‘Reasonableness’ in the Law of the Sea: The Prompt Release of the Volga

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 621-630

  Brown, Chester ^a  

^a ST JOHN S COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

illegal fishing; Patagonian toothfish; prompt release of vessels and crew; reasonable bond; UNCLOS, Articles 73(2) and 292

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965141059     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156503001328     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Judge Gilbert Guillaume, ‘The Future of International Judicial Institutions’, (1995) 44 ICLQ 848, 855.
2. Judge Shigeru Oda, ‘Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea’, (1995) 44 ICLQ 863, 864.
3. See, e.g., ‘Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea’.; Guillaume, ‘Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea’ note 1; E. Lauterpacht, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (1991), 19-22; Judge Shigeru Oda, ‘The International Court of Justice Viewed from the Bench (1976-93)’ (1993) 244 Recueil des Cours 12, 144-5; and, reviewing these criticisms, A. Boyle, ‘Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction’, (1997) 46 ICLQ 37.
4. M/V Saiga Case (St Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) (Prompt Release), Case No. 1, Judgement of 4 Dec. 1997; Camouco Case (Panama v. France) (Prompt Release), Case No. 5, Judgement of 7 Feb. 2000; Monte Confurco Case (Seychelles v. France) (Prompt Release), Case No. 6, Judgement of 18 Dec. 2000; Grand Prince Case (Belize v. France) (Prompt Release), Case No. 8, Judgement of 20 April 2001; Chaisiri Reefer 2 Case (Panama v. Yemen) (Prompt Release), Case No. 9, Order of 13 July 2001; and the Volga Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) (Prompt Release), CaseNo. 11, Judgement of 23Dec. 2002. All judgements and other Tribunal documents are available at www.itlos.org.
5. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 Dec. 1982, 21 ILM 1261, Arts. 73(2) and 292 (entered into force 16 Nov. 1994).
6. Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) (Preliminary Objections), [1992] ICJ Rep. 240.
7. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), [1995] ICJ Rep. 90.
8. Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) (Provisional Measures), Case Nos. 3 and 4, 27 Aug. 1999; and Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 Aug. 2000, (2000) 39 ILM 1359.
9. Proceedings were commenced by the United States against the USSR in several cases in the 1950s, but the USSR did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Court in any of these cases, and they were removed from the Court's list: Treatment in Hungary of the Aircraft and Crew of USA (US v. USSR), [1954] ICJ Rep. 103; Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (US v. USSR), [1956] ICJ Rep 9; Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (US v. USSR), [1958] ICJ Rep. 158; Aerial Incident of 7 Nov. 1954 (US v. USSR), [1959] ICJ Rep. 276.
10. Volga Case, Proceedings were commenced by the United States against the USSR in several cases in the 1950s note 4, [32]-[33].
11. Application of the Russian Federation for the Release of Vessel and Crew, Nov. 2002, 17.
12. Volga Case, Application of the Russian Federation for the Release of Vessel and Crew note 4, [83].
13. Volga Case.; Russian Application, Volga Case note 11, 17.
14. Volga Case, Volga Case.; Russian Application note 4, [36]-[37].
15. Volga Case., [51].
16. Volga Case., [41]-[43]. Lijo v. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, [2003]WASCA 4 (16 Dec. 2002), available at www.austlii.edu.au.
17. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, opened for signature 20 May 1980.
18. ILM 837 (entered into force 7 April 1982).
19. Volga Case, ILM 837 note 4, [53], [72].
20. Volga Case., [54].
21. Volga Case., [60].
22. Verbatim Record, 12 Dec. 2002, 10 a.m., 12.
23. Verbatim Record., 14-15.
24. Volga Case, Verbatim Record note 4, [60].
25. Volga Case., [67], [70].
26. Verbatim Record, 12 Dec. 2002, 3 p.m., 26.
27. Volga Case, Verbatim Record note 4, [67].
28. Volga Case., [65], [69].
29. Volga Case., [63].
30. Camouco Case, Volga Case note 4, [67].
31. Monte Confurco Case, Camouco Case note 4, [76].
32. Monte Confurco Case., [71]-[72].
33. Volga Case, Monte Confurco Case note 4, [71]-[73].
34. Volga Case., [85]-[86].
35. Volga Case., [74].
36. Volga Case., [77].
37. Volga Case., [80].
38. Volga Case., [88], [90], [93], [95](3)-(5).
39. Monte Confurco Case, Volga Case note 4, [86].
40. Monte Confurco Case., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jesus, [33].
41. Verbatim Record, 12 Dec. 2002, 3 p.m., 22.
42. Volga case, Verbatim Record note 4, [85]-[86].
43. M/V Saiga Case, Volga case note 4, [83].
44. Camouco Case, M/V Saiga Case note 4, [69].
45. Camouco Case., [68].
46. Camouco Case., [74].
47. Monte Confurco Case, Camouco Case note 4, [84].
48. Monte Confurco Case., [85]-[87], [93].
49. UNCLOS, Monte Confurco Case note 5, Preamble.
50. Volga Case, UNCLOS note 4, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Shearer, [17].
51. Volga Case., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson, [20]-[21].
52. The Camouco Case concerned illegal fishing in the EEZ of the Crozet Islands (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson note 4, [26]), and both the Monte Confurco Case (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson note 4, [29]) and the Grand Prince Case (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson note 4, [35]), concerned illegal fishing in the EEZ of the Kerguelen Islands.
53. See especially Verbatim Record, 12 Dec. 2002, 3 p.m., 19.
54. especially Verbatim Record., 19-20.
55. especially Verbatim Record., 26-9.
56. Commission for the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources, Report of the Twenty-FirstMeeting of the Commission, CCAMLR-XXI (2002) 38, cited in Statement in Response of Australia (7 Dec. 2002), 17.
57. Volga Case, Commission for the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources note 4, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Shearer, [19].
58. A/AC.138/97, Art. 8(2), reproduced in II SBC Report 1973, 22 (USA); cited inM. Nordquist (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (1989), V, 67.
59. Verbatim Record, 12 Dec. 2002, 3 p.m., 17.
60. J. Delbrü ck, ‘Proportionality’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1997), III, 1140, 1140-1. For application of the principle of proportionality by the International Court of Justice, see Case Concerning theGabcý kovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] ICJ Rep. 7; it is also applied by theCourt of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court ofHumanRights: see J.Kirk, ‘Constitutional Guarantees,Characterisation and theConcept of Proportionality’, (1997) 21 MelbourneUniversity Law Review 1, at 3-9; E. Cannizzaro, ‘The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures’, (2001) 12 EJIL 889.
61. In the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) (ProvisionalMeasures), ‘Proportionality’ note 8, the Tribunal arguably adopted a precautionary approach: D. Freestone, ‘Caution or Precaution: “A Rose By Any Other Name. “?’, (1999) 10 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 25.