Observations on vessel release under the United Nations convention on the law of the Sea

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

If a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with "without delay". Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made "by or on behalf" of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words "on behalf of" present an option that is not already provided by the word "by". Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application "by" the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release "on behalf of the flag State" may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-215
Number of pages15
JournalInternational Journal of Marine and Coastal Law
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 1996

Fingerprint

Law of the Sea
UNO
vessel
Hamburg
Law
legality
communication
remedies
jurisdiction
obligation
human being
present
need
court
office
convention
ship

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Oceanography
  • Law

Cite this

Observations on vessel release under the United Nations convention on the law of the Sea. / Oxman, Bernard.

In: International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 01.12.1996, p. 201-215.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{685101de82e9465bb6e1ac67202a7603,
title = "Observations on vessel release under the United Nations convention on the law of the Sea",
abstract = "If a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with {"}without delay{"}. Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made {"}by or on behalf{"} of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words {"}on behalf of{"} present an option that is not already provided by the word {"}by{"}. Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application {"}by{"} the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release {"}on behalf of the flag State{"} may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.",
author = "Bernard Oxman",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1163/157180896X00078",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "201--215",
journal = "International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law",
issn = "0927-3522",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Observations on vessel release under the United Nations convention on the law of the Sea

AU - Oxman, Bernard

PY - 1996/12/1

Y1 - 1996/12/1

N2 - If a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with "without delay". Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made "by or on behalf" of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words "on behalf of" present an option that is not already provided by the word "by". Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application "by" the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release "on behalf of the flag State" may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.

AB - If a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with "without delay". Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made "by or on behalf" of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words "on behalf of" present an option that is not already provided by the word "by". Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application "by" the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release "on behalf of the flag State" may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0039994568&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0039994568&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/157180896X00078

DO - 10.1163/157180896X00078

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0039994568

VL - 11

SP - 201

EP - 215

JO - International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

JF - International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

SN - 0927-3522

IS - 2

ER -