137
themselves to appear before ITLOS in these proceedings and make any statement in
this respect.
Does all of this mean acquiescence? The case is that the 18 years that passed
since Art. 138 of ITLOS Rules was approved, without objections, have generated in
the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission a legitimate expectation: that the Tribunal
would act, in its authoritative interpretation of Art. 21 of its Statute, in consistency
with its previous acts, when approving Art. 138 of its Rules nearly 20 years before.
This motivated the SRFC to make its Request for an advisory opinion in Case 21
and, as far as the jurisdictional discussion is concerned, its steps were successful.
References
Chandrasekhara Rao P, Gautier P (eds) (2006) The rules of the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea: a commentary. Nijhoff, Boston, pp 393–394
García García-Revillo M (2015) The juridical personality and nature of the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea. In: Del Castillo Laborde L (ed) Law of the sea. From Grotius to the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Liber amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos. Nijhoff,
Boston, pp 608–621
Lando M (2016) The advisory jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:
comments on the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries
Commission. Leiden J Int Law 29:441–461
Ruys T, Soete A (2016) ‘Creeping’ advisory jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals? The
case of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Leiden J Int Law 29:155–176
Tanaka Y (2015) Reflections on the advisory jurisdiction of ITLOS as a full court: the ITLOS
advisory opinion of 2015. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 14:318–339
The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted…
themselves to appear before ITLOS in these proceedings and make any statement in
this respect.
Does all of this mean acquiescence? The case is that the 18 years that passed
since Art. 138 of ITLOS Rules was approved, without objections, have generated in
the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission a legitimate expectation: that the Tribunal
would act, in its authoritative interpretation of Art. 21 of its Statute, in consistency
with its previous acts, when approving Art. 138 of its Rules nearly 20 years before.
This motivated the SRFC to make its Request for an advisory opinion in Case 21
and, as far as the jurisdictional discussion is concerned, its steps were successful.
References
Chandrasekhara Rao P, Gautier P (eds) (2006) The rules of the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea: a commentary. Nijhoff, Boston, pp 393–394
García García-Revillo M (2015) The juridical personality and nature of the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea. In: Del Castillo Laborde L (ed) Law of the sea. From Grotius to the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Liber amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos. Nijhoff,
Boston, pp 608–621
Lando M (2016) The advisory jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:
comments on the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries
Commission. Leiden J Int Law 29:441–461
Ruys T, Soete A (2016) ‘Creeping’ advisory jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals? The
case of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Leiden J Int Law 29:155–176
Tanaka Y (2015) Reflections on the advisory jurisdiction of ITLOS as a full court: the ITLOS
advisory opinion of 2015. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 14:318–339
The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted…