Appunti caso b International Organizations

(ITLOS):

States Parties: Twelve States submitted written statements, and nine

 participated in oral proceedings, providing legal arguments and

interpretations.

International Seabed Authority (ISA): The ISA submitted a

 comprehensive written statement and made oral statements during the

hearings. The ISA's Legal Counsel also provided additional information on

environmental impacts and technology for seabed mining.

Intergovernmental Organizations: Two organizations submitted

 written statements, and others participated in oral hearings, contributing

their expertise on seabed activities and environmental considerations.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Greenpeace International

 and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) submitted joint statements

and petitions to participate as amici curiae. Although their formal request

was denied, their submissions were made available to relevant parties

and on the Tribunal’s website.

United Nations: The UN Programme submitted a written statement that

 was accepted and included in the case file, providing additional

international perspectives.

Registrar and Legal Counsel: The Registrar managed the flow of

 information and ensured transparency by posting documents online. The

Legal Counsel provided a dossier of supporting documents and

summaries of key issues to aid the Chamber’s understanding.

2. How can the SCD be defined? What is the difference between jurisdiction

of the SDC and admissibility of the claim? How are these two issues dealt

in the advisory opinion?

-The Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) is a specialized judicial body within the

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), tasked with interpreting

Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and

its related annexes and regulations. Its primary functions include providing

advisory opinions and resolving disputes concerning activities in the

international seabed area, known as the Area. The SDC’s advisory jurisdiction

assists the International Seabed Authority (ISA)—specifically its Assembly and

Council—in decision-making by interpreting legal questions related to their

activities. It also holds contentious jurisdiction to settle disputes involving

states, the ISA, and private entities or individuals. The Chamber's

independence and impartiality are crucial for maintaining legal clarity and good

governance in the Area, ensuring that deep seabed mining and related

activities comply with international law.

- While the SDC has the authority to determine its jurisdiction based on the

provisions of UNCLOS, admissibility involves additional considerations related

to the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the request

and any objections raised by the parties involved.

- The Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) addresses both jurisdiction and

admissibility in the advisory opinion. It evaluates whether it has the authority,

as defined in Article 191 of UNCLOS, to provide an advisory opinion on the legal

questions raised by the ISA Council. The Chamber considers factors such as the

nature of the questions and the scope of the ISA's activities to determine

jurisdiction. While not explicitly delving into admissibility, the decision to

proceed with the advisory opinion implies that the SDC finds the request

admissible, suggesting that procedural requirements and the relevance of the

legal questions have been met. Ultimately, the advisory opinion affirms the

Chamber's authority to address the legal issues raised by the Council.

3. What information is provided in the advisory opinion on applicable law,

procedural rules and interpretation techniques with regard to the case at

stake?

In the advisory opinion, the Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) delineates

the applicable law, procedural rules, and interpretation techniques

pertinent to the case. It cites Article 293 of the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Article 38 of the Statute

of the Tribunal to establish the legal framework. The Chamber also

highlights the importance of interpreting the Convention in conjunction

with the 1994 Agreement and considers procedural rules outlined in the

Statute and the Tribunal's Rules. Furthermore, the opinion emphasizes

the significance of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in

guiding the interpretation of treaty provisions and examines the

multilingual nature of the Convention, affirming that all authentic texts

hold equal weight. Additionally, the opinion delves into interpretation

techniques, particularly concerning the term "responsibility" as used in

various provisions of the Convention. It scrutinizes discrepancies between

language versions and elucidates the nuanced meanings of legal terms

across different linguistic renditions. Through this analysis, the SDC

provides a comprehensive understanding of the applicable law,

procedural rules, and interpretation methods relevant to the case.

Part II – Question 1

4. What is the subject of the first question raised in the context of the

advisory opinion proceedings?

The first question is what are the legal responsibilities and obligations of

States Parties to the Convention with respect to the sponsorship of activities

in the Area in accordance with the Convention and the 1994 Agreement

relating to the Implementation of part XI of UN Convention on the LoS of 10

December 1982.

5. Definitions play a very important role in this advisory opinion: what terms

are expressly defined by the SDC and how?

