although they have not yet been directly involved in any case under Part XV. The
United States remains the most powerful state outside the UNCLOS regime.
2.2 International Organisations
While not usually directly involved as a party in an arbitration or adjudication under
Part XV of UNCLOS, intergovernmental organisations, both global and regional,
may have an interest in this decision-making process. An organisation like the
International Maritime Organization may find that the treaties adopted under its
auspices are interpreted and applied in cases addressing, for example, marine
pollution. Notably, the COLREGs were interpreted and applied in the South China
Sea arbitration.
16
2.3 Non-State Actors
A number of non-state actors will have an interest in cases being resolved under Part
XV of UNCLOS. Conservation groups will have an interest in how certain rules
under UNCLOS are upheld, as evident in the interest of Greenpeace in the Arctic
Sunrise arbitration.
17 Multinational corporations, especially those involved in the
exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, will have an interest in the
resolution of boundary disputes under UNCLOS. An example may be seen with
Woodside Petroleum and the Greater Sunrise Joint Venture in learning how the
boundary would be delineated between Australia and Timor-Leste near the Greater
Sunrise gas field in the Timor Sea following their compulsory conciliation.
18 These
companies would have also followed the Guyana v Suriname decision that addressed
the lawful amount of force that could be used in the face of alleged illegal exploration activities by a company during a maritime boundary dispute.
19
Shipping companies will also be engaged in interpretations of UNCLOS that
address law enforcement against vessels involved in bunkering in a state’s EEZ, as at
issue in the Virginia G,
20 and Norstar cases.
21 Fishing companies are similarly
concerned about the rules and parameters of UNCLOS affecting their operations,
notably the standards for prompt release and the factors to be used in determining a
reasonable financial bond in the event of a fishing vessel being arrested in the EEZ of
16 South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras 1081–1109.
17 See generally Mossop (2016).
18 See Permanent Court of Arbitration (2017).
19 Guyana v Suriname Arbitration (Award), paras 425–452.
20 The M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case.
21 The M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Preliminary Objections).
14 Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
243
United States remains the most powerful state outside the UNCLOS regime.
2.2 International Organisations
While not usually directly involved as a party in an arbitration or adjudication under
Part XV of UNCLOS, intergovernmental organisations, both global and regional,
may have an interest in this decision-making process. An organisation like the
International Maritime Organization may find that the treaties adopted under its
auspices are interpreted and applied in cases addressing, for example, marine
pollution. Notably, the COLREGs were interpreted and applied in the South China
Sea arbitration.
16
2.3 Non-State Actors
A number of non-state actors will have an interest in cases being resolved under Part
XV of UNCLOS. Conservation groups will have an interest in how certain rules
under UNCLOS are upheld, as evident in the interest of Greenpeace in the Arctic
Sunrise arbitration.
17 Multinational corporations, especially those involved in the
exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, will have an interest in the
resolution of boundary disputes under UNCLOS. An example may be seen with
Woodside Petroleum and the Greater Sunrise Joint Venture in learning how the
boundary would be delineated between Australia and Timor-Leste near the Greater
Sunrise gas field in the Timor Sea following their compulsory conciliation.
18 These
companies would have also followed the Guyana v Suriname decision that addressed
the lawful amount of force that could be used in the face of alleged illegal exploration activities by a company during a maritime boundary dispute.
19
Shipping companies will also be engaged in interpretations of UNCLOS that
address law enforcement against vessels involved in bunkering in a state’s EEZ, as at
issue in the Virginia G,
20 and Norstar cases.
21 Fishing companies are similarly
concerned about the rules and parameters of UNCLOS affecting their operations,
notably the standards for prompt release and the factors to be used in determining a
reasonable financial bond in the event of a fishing vessel being arrested in the EEZ of
16 South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras 1081–1109.
17 See generally Mossop (2016).
18 See Permanent Court of Arbitration (2017).
19 Guyana v Suriname Arbitration (Award), paras 425–452.
20 The M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case.
21 The M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Preliminary Objections).
14 Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
243