84
or perceived to be undermined, by proceedings of the Assembly”.
4
A final example
is the rise and fall of the Tribunal of the Southern African Development Community
(SADC). When Zimbabwe did not agree to one of the first judgments of his Tribunal
(2008), relating to the application of Zimbabwe’s land allocation legislation, it
started a successful campaign against the Tribunal. Zimbabwe and the other 14
members of SADC effectively discontinued the functioning of the Tribunal.
5
These examples demonstrate the delicate nature of the relationship between
international courts and tribunals and their INJUGOVINS. Against the background
of this brief general introduction, the remainder of this contribution will concentrate
on SPLOS, the INJUGOVIN of ITLOS.
2 The INJUGOVIN of ITLOS: SPLOS
2.1 A ‘Constitution for the Seas and Oceans’ Without Strong
Organizational Structures
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did not establish
a new ‘International Sea Organization’. ITLOS is therefore not embedded in a larger
organizational structure, as the ICJ is a principal organ of the UN, the WTO
Appellate Body is part of the WTO, and the EU Court is an institution of the EU.
During the Third UN Law of the Sea Conference (1973–1982) some initiatives
were taken for the creation of international institutions to deal with future law of the
sea questions and problems. In 1974, Secretary-General Waldheim of the UN called
for the creation of a future institution to discuss common problems and new developments.
6
Several other proposals were made for the establishment of new institutions, such as a proposal by Peru to create an International Commission of the Law
of the Sea,
7
but the necessary support was lacking.
8
The drafters of UNCLOS deliberately did not establish a new general international organization for the law of the
sea. To the extent that new institutions had to be established, this institutional framework should be as “light” as possible.
9
While UNCLOS is sometimes seen as a
4 Letter of 13 November 2015, available at: http://www.jfjustice.net/userfiles/file/ICC%20
Documents/Letter%20from%20the%20Court’s%20Principals%20to%20President%20of%20
the%20ASP%20in%20ant___%20(1).pdf.
5 These examples are discussed in more detail in Blokker (2018).
6 During the 14th meeting of the Third UN Conference of the Law of the Sea. See Official Records
of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Vol. I (1982), pp. 37–38 (reproducing Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.14).
7 Doc. A/CONF.62/L.22 (10 April 1978). See also Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.91 (introduction of this
proposal by Peru).
8 See Nordquist (1989), pp. 289–300; Oude Elferink (2004), in particular pp. 302, 310.
9 Treves (2005), in particular p. 57.
N. M. Blokker
or perceived to be undermined, by proceedings of the Assembly”.
4
A final example
is the rise and fall of the Tribunal of the Southern African Development Community
(SADC). When Zimbabwe did not agree to one of the first judgments of his Tribunal
(2008), relating to the application of Zimbabwe’s land allocation legislation, it
started a successful campaign against the Tribunal. Zimbabwe and the other 14
members of SADC effectively discontinued the functioning of the Tribunal.
5
These examples demonstrate the delicate nature of the relationship between
international courts and tribunals and their INJUGOVINS. Against the background
of this brief general introduction, the remainder of this contribution will concentrate
on SPLOS, the INJUGOVIN of ITLOS.
2 The INJUGOVIN of ITLOS: SPLOS
2.1 A ‘Constitution for the Seas and Oceans’ Without Strong
Organizational Structures
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did not establish
a new ‘International Sea Organization’. ITLOS is therefore not embedded in a larger
organizational structure, as the ICJ is a principal organ of the UN, the WTO
Appellate Body is part of the WTO, and the EU Court is an institution of the EU.
During the Third UN Law of the Sea Conference (1973–1982) some initiatives
were taken for the creation of international institutions to deal with future law of the
sea questions and problems. In 1974, Secretary-General Waldheim of the UN called
for the creation of a future institution to discuss common problems and new developments.
6
Several other proposals were made for the establishment of new institutions, such as a proposal by Peru to create an International Commission of the Law
of the Sea,
7
but the necessary support was lacking.
8
The drafters of UNCLOS deliberately did not establish a new general international organization for the law of the
sea. To the extent that new institutions had to be established, this institutional framework should be as “light” as possible.
9
While UNCLOS is sometimes seen as a
4 Letter of 13 November 2015, available at: http://www.jfjustice.net/userfiles/file/ICC%20
Documents/Letter%20from%20the%20Court’s%20Principals%20to%20President%20of%20
the%20ASP%20in%20ant___%20(1).pdf.
5 These examples are discussed in more detail in Blokker (2018).
6 During the 14th meeting of the Third UN Conference of the Law of the Sea. See Official Records
of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Vol. I (1982), pp. 37–38 (reproducing Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.14).
7 Doc. A/CONF.62/L.22 (10 April 1978). See also Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.91 (introduction of this
proposal by Peru).
8 See Nordquist (1989), pp. 289–300; Oude Elferink (2004), in particular pp. 302, 310.
9 Treves (2005), in particular p. 57.
N. M. Blokker