VIII. Settlement of Disputes

From IUCN Marine Biodiversity Matrix
Jump to: navigation, search
From Chair's indicative suggestions document 31/05/17:

Drawing on existing dispute settlement provisions, such as those of the Charter of the United Nations, UNCLOS (Part XV) and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (Part VIII), the text would set out the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means as well as the need to cooperate to prevent disputes. It would also set out the modalities for settling disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the instrument.


Suggestion 1: Apply dispute settlement procedures elaborated in UNCLOS

Provide for application of dispute settlement procedures detailed in UNCLOS Part XV, adapted as necessary to the requirements of the Agreement. Authorize the implementing agreement’s conference of the parties to refer a request for an advisory opinion on any legal question to the Law of the Sea Tribunal.


Notes:

References: UNCLOS Part XV. Settlement of Disputes, ITLOS Rules of the Tribunal


Suggestion 2: Develop new dispute resolution mechanism based on negotiation, mediation, and binding dispute settlement

The agreement could establish detailed provisions on dispute settlement specific to the agreement, drawing on existing institutions under UNCLOS such as the Law of the Sea Tribunal.


Notes:

References: Antarctic Treaty Art 11, Barcelona Convention Art 22, CAMLR Art XXV, CBD Article 27


Suggestion 3: Authorize non-State actors access to dispute resolution mechanisms

Authorize non-State actors to have legal standing to have access to dispute resolution mechanisms


Notes: Non-state actors represent important interests that reflect issues of international concern.

References:


Suggestion 4: Authorize all states to have legal standing in dispute resolution mechanisms

Authorize all states to have legal standing to seek redress for damage to the environment and biodiversity in ABNJ.


Notes: All states have an equal interest in the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ. According to the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, and as recognized in the International Court of Justice’s Barcelona Traction case, tall States should therefore have standing in a legal forum to protect this interest.

References: International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, International Court of Justice’s Barcelona Traction case



Suggestion 5: Reparation measures being used on behalf of biodiversity in ABNJ

Provide for reparation measures for damage to marine biodiversity of ABNJ to be used on behalf of biodiversity in ABNJ, whether to restore the damaged resources, or to restore or improve resilience of related ecosystem services.


Notes: Reparation to damage to marine biodiversity of ABNJ is for the benefit of humanity’s interest, not for the particular benefit of the State or other entity that makes the claim. There is a legal obligation to direct environmental recoveries to the injured environment, recognized and implemented both in domestic law and, in international law, by the United Nations Compensation Commission’s “Follow-up Programme”

References: United Nations Compensation Commission’s “Follow-up Programme”


Suggestion 6:

Notes:

References:




Also see