12 UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Japan’s Experience and Contribution
243
referred in detail to the cooperative relationship between two countries in the
field of fisheries, concluding that ‘the security should be in the total amount of
10 million roubles’.
113
(4) Operative provisions
Eventually, ITLOS unanimously concluded:
114
(1) Finds that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under article 292 of the Convention to
entertain the Application made by Japan.
(2) Finds that the Application with respect to the allegation of non-compliance with
article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention is admissible.
(3) Finds that the allegation made by the Applicant that the Respondent has not
complied with the provisions of article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the
prompt release of the Hoshinmaru and its crew upon the posting of a reasonable
bond or other financial security is well-founded.
(4) Decides that the Russian Federation shall promptly release the Hoshinmaru,
including its catch on board, upon the posting of a bond or other security as
determined by the Tribunal, and that the Master and the crew shall be free to
leave without any conditions.
(5) Determines that the bond shall amount to 10,000,000 roubles.
(6) Determines that the bond of 10,000,000 roubles shall be in the form either of a
payment into the bank account indicated by the Respondent, or, if the Applicant
so prefers, of a bank guarantee from a bank present in the Russian Federation or
having corresponding arrangements with a Russian bank.
12.5.4 Analysis
After the Judgments, including that of the “Tomimaru” case, the Japanese Government made public the following statement:
115
1. […].
2. With regard to the 88th Hoshinmaru, the Tribunal determined that the reasonable bond
to release the vessel and the crew shall amount to 10 million rubles (about 46 million
yen: 40% of the amount originally claimed by the Russian side), and ordered the Russian
Federation to release promptly the vessel upon the posting of the bond, and to permit the
Master and the crew to leave without any conditions. The judgment also made it clear
that, concerning this case, the value of the vessel should not be automatically calculated
in the amount of the bond. The Government of Japan considers that the judgment has
admitted the full argument made by Japan.
3. With regard to the 53rd Tomimaru, the Tribunal found that the Application of Japan no
longer had any object and that the Tribunal was not in a position to give a decision for the
prompt release of the vessel, as all the domestic procedures in the Russian Federation had
113 Judgment of 6 August 2007, para. 100.
114 Judgment of 6 August 2007, para. 102.
115 Judgment at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the Cases of the
Arrested Japanese Fishing Vessels (August 7, 2007), available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/
announce/2007/8/1174857_832.html.
243
referred in detail to the cooperative relationship between two countries in the
field of fisheries, concluding that ‘the security should be in the total amount of
10 million roubles’.
113
(4) Operative provisions
Eventually, ITLOS unanimously concluded:
114
(1) Finds that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under article 292 of the Convention to
entertain the Application made by Japan.
(2) Finds that the Application with respect to the allegation of non-compliance with
article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention is admissible.
(3) Finds that the allegation made by the Applicant that the Respondent has not
complied with the provisions of article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the
prompt release of the Hoshinmaru and its crew upon the posting of a reasonable
bond or other financial security is well-founded.
(4) Decides that the Russian Federation shall promptly release the Hoshinmaru,
including its catch on board, upon the posting of a bond or other security as
determined by the Tribunal, and that the Master and the crew shall be free to
leave without any conditions.
(5) Determines that the bond shall amount to 10,000,000 roubles.
(6) Determines that the bond of 10,000,000 roubles shall be in the form either of a
payment into the bank account indicated by the Respondent, or, if the Applicant
so prefers, of a bank guarantee from a bank present in the Russian Federation or
having corresponding arrangements with a Russian bank.
12.5.4 Analysis
After the Judgments, including that of the “Tomimaru” case, the Japanese Government made public the following statement:
115
1. […].
2. With regard to the 88th Hoshinmaru, the Tribunal determined that the reasonable bond
to release the vessel and the crew shall amount to 10 million rubles (about 46 million
yen: 40% of the amount originally claimed by the Russian side), and ordered the Russian
Federation to release promptly the vessel upon the posting of the bond, and to permit the
Master and the crew to leave without any conditions. The judgment also made it clear
that, concerning this case, the value of the vessel should not be automatically calculated
in the amount of the bond. The Government of Japan considers that the judgment has
admitted the full argument made by Japan.
3. With regard to the 53rd Tomimaru, the Tribunal found that the Application of Japan no
longer had any object and that the Tribunal was not in a position to give a decision for the
prompt release of the vessel, as all the domestic procedures in the Russian Federation had
113 Judgment of 6 August 2007, para. 100.
114 Judgment of 6 August 2007, para. 102.
115 Judgment at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the Cases of the
Arrested Japanese Fishing Vessels (August 7, 2007), available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/
announce/2007/8/1174857_832.html.