The MOX Plant and IJzeren Rijn Disputes: Which Court Is the Supreme Arbiter?

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 223-246

  Lavranos, Nikolaos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

arbitral tribunals; concurrence of jurisdiction; European Court of Justice; hierarchy of norms; IJzeren Rijn case; international adjudication; international courts and tribunals; MOX Plant case

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750109007     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156505003262     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. See C. Romano, ‘The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies” The Pieces of the Puzzle’, (1999) 31 NYU Journal of International Lawand Politics 709; C. Brown, ‘The Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals” Finding YourWay through theMaze’, (2002) 3Melbourne Journal of International Law 453.
2. See for a detailed discussion N. Lavranos, ‘Concurrence of Jurisdiction between the ECJ and Other International Courts and Tribunals’, (2005) 14 European Environmental Law Review 213; G. Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation’, (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law849; J. Alvarez, ‘TheNewDispute Settlers” (Half) Truths and Consequences’, (2003) 38 Texas International Law Journal 405.
3. See generally Y. Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals (2003); J. Martinez, ‘Towards an International Judicial System’, (2003) 56 Stanford Law Review 429.
4. See for the materials of the dispute Permanent Court of Arbitration, available at www.pca-cpa.org. See for details Y. Shany, ‘The First MOX Plant Award” The Need To Harmonize Competing Environmental Regimes and Dispute Settlement Procedures’, (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 815; V. Rö ben, ‘The Order of theUNCLOSAnnexVIII Arbitral Tribunal to Suspend Proceedings in the Case of theMOX Plant at Sellafield” How Much Jurisdictional Subsidiarity?’, (2004) 73 Nordic Journal of International law 223; R. Churchill and J. Scott, ‘The MOX Plant Litigation” The First Half-life’, (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 643.
5. See Arts. 287-8 as well as Arts. 281-2 UNCLOS for the various possibilities.
6. ITLOS, Order, MOX Plant case, Request for Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, available at www.itlos.org.
7. ITLOS.
8. Arbitral tribunal, Order No. 3, Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction andMerits and Request for further ProvisionalMeasures, 24 June 2003, available at www.pca-cpa.org.
9. Case C-459/03, Action brought on 30 October 2003 by the Commission against Ireland, [2004] OJ C 7/24.
10. Council Decision 98/392/EEC of 23March 1998 concerning the conclusion by the EC of the UN Convention of 10 Dec. 1982 on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement of 28 July 1994 relating to the implementation of Part XI thereof, [1998] OJ L 179/1.
11. OSPAR, Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award, MOX Plant, available at www.pca-cpa.org.
12. OSPAR., para. 143.
13. Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, [1990] OJ L 158/56.
14. Directive 2003/4 of the EP and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, [2003] OJ L 41/26.
15. See, e.g., Case C-186/04 (Housieaux), Judgment of 21 April 2005; Case C-233/00 (Commission v. France) [2003] ECR I-6625; Case C-316/01 (Glawischnig) [2003] ECR I-5995; Case C-217/97 (Commission v. Germany) [1999] ECR I-5087; Case C-321/96 (WilhelmMecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg-Der Landrat) [1998] ECR I-3809.
16. CouncilDecision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the EC, of theConvention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, [2005] OJ L 124/1.
17. See further T. McDorman, ‘Access to Information under Art. 9 OSPAR Convention (Ireland v. UK), Final Award’, (2004) 98 AJIL 330. See generally R. Gertz, ‘Access to Environmental Information and the German Blue Angel-Lessons To Be Learned’, (2004) 13 European Environmental Law Review 268; R. Hallo (ed.), Access to Environmental Information in Europe” The Implementation and Implications of Directive 90/313/EEC (1996).
18. See for details theDutch official gazette Tractatenblad, 2003, 138; TweedeKamer, vergaderjaar 2004-5, 29 579, nr. 15; Tweede Kamer, 23 November 2004, TK 26-1659.
