Provisional Measures Of Protection Research Articles

Qatar v. United Arab Emirates: Order on Provisional Measures (I.C.J.)

On June 11, 2018, the State of Qatar (Qatar) instituted legal proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD Convention). On the same day, Qatar also applied for provisional measures of protection.

Calming the Waters in the West African Region: The Case of Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire

On 23 September 2017, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) unanimously fixed the course of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire and, thus, ended a long-standing dispute between the two West African neighbours. In addition to maritime delimitation, the legal reasoning and conclusions drawn in the judgment – especially in view of the Special Chamber's Provisional Measures Order of 25 April 2017 – are significant, in that they shed light on states' rights and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in respect of undelimited maritime areas, and also on the potential to respond meaningfully to unilateral resource-related activities in disputed waters through recourse to provisional measures of protection. The present article examines the key aspects of the Special Chamber's ruling and highlights some issues of practical significance for the future conduct of unilateral petroleum activities in disputed maritime areas.

AHG v. Canada

Human rights — Whether author’s claims sufficiently substantiated — Whether author’s claims incompatible ratione materiae with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Whether deportation in violation of obligations of State Party under Covenant — Right to life — Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — Right to liberty and security of person — Right to privacy and family — Whether State Party violating its obligations under Article 7 of Covenant — Effective remedy — CompensationInternational tribunals — Provisional measures of protection — Duty of compliance — United Nations Human Rights Committee — Indication of provisional measures — Compliance necessary as part of good faith participation in system of individual communications — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Protecting and preserving the marine environment in disputed areas: seismic noise and provisional measures of protection

This paper is the first to address the environmental legal issues that could arise from the conduct of unilateral seismic operations in disputed maritime areas. And that should be surprising: such operations are ongoing in many places across the globe as states seek to enhance their domestic natural resource potentials and establish their sovereign control in the areas under dispute. But, the lack of previous legal scholarship on the topic is even more surprising when one realises the serious and multifaceted risks posed by seismic surveys on the marine environment. As this paper discusses, there are known environmental risks that include permanent injuries to marine organisms or even immediate death. Other effects may include temporary injuries that may or may not directly result in death but that may make marine organisms less fit, resulting in lower chances of survival. These risks are in addition to less well understood but nonetheless plausible risks to marine ecosystems, such as the potential for noise-derived behavioural disturbance. This could have an impact on animals’ feeding, movement and reproduction, and might also have short- or long-term effects on catch success rates. The paper examines the possible application of provisional measures of protection under Article 290 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This provision enables a court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction under UNCLOS to prescribe provisional measures not only to preserve the rights of the disputants, but also, or even solely, to prevent serious harm to the marine environment. The analysis explores the foreseeable risks posed by unilateral seismic surveys and examines if Article 290 of UNCLOS provides adequate protection to the complainant state against such operations, pending the final settlement of the dispute. The paper reviews the existing environmental jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on provisional measures and comments on the potential to respond meaningfully to unilateral seismic exploration activities in disputed maritime areas through recourse to provisional measures of protection.

Calming the Waters in the West African Region: The Ghana/CCte D'Ivoire Case

On 23 September 2017, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) unanimously fixed the course of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire and, thus, ended a longstanding dispute between the two West African neighbours. In addition to maritime delimitation, the legal reasoning and conclusions drawn in the judgment – especially in view of the Special Chamber’s Provisional Measures Order of 25 April 2017 – are significant, in that they shed light on States’ rights and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in respect of undelimited maritime areas, and also on the potential to respond meaningfully to unilateral resource-related activities in disputed waters through recourse to provisional measures of protection. The present paper examines the key aspects of the Special Chamber’s ruling and highlights some issues of practical significance for the future conduct of unilateral petroleum activities in disputed maritime areas.

Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration

311Arbitration — Provisional measures of protection — Court of Arbitration — Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Power of Court to order measures if necessary to avoid prejudice to final solution — Criteria — Whether party seeking measures required to demonstrate urgency and risk of irreparable harm — Relevance of criteria identified by International Court of JusticeRivers — Legal regulation — Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 — Possible diversion of waters — Arbitration — Court of Arbitration — Provisional measures — Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project

The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom)

310International tribunals — Jurisdiction — Admissibility — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Annex VII tribunal — Scope of jurisdiction — Whether restricted to alleged violation of UNCLOS — Other international court seised of case — Whether tribunal should defer to other court — Suspension of proceedings — Whether precluding exercise of provisional measures jurisdictionInternational tribunals — Provisional measures of protection — Criteria — Urgency — Need for measures to preserve rights of either party — Equality between parties — Prevention of serious harm to the marine environmentSea — Marine environment — UNCLOS — Protection of marine environment — Use of provisional measures jurisdiction

LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America)

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Requirement of prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Criteria for indication of provisional measures — Risk of irreparable damage to rights — Urgency — Whether Court entitled to grant measures without hearing in case of extreme urgency — Death penalty case — Measures granted against federal State regarding acts to be taken by constituent State of federationConsular relations — Right of access to consul — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36 — Optional Protocol — German national sentenced to death in the United States of America — Failure to inform of right of access to consul — Whether violation of Article 36 — Whether violation invalidating death sentence

Federal Republic of Germany v. United States of America and Others

Consular relations — Right of access to consul — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36 — Optional Protocol — German national sentenced to death in the United States of America — Failure to inform of right of access to consul — Whether violation of Article 36 — Whether violation invalidating death sentence53Relationship of international law and municipal law — Order of International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — International Court granting measures indicating that United States of America should not proceed with execution — United States Government under obligation to transmit Order to Governor of State where execution to take place — Effect in United States law — The law of the United States of America

M/V Saiga (No 2)

111International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Provisional measures of protection — Binding character — Purpose — Jurisdiction — Law of the Sea Convention, 1982, Articles 290 and 297Sea — Exclusive economic zone — Arrest of vessel — Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — Procedures for ensuring prompt release of vessel — When applicable — Enforcement

Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases

148International tribunals — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Provisional measures of protection — Binding character — Purpose — Jurisdiction — Law of the Sea Convention, 1982, Articles 290 and 297 — Requirement of urgency — Whether power of the Tribunal to order provisional measures different from that of the International Court of JusticeSea — Fisheries — Conservation — Management of fish stocks — Marine environment — Precautionary principle — Whether part of customary international law — Whether different from a precautionary approach — Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, 1993 — Straddling Stocks Agreement, 1995 — Relevance for application of the Law of the Sea Convention

The Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea M/V Saiga Cases

The article surveys the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea M/V Saiga cases which inaugurated jurisprudence of the 21 Member International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany, with delivery of two important decisions on prompt release of the vessel and its crew (1997, Case No. 1) and on provisional measures of protection (1998, Case No. 2). The decisions provided precedential instances of application by the Tribunal of Articles 292 and 290 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea respectively, and of the relevant provisions of the ITLOS Rules. The prescription of provisional measures of protection formed the incidental proceedings of the pending M/V Saiga (Merits) case which is to be settled by ITLOS in mid-1999 (Case No. 2) and is to be the subject of a separate article. In view of the ITLOS Statute and the Rules being closely modelled in the Statute and the Rules of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), careful attention is given to comparison of the inaugural practice of ITLOS with the longstanding practice of the ICJ, and preservation of judicial consistency by ITLOS is particularly commended. A history of the M/V Saiga dispute, intertwined with domestic proceedings before Guinean courts, is for the reader's convenience outlined in a Chronological Table annexed to this article.

Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute between Burkina FASO and Mali: Provisional Measures of Protection

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Nuclear Test Case: International Court of Justice, the Hague, Year 1973: Public sitting held on Monday, 21 May, 1973, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Lachs presiding, in the Nuclear Tests Case (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection). (Australia v. France)

Nuclear Test Case: International Court of Justice, the Hague, Year 1973: Public sitting held on Monday, 21 May, 1973, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Lachs presiding, in the Nuclear Tests Case (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection). (Australia v. France)