a coastal state. The latter issues have been addressed in a number of cases instituted
under Article 292 of UNCLOS.
22
Other non-state actors that have stakes in the Part XV arbitration or adjudication
are those directly involved in the case: the lawyers arguing the case, the registrar
overseeing its administration, the experts and witnesses that may be used to present
evidence or opinions. The lawyers arguing the case will likely include lawyers that
work for the government of the state in dispute, but also extend to private lawyers
who may be involved in many cases instituted under UNCLOS. In prompt release
proceedings, the ship owners’ lawyer may act in the name of the state party to
UNCLOS.
23 The registry services for Annex VII arbitrations have predominantly
been performed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
24 Expert opinions may be
sought by the court or tribunal itself or by the states in dispute, and may be of
particular use when one of the states in dispute does not appear before the UNCLOS
court or tribunal. Witnesses have performed a critical role in assessing the application of UNCLOS provisions, especially in law enforcement settings.
25 Each of these
actors will have varying degrees of influence in framing the key issues for resolution
and how those issues are ultimately resolved.
2.4 Judges
Yet critical among all these actors are the judges; the individual judges comprise the
‘court’ or ‘tribunal’ making the decisions in an UNCLOS arbitration or adjudication.
These actors may be assessed as individual actors, each bringing their own experience and knowledge, as well as their own conscious or unconscious predilections to
the dispute resolution process.
26 Often there is an assessment of the ‘court’ or
‘tribunal’ as the critical decision-making actor with its own position within the
international legal and political system. This legal institution carries with it certain
responsibilities and characteristics in the role it performs in resolving disputes under
UNCLOS.
27 These are assessed further in discussing the stakeholder identification
theory in the following Part.
22 See, e.g., Camouco Case; Volga Case (Judgment). For general discussion, see Trevisanut (2017).
23 Art. 292(2) permits the application for prompt release to be made ‘by or on behalf of the flag State
of the vessel.’
24 All but one Annex VII arbitration has been administered through the Permanent Court of
Arbitration; the one exception being Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, which used the International
Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as its registrar.
25 See, e.g., M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case, paras 35–38 (listing 11 witnesses that appeared before ITLOS
and the questions posed to them).
26 These issues have been canvassed in literature dealing with gender balance in international courts.
See, e.g., Grossman (2012).
27 See, e.g., Alter (2012).
244
N. Klein
under Article 292 of UNCLOS.
22
Other non-state actors that have stakes in the Part XV arbitration or adjudication
are those directly involved in the case: the lawyers arguing the case, the registrar
overseeing its administration, the experts and witnesses that may be used to present
evidence or opinions. The lawyers arguing the case will likely include lawyers that
work for the government of the state in dispute, but also extend to private lawyers
who may be involved in many cases instituted under UNCLOS. In prompt release
proceedings, the ship owners’ lawyer may act in the name of the state party to
UNCLOS.
23 The registry services for Annex VII arbitrations have predominantly
been performed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
24 Expert opinions may be
sought by the court or tribunal itself or by the states in dispute, and may be of
particular use when one of the states in dispute does not appear before the UNCLOS
court or tribunal. Witnesses have performed a critical role in assessing the application of UNCLOS provisions, especially in law enforcement settings.
25 Each of these
actors will have varying degrees of influence in framing the key issues for resolution
and how those issues are ultimately resolved.
2.4 Judges
Yet critical among all these actors are the judges; the individual judges comprise the
‘court’ or ‘tribunal’ making the decisions in an UNCLOS arbitration or adjudication.
These actors may be assessed as individual actors, each bringing their own experience and knowledge, as well as their own conscious or unconscious predilections to
the dispute resolution process.
26 Often there is an assessment of the ‘court’ or
‘tribunal’ as the critical decision-making actor with its own position within the
international legal and political system. This legal institution carries with it certain
responsibilities and characteristics in the role it performs in resolving disputes under
UNCLOS.
27 These are assessed further in discussing the stakeholder identification
theory in the following Part.
22 See, e.g., Camouco Case; Volga Case (Judgment). For general discussion, see Trevisanut (2017).
23 Art. 292(2) permits the application for prompt release to be made ‘by or on behalf of the flag State
of the vessel.’
24 All but one Annex VII arbitration has been administered through the Permanent Court of
Arbitration; the one exception being Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, which used the International
Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as its registrar.
25 See, e.g., M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case, paras 35–38 (listing 11 witnesses that appeared before ITLOS
and the questions posed to them).
26 These issues have been canvassed in literature dealing with gender balance in international courts.
See, e.g., Grossman (2012).
27 See, e.g., Alter (2012).
244
N. Klein