Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea
The author of the paper within the framework of scientific and practical discussions about the essence of law-making of international judicial institutions has proved that the judicial practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is based on the case law. It is determined that inter...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
National University Odessa Law Academy
2019-04-01
|
Series: | Lex Portus |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.2.2019.2 |
id |
doaj-7ba2efe3ccd742d487fe5c0a5f9300df |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-7ba2efe3ccd742d487fe5c0a5f9300df2020-11-25T02:02:50ZengNational University Odessa Law AcademyLex Portus2524-101X2617-541X2019-04-012274010.26886/2524-101X.2.2019.2Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the SeaInna Boyko0PhD in Political Sciences, Docent, Associate Professor of the Department of Maritime Law of the National University “Odessa Maritime Academy” (8, Didrikhson St., Odessa, Ukraine)The author of the paper within the framework of scientific and practical discussions about the essence of law-making of international judicial institutions has proved that the judicial practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is based on the case law. It is determined that international bodies of justice consider it necessary to cite and borrowing legal conclusions as their earlier decisions, as well as decisions of other judicial and arbitration bodies. It is noted that absence of a legal confirmation of the lawmaking powers in international judicial bodies does not prevent the recognition that they actually create the international Law, and the result (documents) is manifested by the judgments which reasoning contains universally binding regulations, i.e., judicial precedents. Having analyzed the decision on the case of the “Norstar” vessel in a dispute between Panama and Italy, the author concludes that in accordance with the established practice of applying various pretrial dispute decisions, that a state is not obligated to continue exchange of opinions if it comes to a conclusion that the possibilities to reach a settlement have been exhausted. Investigated that As regards the case Ghana versus Cȏte D’Ivoire that concerns delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles boundary, the Special Chamber has applied the same methodology for its delimitation which was proposed by the International Court of Justice and became a logical regulatory addition to the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of t he Sea.https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.2.2019.2International Tribunal for the Law of the Sealaw-making activity of the bodies of international justiceestablished jurisprudencedetainment and arrest of merchant shipsthe methodology of maritime delimitation |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Inna Boyko |
spellingShingle |
Inna Boyko Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea Lex Portus International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea law-making activity of the bodies of international justice established jurisprudence detainment and arrest of merchant ships the methodology of maritime delimitation |
author_facet |
Inna Boyko |
author_sort |
Inna Boyko |
title |
Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea |
title_short |
Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea |
title_full |
Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea |
title_fullStr |
Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea |
title_full_unstemmed |
Case Law of the International Tribunal For the Law of the Sea |
title_sort |
case law of the international tribunal for the law of the sea |
publisher |
National University Odessa Law Academy |
series |
Lex Portus |
issn |
2524-101X 2617-541X |
publishDate |
2019-04-01 |
description |
The author of the paper within the framework of scientific and practical discussions about the essence of law-making of international judicial institutions has proved that the judicial practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is based on the case law. It is determined that international bodies of justice consider it necessary to cite and borrowing legal conclusions as their earlier decisions, as well as decisions of other judicial and arbitration bodies. It is noted that absence of a legal confirmation of the lawmaking powers in international judicial bodies does not prevent the recognition that they actually create the international Law, and the result (documents) is manifested by the judgments which reasoning contains universally binding regulations, i.e., judicial precedents. Having analyzed the decision on the case of the “Norstar” vessel in a dispute between Panama and Italy, the author concludes that in accordance with the established practice of applying various pretrial dispute decisions, that a state is not obligated to continue exchange of opinions if it comes to a conclusion that the possibilities to reach a settlement have been exhausted. Investigated that As regards the case Ghana versus Cȏte D’Ivoire that concerns delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles boundary, the Special Chamber has applied the same methodology for its delimitation which was proposed by the International Court of Justice and became a logical regulatory addition to the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of t he Sea. |
topic |
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea law-making activity of the bodies of international justice established jurisprudence detainment and arrest of merchant ships the methodology of maritime delimitation |
url |
https://doi.org/10.26886/2524-101X.2.2019.2 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT innaboyko caselawoftheinternationaltribunalforthelawofthesea |
_version_ |
1724951224039505920 |