19. IJzeren Rijn, Arbitral Award, para. 13, available at www.pca-cpa.org.
20. Arbitral Award., para. 14.
21. Arbitral Award.
22. Arbitral Award., para. 103.
23. Arbitral Award.
24. Case 283/81 (CILFIT) [1982] ECR 3415; as clarified in case C-244/01 (Kö bler) [2003] ECR I-10239. But see the recent Opinion of AG Colomer in case C-461/03 (Gaston Schul) of 30 June 2005, in which he calls for a relaxation of the CILFIT conditions, available at http//curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang = en. In its ruling the ECJ refused to followAGColomer and instead confirmed the CILFIT conditions, see case C-461/03 (Gaston Schul) of 6 December 2005.
25. See further P. Craig and G. De Bu’ rca, EU Law (2003), 440 et seq.
26. IJzeren Rijn, Arbitral Award, Arbitral Award… note 20, para. 107.
27. Arbitral Award., para. 119.
28. Arbitral Award., para. 120.
29. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, [1992] OJ L 206/7; see also the unofficial consolidated text of the Directive published in 2003, available at CELEX no. 392L0043.
30. IJzeren Rijn, Arbitral Award, Arbitral Award. note 20, para. 121.
31. Arbitral Award., para. 137.
32. Arbitral Award., para. 141.
33. ‘IJzeren Rijn snel beperkt in gebruik nemen’, Het Laatste Nieuws, 9 June 2005, available at http//www.hln.be/ hln/cch/det/art_75076.html. In a prior statement, the responsible Belgian minister acknowledged that the railway line cannot be used before 2015 at the earliest, due to the reconstruction work that needs to be done before it can be reopened, ‘IJzeren Rijn” Vande Lanotte is hoopvol’, Het Laatste Nieuws, 27May 2005, available at http//www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_65500.html.
34. See ‘Eerste deel IJzeren Rijn in oktober open’, NRC Handelsblad, 9 July 2005.
35. See more extensively N. Lavranos, Decisions of International Organizations in the European and Domestic Legal Orders of selected EUMember States (2004), with further references.
36. See, e.g., P. Eeckhout, The External Relations of the EU(2004);D. Verwey, The EC, the EUand the International Law of Treaties (2004).
37. See, e.g., Case 12/86 (Demirel) [1987] ECR 3719; Opinion of AG Geelhoed in case C-344/04 (International Air Transport et al.) of 8 September 2005, available at http//curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang = en.
38. In this context it should be noted that in its Schmidberger ruling, case C-112/00 (Schmidberger) [2003] ECR I-5659, the ECJ-exceptionally-placed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) even above the EC Treaty. But this judgment has been unique and reflects the special status of the ECHR within the Community legal order and supposedly does not apply to other ‘ordinary’ communitarized international treaties.More recently the Court of First Instance of the European Communities placed the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolutions above the EC Treaty in its judgment in cases T-306/01 (Yusuf) and T-315/01 (Kadi) both of 21 September 2005.
39. See, e.g., T. Hartley, European Union Law in a Global Context (2004).
40. Case 26/62 (van Gend & Loos) [1962] ECR 95, stating that the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law; Case 6/64 (Costa v. ENEL) [1964] ECR 685, stating that the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system.
41. See extensively Lavranos, ‘Eerste deel IJzeren Rijn in oktober open’ note 37.
42. See in particular Case 314/85 (Foto-Frost) [1987] ECR 4199.
43. Case 283/81 (CILFIT) [1982] ECR 3415.
44. Case C-244/01 (Kö bler) [2003] ECR I-10239.
45. See for details on Article 292 EC, K. Lenaerts and P. Van Nuffel, Constitutional Law of the EU (2005), 445; G. zur Hausen, ‘Article 292 EG’, inH. von derGroeben and J. Schwarze (eds.), Kommentar zumVertrag ü ber die EUund Grü ndung der EG, Vol. 4 (2004), 1485; J. Zimmerling, ‘Article 292 EGV’, in C. Lenz and K.-D. Borchardt (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-und EG-Vertrag (2003), 2292.
