SEABED DISPUTES

CHAMBER
Snehal Nandi - 21LUL11061

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 1 of 13

 International Seabed?

The international seabed (i.e., the seabed beyond

the limits of national jurisdiction), parts of which are
believed to be rich in minerals, is not subject to
national appropriation and has been designated a
“common heritage of mankind” by the Declaration
of Principles Governing the Seabed (1970) and the
Law of the Sea treaty. Activities in the international
seabed, also known as “the Area,” are expected to
be carried out in the collective interests of all states,
and benefits are expected to be shared equitably.

The deep ocean floor, beyond any country's borders, isn't owned by any one nation. It's
considered a shared resource for all humanity. This idea started in the 1970s and became
international law. The resources found there, like valuable minerals, should benefit
everyone, not just a single country.

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 2 of 13

 Chamber?

The settlement of disputes of seabed

cases is deemed to be dealt with by the
Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) of the
International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea. Article 186 under Part XV of the
UNCLOS provides for the establishment
of the Seabed Disputes Chamber. It is a
separate judicial body within the
tribunal. However, it is a body within the
tribunal but it is independent of it.

- The establishment of the Seabed Disputes Chamber and the manner in

which it shall exercise its jurisdiction shall be governed by the provisions of UNCLOS

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 3 of 13

 Functions
Interpreting Part XI of the Convention. The SDC works for the
effective implementation of the provisions of Part XI of the
Convention. And in case of disputes, it interprets the provisions
of Part XI.
The resolution of disputes is the main function of the SDC.
Disputes related to the area of the seabed and the ocean are
under the obligation of the SDC to resolve.
The Seabed Disputes Chamber also has an advisory opinion
function. Its advisory function is specified in Article 191 of the
Convention. It can provide the authority (ISA) its advisory
opinion on any legal question in the case when the authority
requests. The advisory opinion given by the SDC is a matter of
urgency.

- PART XI = THE AREA

- Article 133=Use of terms
- Article 134=Scope of this
Part
- Article 135=Legal status of the superjacent waters and air space

- AR. 191 = The Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request
of the Assembly or the Council on legal questions arising within the scope of
their activities. Such opinions shall be given as a matter of urgency.

- ISA = The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is an autonomous international

organization established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1994 Agreement).

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 4 of 13

 Composition
The Chamber is composed of 11 judges. A
quorum of seven members is required to
constitute the Chamber. Members of the
Chamber are selected by the members of
the Tribunal every three years and may be
selected for a second term. The selection
process ensures the representation of the
principal legal systems of the world and
equitable geographical distribution. The
Chamber elects its President from among
its members (Statute, article 35).

- 35 = Nothing in this Part affects:

(a) any areas of internal waters within a strait, except where the
establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method
set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters
areas which had not previously been considered as such;
(b) the legal status of the waters beyond the territorial seas of States
bordering straits as exclusive economic zones or high seas; or
(c) the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or
in part by long-standing international conventions in force
specifically relating to such straits.

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 5 of 13

 Currently...
President: Judge Attard
Judge Jesus Judge Lijnzaad
Judge Kulyk Judge Duan
Judge Judge Brown
Kittichaisaree Judge
Judge Kolodkin Caracciolo
Judge Joyini
Judge Armas Pfirter

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 6 of 13

 Ad Hoc Chamber

Any party to a dispute over which

the Seabed Disputes Chamber has
jurisdiction may request the Seabed
Disputes Chamber to form an ad hoc
chamber.

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 7 of 13

 Composition (Ad Hoc)

An ad hoc chamber is composed of

three members of the Seabed Disputes
Chamber. The composition of the ad
hoc chamber is determined by the
Seabed Disputes Chamber with the
approval of the parties to the dispute.
Members of the ad hoc chamber may
not be in the service of, or nationals of,
any of the parties (Convention, articles
187 and 188; Statute, article 36).

- Blacks Law defines Ad Hoc - a solution for a specific purpose, problem, or task rather
than a generalized solution adaptable to collateral instances

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 8 of 13

 Dispute Examples

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 9 of 13

 M/V "SAIGA" Case
M/V Saiga was an oil tanker under the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
It served as a bunkering vessel, supplying fuel to vessels off the coast of Guinea.
On 27 October 1997, it entered Guinea’s exclusive economic zone after crossing the
maritime boundary with Guinea Bissau.
The next day, Guinean Customs arrested the vessel and detained the crew in Conakry,
Guinea.
No bond was requested by Guinea or offered by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for
their release.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines filed a case with the International Tribunal for the Law of
the Sea under UNCLOS article 292.
They argued for the immediate release of the vessel and crew without a bond, but were
willing to provide security if imposed by the Tribunal.
Guinea sought dismissal of the action, questioning the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the
applicability of article 73 of UNCLOS.
The Tribunal ruled that a bond was not a prerequisite for its jurisdiction and that
promptness in release was crucial.
Guinea failed to notify the detention as required and did not engage in bond discussions.
The Tribunal held Guinea responsible for the detention and ordered the release of the M/V
Saiga and its crew.
Release was contingent upon posting security, including the value of gasoil discharged and
400,000 USD.

