A Comparative Study between Arbitration and Judicial Settlement as Means of Maritime Boundary Dispute Settlement
- 1 School of Law and Political Science, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
- 2 Institute of Environmental Science, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh
- 3 Gono Bishwabidyalay (University), Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
This paper makes an effort to draw a comparative study between judicial process and arbitration as the method of maritime boundary dispute settlement. Currently, maritime boundary dispute between states is a much talked issue all over the World. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea refers four means of maritime dispute settlement. Arbitration and Judicial processes are mainly two of them. According to the Convention every state has the right to choose one of the four means to settle their dispute. Practices show that Arbitration and Judicial settlement are more popular than any other methods of maritime boundary dispute settlement. Most of the previous maritime boundary disputes have been settled either by judicial process or by Arbitration. The present paper attempts to compare between arbitration and Judicial process as the means of maritime boundary dispute. In addition, many of the concepts mentioned in this paper may use to understand about the peaceful settlement of maritime boundary dispute.
- (1969). North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands). ICJ Reports 4 at 42.
- (2009). The Bay of Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Republic of India, Arbitral Tribunal.
- Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. ITLOS, 2009.
- Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean. ITLOS, 2014.
- Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations. http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/commission_submissions.htm
- Freestone, D. et al. (2006). The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 396. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299614.001.0001
- Kariotis, T. C. (Ed.) (1997). Greece and the Law of the Sea. Hague: Kluwer Law International, 170.
- Law of the Sea Dispute Settlement Mechanism by Aceris Law, International Arbitration Attorney Network. 21/9/2015. https://www.international-arbitration-attorney.com/law-of-the-sea-dispute-settlement-mechanism/
- Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Settlement of Disputes. http://www.in.org./depts/los/los_disp.htm
- Pending Case List, ICJ. http://www.icj-cij.org/en/pending-cases
- Statute of the International Court of Justice. (Done at San Francisco), 26 June 1945, in Force 24 October 1945.
- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (Done at Motego Bay). 10 December 1982, in Force 16 November 1994.