Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention

Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention: The United States participated as an observer to the 23rd meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention (“SPLOS”) at the United Nations June 10 to 12, 2013. Delegations to SPLOS discussed the work of the bodies established under the Convention and other issues that have arisen with respect to the Convention. One item on the agenda was a new request to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) from an African regional fisheries management organization for an advisory opinion on fisheries-related rights and obligations. The United States expressed concern that the request seeks advice beyond the scope of the regional agreement under which it was brought. Excerpts follow from the U.S. statement responding to the ITLOS report at the 23rd meeting of SPLOS.

Some Aspects of Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention

…[W]e would like to comment briefly on the report from the President of the Tribunal regarding the request it received for an advisory opinion from the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission.

As we are all aware, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS has authority to issue advisory opinions pursuant to Law of the Sea Convention, as set forth in paragraph 10 of Article 159 and Article 191. The Law of the Sea Convention, including its Annex VI setting forth the Statute of the Tribunal, does not provide for any additional advisory opinion jurisdiction. While the Tribunal's statute does recognize that agreements other than the Law of the Sea Convention may confer certain jurisdiction upon ITLOS to render decisions relevant to those other agreements, that jurisdiction cannot extend to general matters beyond the scope of those other agreements.

Developments

In this instance, the request concerns broad fisheries-related rights and obligations of coastal States and flag States under the Law of the Sea. The questions posed to the Tribunal contain no references to the agreement from which the request originated, namely the agreement establishing the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. Indeed, the documentation accompanying the request states that the intention of the request is to improve implementation of the 2009 Port State Measures Agreement—a separate agreement that itself confers no such jurisdiction on the Tribunal. Thus, we are not persuaded that this particular request is permissible and will continue to follow this matter closely.

Resources

Notes

1. Meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law