12 UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Japan’s Experience and Contribution
223
UNCLOS for striking a balance between the right of the flag State and that of the
coastal State (discussed below). Second, the provisional measures procedure, too, has
a specific character under UNCLOS, different to the International Court of Justice’s
(ICJ) procedure, due to its particular object, stipulated in Article 290(1), and the
collaboration between ITLOS (Article 290(5)) and the Annex VII tribunals.
12.2.2 Japan as a Promoter of the UNCLOS-DSM
During the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea III, Japan consistently advocated
in favour of a compulsory mechanism of dispute settlement or a general obligation
to settle disputes within a new convention. In a meeting, Japan stated that:
54. Japan attached great importance to the establishment of a satisfactory procedure for
compulsory settlement of any disputes which might arise out of the interpretation or application of the new convention. The duty of States to submit such disputes either to arbitration or
judicial settlement should be clearly formulated in order to ensure that the newly established
regime would be interpreted and applied uniformly and in a fair and just manner around the
world […] (emphasis added). 11
This stance was maintained by Japan in a following meeting:
54. […] Agreement on a compulsory dispute settlement procedure must be an essential
element in an over-all solution of major issues in the current negotiations. That was all
the more necessary since the new legal instrument would have to strike a delicate balance
between the rights, obligations and interests of States within the framework of a wider
jurisdiction of coastal States than had previously been recognized […].
56. [The] delegation also wished to emphasize the necessity of making the general obligation
to settle disputes an integral part of the future convention. In [the] delegation’s view, the
solution adopted at the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958, in
the form of an Optional Protocol of Signature, was insufficient and unacceptable (emphasis
added). 12
12.2.3 Japan’s Contributions to UNCLOS-DSM
As a country surrounded by sea, Japan has significantly contributed to the development of the law of the sea, including the UNCLOS-DSM.
13 First, Japan has been
the largest financial contributor to ITLOS , and in 2014, Japan’s contribution to the
ITLOS budget was approximately 1.5 million euro (approximately 197 million yen,
11 UNCLOS III (1973–1982), Official Records, Vol. I, Summary Records of Plenary Meetings, 41st
plenary meeting (15 July 1974), A/CONF.62/ SR.41, p. 182.
12 UNCLOS III (1973–1982), Official Records, Vol. V, Summary Records of the Plenary, Fourth
Session, 60th meeting (6 April 1976), A/CONF.62/SR.60, p. 27.
13 Meeting between State Minister for Foreign Affairs Minoru Kiuchi and Vladimir Vladimirovich
Golitsyn, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (November 8, 2014),
available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_000502.html.
223
UNCLOS for striking a balance between the right of the flag State and that of the
coastal State (discussed below). Second, the provisional measures procedure, too, has
a specific character under UNCLOS, different to the International Court of Justice’s
(ICJ) procedure, due to its particular object, stipulated in Article 290(1), and the
collaboration between ITLOS (Article 290(5)) and the Annex VII tribunals.
12.2.2 Japan as a Promoter of the UNCLOS-DSM
During the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea III, Japan consistently advocated
in favour of a compulsory mechanism of dispute settlement or a general obligation
to settle disputes within a new convention. In a meeting, Japan stated that:
54. Japan attached great importance to the establishment of a satisfactory procedure for
compulsory settlement of any disputes which might arise out of the interpretation or application of the new convention. The duty of States to submit such disputes either to arbitration or
judicial settlement should be clearly formulated in order to ensure that the newly established
regime would be interpreted and applied uniformly and in a fair and just manner around the
world […] (emphasis added). 11
This stance was maintained by Japan in a following meeting:
54. […] Agreement on a compulsory dispute settlement procedure must be an essential
element in an over-all solution of major issues in the current negotiations. That was all
the more necessary since the new legal instrument would have to strike a delicate balance
between the rights, obligations and interests of States within the framework of a wider
jurisdiction of coastal States than had previously been recognized […].
56. [The] delegation also wished to emphasize the necessity of making the general obligation
to settle disputes an integral part of the future convention. In [the] delegation’s view, the
solution adopted at the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958, in
the form of an Optional Protocol of Signature, was insufficient and unacceptable (emphasis
added). 12
12.2.3 Japan’s Contributions to UNCLOS-DSM
As a country surrounded by sea, Japan has significantly contributed to the development of the law of the sea, including the UNCLOS-DSM.
13 First, Japan has been
the largest financial contributor to ITLOS , and in 2014, Japan’s contribution to the
ITLOS budget was approximately 1.5 million euro (approximately 197 million yen,
11 UNCLOS III (1973–1982), Official Records, Vol. I, Summary Records of Plenary Meetings, 41st
plenary meeting (15 July 1974), A/CONF.62/ SR.41, p. 182.
12 UNCLOS III (1973–1982), Official Records, Vol. V, Summary Records of the Plenary, Fourth
Session, 60th meeting (6 April 1976), A/CONF.62/SR.60, p. 27.
13 Meeting between State Minister for Foreign Affairs Minoru Kiuchi and Vladimir Vladimirovich
Golitsyn, President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (November 8, 2014),
available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_000502.html.