46. ECJ Opinion 1/91 (EEA) [1991] ECR I-6079.
47. Case C-244/01 (Kö bler) [2003] ECR I-10239. (emphasis added).
48. Council Decision 98/392/EEC of 23March 1998 concerning the conclusion by the EC of the UN Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea and theAgreement of 28 July 1994 relating to the implementation of Part XI thereof, [1998] OJ L 179/1.
49. See Case C-244/01 (Kö bler) [2003] ECR I-10239. note 10.
50. See, e.g., Housieaux, Commission v. France, Glawischnig, Commission v. Germany, Wilhelm Mecklenburg v. Kreis Pinneberg-Der Landrat, all Case C-244/01 (Kö bler) [2003] ECR I-10239. note 10. note 16.
51. CouncilDecision 98/249/EC of 7October 1997 on the conclusion of the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic (OSPAR), [1998] OJ L 104/1.
52. CouncilDecision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the EC, of theConvention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, [2005] OJ L 124/1; see also Shany, Housieaux note 4, at 816.
53. Glawischnig Housieaux note 16, at 5995 (emphasis added).
54. See Shany, Glawischnig Housieaux note 16 note 3, 278 et seq.; see also section 5.2 infra.
55. See IJzeren Rijn, Arbitral Award, Glawischnig Housieaux note 16 note 20, paras. 107 et seq.
56. Arbitral Award., para. 103 (emphasis added).
57. Case C-125/04 (Denuit/Cordenier v. Transorient), [2005] ECR I-923 (emphasis added); see generally N. Shelkoplyas, The Application of EC Law in Arbitral Proceedings (2003).
58. See in this regard Case C-224/01 (Kö bler) [2003] ECR I-10239, paras. 117-118.
59. Case C-209/02 (Commission v. Austria) [2004] ECR I-1211.
60. IJzeren Rijn, Arbitral Award, Case C-209/02 (Commission v. Austria) [2004] ECR I-1211. note 20, para. 137.
61. Arbitral Award., para. 107.
62. See for a detailed study on the relationship between the dispute settlement systems of theWTO and MEAs J. Neumann, Die Koordination desWTO-Rechts mit anderen vö lkerrechtlichen Ordnungen (2002).
63. See generally T. Sugihara, ‘The ICJ-Towards a Higher Role in the International Community’, in N. Ando et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (2002), 227.
64. See http//www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm.
65. See Case C-112/00 (Schmidberger) [2003] ECR I-5659.
66. See A. Pellet, ‘Strengthening the Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the UN’, (2004) 3 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 159; G. Guillaume, ‘The Future of International Judicial Institutions’, (1995) 44 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 848.
67. P.-M. Dupuy, ‘The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the ICJ’, (1999) 31 NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 791.
68. It should be noted that such a court is known in other jurisdictions as well. For instance, in Israel a similar court exists that determines jurisdictional conflicts between religious courts.
69. See Martinez, It should be noted that such a court is known in other jurisdictions as well. note 3, at 487 et seq.; M. Shahabuddeen, ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’, in Ando et al., It should be noted that such a court is known in other jurisdictions as well. note 68, at 633.
70. See generally Shany, ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’ note 3, at 278 et seq.
71. Shahabuddeen, ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’ note 74, at 646-7.
72. See A.-M. Slaughter, A NewWorld Order (2004), ch. 2; see for a critical analysis of Slaughter's ideas A. Mills and T. Stephens, ‘Challenging the Role of Judges in Slaughter's Liberal Theory of International Law’, (2005) 18 Leiden Journal of International Law 1.
73. See generally C. Sö derlund, ‘Lis Pendens, Res Judicata and the Issue of Parallel Judicial Proceedings’, (2005) 22 Journal of International Arbitration 301; A. Reinisch, ‘The Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens’, (2004) 3 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 37.
74. See further Shany, ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’ note 3, at 212 et seq.
75. Reinisch, ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’ note 78, at 47-50.
76. ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’., at 55 et seq.
77. See further Shany, ‘Consistency in holdings of International Tribunals’. note 3, at 170 et seq.