125
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
A. Del Vecchio, R. Virzo (eds.), Interpretations of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10773-4_8
The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request
for an Advisory Opinion Submitted
by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission
(SRFC) to the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea
Miguel García García-Revillo
Abstract Along with the substantive aspects of the case, the jurisdictional facet
was also subject to extensive discussions in the Request for an Advisory Opinion
Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC). This chapter intends
to summarize the main positions in favour and against the competence of the ITLOS
full court to deal with the questions posed to it by the SRFC, as well as the final
decision adopted by the Tribunal in its Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015, in which
it finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Request. In addition, some personal
considerations are also added by the author in the concluding remarks.
1 Introduction
As it is well known, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereinafter,
ITLOS, the Tribunal or Hamburg Tribunal) has both contentious and advisory
jurisdiction.
As to its contentious jurisdiction, ITLOS has a broad voluntary competence to
deal with disputes submitted to it by the agreement of the parties. It also has compulsory jurisdiction for some specific types of disputes, such as those concerning
the seabed Area (assigned to its Seabed Disputes Chamber), those relating to the
prompt release of arrested vessels and their crews according to the special procedure regulated by Art. 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), and, in general, those disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention (neither listed in the automatic exceptions of Art. 297 nor
opted out by the parties through a declaration made pursuant to Art. 298), in respect
to which the confronting parties have made a declaration electing ITLOS in
M. G. García-Revillo (*)
University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
e-mail: miguelgarcia@uco.es
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
A. Del Vecchio, R. Virzo (eds.), Interpretations of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10773-4_8
The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request
for an Advisory Opinion Submitted
by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission
(SRFC) to the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea
Miguel García García-Revillo
Abstract Along with the substantive aspects of the case, the jurisdictional facet
was also subject to extensive discussions in the Request for an Advisory Opinion
Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC). This chapter intends
to summarize the main positions in favour and against the competence of the ITLOS
full court to deal with the questions posed to it by the SRFC, as well as the final
decision adopted by the Tribunal in its Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015, in which
it finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Request. In addition, some personal
considerations are also added by the author in the concluding remarks.
1 Introduction
As it is well known, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereinafter,
ITLOS, the Tribunal or Hamburg Tribunal) has both contentious and advisory
jurisdiction.
As to its contentious jurisdiction, ITLOS has a broad voluntary competence to
deal with disputes submitted to it by the agreement of the parties. It also has compulsory jurisdiction for some specific types of disputes, such as those concerning
the seabed Area (assigned to its Seabed Disputes Chamber), those relating to the
prompt release of arrested vessels and their crews according to the special procedure regulated by Art. 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), and, in general, those disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention (neither listed in the automatic exceptions of Art. 297 nor
opted out by the parties through a declaration made pursuant to Art. 298), in respect
to which the confronting parties have made a declaration electing ITLOS in
M. G. García-Revillo (*)
University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
e-mail: miguelgarcia@uco.es