MÜNHASIR EKONOMİK BÖLGEDE HAK VE YETKİ DAĞILIMIYLA İLGİLİ BELİRSİZLİKLER BAĞLAMINDA DENİZDE YAKIT İKMAL FAALİYETLERİNİN HUKUKÎ DURUMU

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 1 - 95, 20.06.2022

Ali Bal

https://doi.org/10.47136/asbuhfd.1075825

Abstract

BM Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesiyle (BMDHS) kodifiye edilen münhasır ekonomik bölgede (MEB) kıyı devletine başta bölgenin doğal kaynakları üzerinde olmak üzere çeşitli haklar ve yetkiler verilmiştir. Buna mukabil, diğer devletlerin de, MEB’de, açık denizlerde öteden beri tanınan serbestliklerden bir kısmına -Sözleşmenin ilgili hükümlerine tâbi olarak- sahip olduğu kabul edilmiştir. Sözleşme, kıyı devletine veya diğer devletlere verilmeyen hak ve yetkilerle ilgili ihtilafların ise, olayın koşulları ve ilgili tarafların menfaatleri gözetilerek hakkaniyet temelinde çözümünü öngörmektedir. Kapsamlı ve değişik ihtimalleri dikkate alan düzenlemelerin varlığına rağmen, MEB’deki faaliyetlerin kıyı devletinin mi yoksa diğer devletlerin mi yetki alanına girdiğinin tespiti her zaman kolay değildir. Bahsi geçen hükümler, yoruma açık ifadeler içerdiği gibi, genellikle Sözleşmenin diğer ilgili maddeleriyle birlikte değerlendirilmeyi de gerektirmektedir. BMDHS’de açıkça düzenlenmeyen MEB’de yakıt ikmal faaliyetleri açısından hangi devletin ne ölçüde yetkili olduğu hususu da, çeşitli uyuşmazlıklara yol açmakta ve gerek Sözleşme hükümlerinin gerek ilgili faaliyetin amaç ve özelliklerinin dikkatlice ele alınması ihtiyacını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışma, MEB’de yakıt ikmal faaliyetlerinin hukukî durumunu, ilgili hak ve yetkilerin dağılımı, yargı kararları ve akademik yaklaşımlar ışığında incelemeyi, değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

BMDHS, UDHM, MEB, Egemen Haklar ve Yetki, Serbestlikler ve Denizin Uluslararası Hukuka Uygun Diğer Kullanımları, Denizde Yakıt İkmali

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

yok

The Legal Status of the Offshore Bunkering Activities in the context of Uncertainties regarding the Allocation of Rights and Jurisdiction in the Exclusive Economic Zone

Abstract

In the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), codified by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the coastal state has been granted various rights and jurisdiction, primarily over the natural resources there. On the other hand, it has been accepted that other states enjoy in the EEZ some of the freedoms that have long been recognized on the high seas, subject to the relevant provisions of the Convention. The Convention also provides that conflicts regarding rights and jurisdiction not attributed to the coastal state or to other states should be resolved on the basis of equity, taking into account the relevant circumstances, and interests of the parties concerned. Despite the existence of provisions that are comprehensive and consider different possibilities, it is not always easy to determine whether the activities in the EEZ fall under the jurisdiction of the coastal state or other states. The aforementioned provisions include open-ended terms and generally require reading together with other relevant articles of the Convention. The issue of which state and to what extent is authorized in terms of bunkering activities in the EEZ, which are not clearly regulated in UNCLOS, leads to various disputes, and reveals the need to carefully consider both the provisions of the Convention and the purposes and characteristics of the activity in question. This study aims to examine and evaluate the legal status of bunkering activities in the EEZ in the light of the allocation of relevant rights and jurisdiction, judicial decisions and academic approaches.

Keywords

UNCLOS, ITLOS, EEZ, Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction, Freedoms and Other Internationally Lawful Uses of the Sea, Offshore Bunkering

