is a reply to and a commentary on the article by David A. Colson and Dr. Peggy Hoyle, "Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?" 34(1) Ocean Development & International Law 59-82 (2003). Colson and Hoyle took the view that Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal did not reach the correct answer. The author's survey of the Southern Bluefin Tuna and the Mox Plant cases, in light of the doctrine of procedural and substantive parallelism between the umbrella UN Law of the Sea Convention and its numerous implementing special treaties covered by Articles 281-282, leads her to conclude that the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Tribunal did get it right.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