The 2 terms are “sponsorship” and “activities in the Area”.

Sponsorship: The Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) defines sponsorship as a

critical element in the UNCLOS regime governing exploration and

exploitation activities in the Area. Sponsorship entails that entities seeking

contracts must be either nationals of a State Party or effectively controlled

by it. Additionally, a specific act of sponsorship by the relevant State(s) is

required, indicating a deliberate commitment to support the entity's

activities. However, States engaged in deep seabed mining under UNCLOS

are exempt from this requirement. The SDC's interpretation underscores the

importance of sponsorship in ensuring compliance with UNCLOS obligations

and advancing the common interest in the equitable utilization of seabed

resources.

Activities in the Area: all activities of exploration for, and exploitation of, the

resources of the Area.

6. What are, according to the SDC, the “responsibilities and obligations” of

sponsoring States in this context?

According to the Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC), the responsibilities and

obligations of sponsoring States in the context of deep seabed mining activities

are outlined in key provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea (UNCLOS). These provisions include Article 139, Paragraph 1; Article

153, Paragraph 4; and Annex III, Article 4, Paragraph 4 of UNCLOS.

The SDC highlights that these provisions establish the obligation of sponsoring

States to ensure that activities conducted in the Area (the seabed and ocean

floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction) comply with

UNCLOS regulations. This obligation applies to activities carried out by entities

that possess the nationality of sponsoring States or are effectively controlled by

them. Sponsoring States are also obligated to assist the International Seabed

Authority (ISA) in securing compliance with UNCLOS provisions regarding deep

seabed mining.

The term "responsibility to ensure" denotes an international legal obligation

placed on sponsoring States. It signifies that sponsoring States must ensure

that their sponsored contractors comply with UNCLOS rules and regulations,

effectively extending the reach of UNCLOS obligations to entities operating

under their sponsorship. This mechanism ensures that UNCLOS obligations are

upheld within domestic legal frameworks through the actions of sponsoring

States.

7. What are, according to the SDC, the “direct obligations” of sponsoring

States in this context? What is the difference between direct and other

(indirect?) obligations?

According to the Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC), sponsoring States have both

direct and indirect obligations in the context of deep seabed mining activities

under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Direct

obligations refer to specific duties that sponsoring States must fulfill

independently, while indirect obligations involve ensuring compliance with

certain behaviors by their sponsored contractors.

The SDC identifies several direct obligations of sponsoring States,

including:

Obligation to Assist the Authority: Sponsoring States are required to

 aid the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in exercising control over

activities in the Area.

Precautionary Approach: Sponsoring States must apply a

 precautionary approach to deep seabed mining activities to minimize

potential environmental risks.

Best Environmental Practices: Sponsoring States are obligated to

 apply best environmental practices to ensure the protection of the

marine environment during deep seabed mining operations.

Guarantees in Emergency Situations: Sponsoring States must take

 measures to ensure the provision of guarantees in case the ISA issues

emergency orders for the protection of the marine environment.

Recourse for Compensation: Sponsoring States must ensure the

 availability of recourse for compensation in cases of damage caused by

pollution resulting from deep seabed mining activities.

Environmental Impact Assessments: Sponsoring States are obligated

 to conduct environmental impact assessments to evaluate the potential

environmental effects of deep seabed mining projects.

These direct obligations are distinct from the obligation to ensure

compliance by sponsored contractors. While the latter focuses on

ensuring that sponsored entities adhere to UNCLOS regulations, the

former involves specific duties that sponsoring States must fulfill

independently to promote environmental protection and responsible deep

seabed mining practices. Compliance with these direct obligations

contributes to meeting the due diligence obligation to ensure that deep

seabed mining activities comply with UNCLOS provisions.

Part III – Question 2

8. What is the subject of the second question raised in the context of the

advisory opinion proceedings?

It’s: what is the extent of liability of a State Party for any failure to comply

with the provisions of the Convention and the 1994 Agreement by an

entity whom it has sponsored under art.153, paragraph 2(b) of the

Convention?

9. How is the question of liability and compensation dealt with by the SDC?

The Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) addresses liability and compensation

in the context of deep seabed mining activities under the United Nations