difference would seem to be the ability to impose one’s will based on the assertion of
legal rules. Some actors are more able to enforce international law than others. Yet
the very availability of the UNCLOS dispute settlement regime for all parties to that
treaty does open up the possibility to states parties having normative power if they
choose to avail themselves of compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing
binding decisions and there are no barriers to doing so.
Urgency assesses the time sensitivity of claims or relationships as well as the
importance of the claim or the relationship to the stakeholder.
40 It is the urgency of
the claim of the stakeholder rather than the urgency of the stakeholder itself that
matters.
41
While these three categories provide a way to classify the interests of stakeholders, it must also be acknowledged that the attributes of stakeholders may vary
over time, might entail subjective determinations and may or may not be asserted in
any given context.
42 Yet even with this possible nuance, the categories allow us to
identify the stakeholders and their interests in a decision-making process.
These are the factors that must be weighed by the manager in making strategic
decisions for the organisation; they determine which stakeholders are salient.
43 In
assessing stakeholders, a process may be undertaken in determining which stakeholders possess power, legitimacy and urgency, or perhaps just two of those
attributes or only one. A sliding scale applies. As such, a stakeholder exhibiting all
three of power, legitimacy and urgency means that a manager (judge) has ‘a clear
and immediate mandate to attend to and give priority to that stakeholder’s claim’.
44
Stakeholder identification theory provides a tool for articulating what could or
should be influencing decision-making and why decision-makers should take heed.
There is no consistent set of variables, but we instead have an opportunity to look
broadly at the variety of actors in the international system and different forms of
communications between those actors and have a means to weigh those interactions
and assess their salience in the judicial decision-making process. There is therefore
an opportunity to account for the complexity of UNCLOS dispute settlement and to
engage more transparently in what has influenced diverse outcomes. Inherent difficulties remain of course, as it will not always be evident on the face of any judgement
40 Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 867. An additional dimension proposed to the urgency of a claim is the
probability of the claim’s occurrence. See Driscoll and Starik (2004), discussed in Mitchell et al.
(2017), p. 139. Although arguably this dimension could be captured in an assessment of the
importance of the claim or relationship.
41 See Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 140, discussing the work of Eesley and Lennox (2006). Stakeholder
urgency would instead be part of the power attribute.
42 Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 868.
43 Mitchell et al. (1997), pp. 870–871.
44 Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 878. As there are three types of power, arguably the more of these types
of power attributes exhibited then this would also positively influence the salience of the stakeholder. See Parent and Deephouse (2007).
14 Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
247
legal rules. Some actors are more able to enforce international law than others. Yet
the very availability of the UNCLOS dispute settlement regime for all parties to that
treaty does open up the possibility to states parties having normative power if they
choose to avail themselves of compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing
binding decisions and there are no barriers to doing so.
Urgency assesses the time sensitivity of claims or relationships as well as the
importance of the claim or the relationship to the stakeholder.
40 It is the urgency of
the claim of the stakeholder rather than the urgency of the stakeholder itself that
matters.
41
While these three categories provide a way to classify the interests of stakeholders, it must also be acknowledged that the attributes of stakeholders may vary
over time, might entail subjective determinations and may or may not be asserted in
any given context.
42 Yet even with this possible nuance, the categories allow us to
identify the stakeholders and their interests in a decision-making process.
These are the factors that must be weighed by the manager in making strategic
decisions for the organisation; they determine which stakeholders are salient.
43 In
assessing stakeholders, a process may be undertaken in determining which stakeholders possess power, legitimacy and urgency, or perhaps just two of those
attributes or only one. A sliding scale applies. As such, a stakeholder exhibiting all
three of power, legitimacy and urgency means that a manager (judge) has ‘a clear
and immediate mandate to attend to and give priority to that stakeholder’s claim’.
44
Stakeholder identification theory provides a tool for articulating what could or
should be influencing decision-making and why decision-makers should take heed.
There is no consistent set of variables, but we instead have an opportunity to look
broadly at the variety of actors in the international system and different forms of
communications between those actors and have a means to weigh those interactions
and assess their salience in the judicial decision-making process. There is therefore
an opportunity to account for the complexity of UNCLOS dispute settlement and to
engage more transparently in what has influenced diverse outcomes. Inherent difficulties remain of course, as it will not always be evident on the face of any judgement
40 Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 867. An additional dimension proposed to the urgency of a claim is the
probability of the claim’s occurrence. See Driscoll and Starik (2004), discussed in Mitchell et al.
(2017), p. 139. Although arguably this dimension could be captured in an assessment of the
importance of the claim or relationship.
41 See Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 140, discussing the work of Eesley and Lennox (2006). Stakeholder
urgency would instead be part of the power attribute.
42 Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 868.
43 Mitchell et al. (1997), pp. 870–871.
44 Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 878. As there are three types of power, arguably the more of these types
of power attributes exhibited then this would also positively influence the salience of the stakeholder. See Parent and Deephouse (2007).
14 Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
247