Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the ITLOS Website (visited May 30, 2000) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm, and provided by ITLOS.
* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the ITLOS Website (visited May 30, 2000) http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm, and provided by ITLOS.
1 Explanatory Statement by the Secretary on Supplement to the Draft Rules of the Tribunal on the Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews (LOS/PCN/SCN.4/WP.2/Add.l) (1985) in LOS/PCN/152, Vol.III, 1 May 1995, p.389.
2 UN Document A/AC. 138/97. Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, Vol.11 (1973), p.23.
3 On which see paragraphs 23-25 of the Dissenting Opinion of Judges Park, Nelson, Chandrasekhara Rao, Vukas and Ndiaye in the M/V “Saiga” (prompt release) case (1997).
4 The M/V “Saiga”, No.l (1997) p.23, para.82.
5 The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case, Great Britain v. United States, Award of 7 December 1910, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol.XI, p. 189.
6 Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1980, p.96, para.49.
7 See Olivier Corten, L'interprétation du “raisonnable” par les juridictions internationales: au-delà du positivisme juridique? Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Tome CII — 1998, pp.5-43 on p. 12.
8 Statement in Response of the French Republic, p.2. France has developed this theme both in the Statement in Response and in its Oral Pleadings.
9 See Jiménez de Aréchaga, Separate Opinion in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, ICJ Reports 1982, p. 106, para.24.
1 Adede, A.O., The System for Settlement of Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, A Drafting History and a Commentary, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster, 1987, p. 161.Google Scholar
2 Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, A Commentary, Vol. V, Nordquist, M.H., Editor-in-Chief, Rosenne, S. and Sohn, L. B., Volume Editors, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1989, pp.70–71.Google Scholar
3 Ibid, pp.69-70.
4 See Lagoni, R., “The Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Preparatory Report”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 11, No.2, 1996, p. 152 Google Scholar.
5 Statement in Response of the French Government, 25 January 2000, paragraph 10 of the section relating to the law (English translation of the Statement in Response).
6 Lagoni, op.cit., p.150.
7 As to how the Applicant interprets the 10-day limit, see the Application of Panama, paragraph 4 (English translation of the Application).
8 Application of Panama, paragraph 40 (English translation of the Application). See also paragraph 42 of the Judgment.