A supply ship (M/V Saiga) delivering fuel to ships off Guinea (Africa) accidentally crossed
into Guinea's waters from neighboring Guinea Bissau. Guinea arrested the ship and crew.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (the ship's country) complained to a special sea court
(International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) saying the crew should be released
immediately. Guinea argued the court had no right to hear the case.

The court decided it could hear the case and that Guinea should have let the ship go
sooner. Since Guinea failed, they ordered them to release the ship and crew, but the ship
owners had to pay a fine (including the value of the fuel).

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 10 of 13

 The "Camouco" Case
The Camouco was a Panamanian-flagged fishing vessel owned by Merce-Pesca (S.A.).
It departed from Walvis Bay, Namibia, on 16 September 1999 for longline fishing in the Southern
seas.
On 28 September 1999, it was boarded by a French frigate in the Crozet Islands’ EEZ, accused of
illegal fishing and not declaring entry.
The vessel was escorted to Port-des-Galets, Réunion, with six tonnes of Patagonian toothfish
onboard.
On 8 October 1999, the court at Saint-Paul confirmed the arrest and set a bond of 20,000,000
FF for release.
The Master was charged on 7 October 1999 and placed under court supervision.
Panama sought the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s intervention for the prompt
release of the vessel and Master, offering to pay a reasonable bond.
France rejected Panama’s submissions.
The Tribunal ruled that article 292 of UNCLOS provided an independent remedy, not an appeal
against national court decisions.
It was determined that local remedies could not be exhausted quickly enough to meet article
292’s requirements.
The Tribunal assessed whether the 20 million FF bond was reasonable, considering the gravity of
offenses, penalties, and the value of the vessel and cargo.
The Tribunal concluded that the bond of 20 million FF imposed by the French court was not
“reasonable”.
It ordered that France should promptly release the Camouco and it’s Master upon the posting of
a bond of eight million French Francs.

A fishing boat (Camouco) from Panama was caught fishing illegally in French waters.
France arrested the boat and captain, demanded a huge amount of money (20 million
French Francs) to let them go. Panama said this was unfair and asked a special SDC to
help. The court agreed that the amount was too high and ordered France to release the
boat and captain for a much smaller fee (8 million French Francs).

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 11 of 13

 The "Tomimaru" Case
Tomimaru, a fishing vessel, was boarded in the Russian EEZ on October 31, 2006.
5.5 tons of walleye pollack were found unaccounted for, leading to its arrest.
Further inspection revealed an additional 20 tons of walleye pollack and other illegal
catch.
Criminal proceedings against the master began on November 8, 2006; he was detained
while the crew was released.
Administrative proceedings against the owner started on November 14, 2006.
The prosecutor set a bond for the criminal case on December 12, 2006.
The owner requested a bond for the administrative offenses on December 14, 2006.
The court rejected the bond petition on December 19, 2006, and later confiscated the
vessel and imposed fines on December 28, 2006.
The owner appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 26,
2007.
The vessel was seized by the government on April 9, 2007.
The master was fined and ordered to pay damages on May 15, 2007; he left for Japan
on May 30, 2007.
Japan filed for the vessel’s prompt release on bond with the Tribunal on July 6, 2007.
The Russian Supreme Court dismissed the owner’s petition on July 26, 2007.
The Tribunal gave its unanimous judgment on August 6, 2007.

A Japanese fishing vessel named Tomimaru got into big trouble in Russia in late 2006. In
October, they were caught fishing in an area controlled by Russia (called an Exclusive
Economic Zone) and couldn't account for a massive amount of fish. It turned out they had
way more fish on board than they were supposed to, including some they weren't even
allowed to catch!

The captain faced criminal charges and was stuck in Russia while his crew went home. The
boat itself also got caught in a legal battle. Russia wanted to keep the boat, and Japan
wanted it back. This back-and-forth went on for months. The captain eventually got fined
and released in May 2007, but the fight over the boat continued. Japan even tried offering
money as a guarantee to get the boat back, but Russia said no. In the end, the SDC ruled in
August 2007, then Russia had to return the boat.

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 12 of 13

 THANK YOU
To: Mrs. Chaitrika S Hegde

Seabed Disputes Chamber Page 13 of 13