86
for the ASP). On this very thin basis, SPLOS has developed in practice into the
specialized ‘mini General Assembly’ that it is today.
2.3 Nature, Functions and Powers of SPLOS
14
SPLOS is not an international organization and does not have its own legal personality. Created by treaty (UNCLOS) as a sort of international organization
‘manquée’,
15
it is generally considered to be a treaty body or treaty organ.
16
It is not
an ad hoc meeting of states without any context, that ‘starts from scratch’, and that
is really over when it is over. Rather, it has the organic nature that is characteristic
for such institutions.
17
While sovereign states play an essential role, they do not
purely act as individual states in a legal-institutional vacuum, but within a collective
body that is functioning on the basis of predetermined rules and established
practices.
A main function of SPLOS is to operate as the governance institution of
ITLOS. For this purpose, UNCLOS has attributed specific powers to it, in particular
the power to elect the judges and the power to adopt the budget of ITLOS. SPLOS
also performs governance functions for the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf. There is disagreement to what extent it is also part of the mandate
of SPLOS to discuss general law of the sea issues. In recent years such issues have
been briefly discussed, but most of the general debate on law of the sea issues continues to take place in the General Assembly, in the context of the annual omnibus
resolution.
18
2.4 SPLOS Practice
How has SPLOS performed since its first meeting in 1994? First of all, it should be
mentioned that there are no generally accepted criteria for the performance of
INJUGOVINS, other than what the relevant treaties provide—in this case, what
UNCLOS requires SPLOS to do. However, there seem to be at least two general
14 See Rao and Gautier (2018), pp. 72–73.
15 Szasz (1999), p. 18.
16 See for example Rosenne (1998), p. 488 (footnote 3). Treves characterized SPLOS as follows:
“even though the Meeting of the States Parties may not be a fully fledged international institution,
it certainly is a highly institutionalized form of diplomatic conference”, in Treves (1998), p. 332.
On treaty organs in general see Ulfstein (2011, 2012).
17 Cf. Eiriksson (2000), p. 17: “ […] the States Parties to the Convention act as an institution in the
forum of Meetings of States Parties. It is at these meetings that the relationship between the
Tribunal and States Parties collectively is regulated”.
18 See Oude Elferink (2004), Treves (2005), Lijnzaad (2014), pp. 114–117.
N. M. Blokker
for the ASP). On this very thin basis, SPLOS has developed in practice into the
specialized ‘mini General Assembly’ that it is today.
2.3 Nature, Functions and Powers of SPLOS
14
SPLOS is not an international organization and does not have its own legal personality. Created by treaty (UNCLOS) as a sort of international organization
‘manquée’,
15
it is generally considered to be a treaty body or treaty organ.
16
It is not
an ad hoc meeting of states without any context, that ‘starts from scratch’, and that
is really over when it is over. Rather, it has the organic nature that is characteristic
for such institutions.
17
While sovereign states play an essential role, they do not
purely act as individual states in a legal-institutional vacuum, but within a collective
body that is functioning on the basis of predetermined rules and established
practices.
A main function of SPLOS is to operate as the governance institution of
ITLOS. For this purpose, UNCLOS has attributed specific powers to it, in particular
the power to elect the judges and the power to adopt the budget of ITLOS. SPLOS
also performs governance functions for the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf. There is disagreement to what extent it is also part of the mandate
of SPLOS to discuss general law of the sea issues. In recent years such issues have
been briefly discussed, but most of the general debate on law of the sea issues continues to take place in the General Assembly, in the context of the annual omnibus
resolution.
18
2.4 SPLOS Practice
How has SPLOS performed since its first meeting in 1994? First of all, it should be
mentioned that there are no generally accepted criteria for the performance of
INJUGOVINS, other than what the relevant treaties provide—in this case, what
UNCLOS requires SPLOS to do. However, there seem to be at least two general
14 See Rao and Gautier (2018), pp. 72–73.
15 Szasz (1999), p. 18.
16 See for example Rosenne (1998), p. 488 (footnote 3). Treves characterized SPLOS as follows:
“even though the Meeting of the States Parties may not be a fully fledged international institution,
it certainly is a highly institutionalized form of diplomatic conference”, in Treves (1998), p. 332.
On treaty organs in general see Ulfstein (2011, 2012).
17 Cf. Eiriksson (2000), p. 17: “ […] the States Parties to the Convention act as an institution in the
forum of Meetings of States Parties. It is at these meetings that the relationship between the
Tribunal and States Parties collectively is regulated”.
18 See Oude Elferink (2004), Treves (2005), Lijnzaad (2014), pp. 114–117.
N. M. Blokker