Project Number

yok

References

• Akehurst, Michael ve Alexander Orakhelashvili. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. 8. Baskı, Routledge, 2019.
• Aksar, Yusuf. Teoride ve Uygulamada Uluslararası Hukuk, C. 1. 6. Baskı, Seçkin, 2021.
• Allen, Craig H. “Law of the Sea Tribunal Implies A Principle of Reasonableness in UNCLOS Article 73.” OpinioJuris, 17.04.2014. <http://opiniojuris.org/2014/04/17/guest-post-law-sea-tribunal-implies-principle-reasonableness-unclos-article-73/>, e.t. 25.09.2021.
• Anderson, David. “Coastal State Jurisdiction and High Seas Freedoms in the EEZ in the Light of the Saiga Case.” İç. Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, editör Clive R. Symmons, 105-115. Martinus Nijhoff, 2011.
• Anderson, David. Modern Law of the Sea: Selected Essays. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008.
• Andreone, Gemma. “The Exclusive Economic Zone.” İç. The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, editör Donald R. Rothwell, Alex G. Oude Elferink, Karen N. Scott ve Tim Stephens, 159-180. Oxford University Press, 2015.
• Aqorau, Transform. “Illegal Fishing and Fisheries Law Enforcement in Small Island Developing States: The Pacific Islands Experience.” The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 15 (2000): 37-63.
• Arias Schreiber, Alfonso. “The Exclusive Economic Zone: Its Legal Nature and the Problem of Military Uses.” İç. The Exclusive Economic Zone: A Latin American Perspective, editör Francisco Orrego Vicuña, 123-139. Westview Press, 1984.
• Attard Camilleri, Frank-Luke Matthew. The Application of the High Seas Regime in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Hamilton Books, 2018.
• Bal, Ali. “Devletin Uluslararası Sorumluluğa Ağırlıklı Olarak Diplomatik Himaye Çerçevesinde Başvurması: İç Başvuru Yollarının Tüketilmesi Şartının Uygulanabilirliği.” İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 79/2 (2021): 543-597.
• Bal, Ali. Uluslararası Hava Hukuku - Hava Sahasının Hukukî Rejimi. Seçkin, 2019.
• Bateman, Sam. “Hydrographic Surveying and Marine Scientific Research in Exclusive Economic Zones.” İç. Freedom of Seas, Passage Rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, editör Myron H. Nordquist, Tommy T. B. Koh ve John Norton Moore, 105-131. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Beckman, Robert ve Tara Davenport. “The EEZ Regime: Reflections after 30 Years.” İç. LOSI Conference Papers: Securing the Ocean for the Next Generation, editör Harry N. Scheiber ve Moon Sang Kwon. 2012.
• Black’s Law Dictionary, editör Bryan A. Garner. 9. Baskı, West Publishing Co., 2009.
• Burnett, Douglas R., Tara M. Davenport ve Robert C. Beckman. “Overview of the International Legal Regime Governing Submarine Cables.” İç. Submarine Cables: The Handbook of Law and Policy, editör Douglas R. Burnett, Robert C. Beckman ve Tara M. Davenport, 63-90. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014.
• Büyük, Mehmet Emin. Uluslararası Hukukta Hukukun Genel İlkeleri. On İki Levha, 2018.
• Castañeda, Jorge. “Negotiations on the Exclusive Economic Zone at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.” İç. Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, editör Jerzy Makarczyk, 605-623. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984.
• Churchill, Robin. “Revealing a Mosaic: International Jurisprudence concerning the Non-Fisheries Elements of the Exclusive Economic Zone Regime.” İç. The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention The Role of International Courts and Tribunals, editör Øystein Jensen, 48-72. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
• Churchill, Robin ve Vaughan Lowe. The Law of the Sea. Manchester University Press, 1988.
• Crawford, James. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 9. Baskı, Oxford University Press, 2019.
• Çamyamaç, Anıl. Denize Kıyısı Olmayan ve Coğrafî Açıdan Elverişsiz Devletlerin Hukukî Durumu. Adalet Yayınevi, 2012.
• Dupuy, René-Jean ve Daniel Vignes. A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, Cilt 1. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991.
• Francioni, Francesco. “Equity in International Law.” MPEPIL (Haziran 2013).
• Galdorisi, George V. ve Alan G. Kaufman, “Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Preventing Uncertainly and Defusing Conflicts.” California Western International Law Journal 32 (2002): 253-301.
• Gao, Zhiguo. “China and the Law of the Sea.” İç. Freedom of Seas, Passage Rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, editör Myron H. Nordquist, Tommy T. B. Koh ve John Norton Moore, 265-295. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Gavouneli, Maria. Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
• Goodman, Camile. “Rights, Obligations, Prohibitions: A Practical Guide to Understanding Judicial Decisions on Coastal State Jurisdiction over Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone.” The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 32 (2017): 1-27.
• Guifang, Xue. “Marine Scientific Research and Hydrographic Survey in the EEZs: Closing up the Legal Loopholes?.” İç. Freedom of Seas, Passage Rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, editör Myron H. Nordquist, Tommy T. B. Koh ve John Norton Moore, 209-225. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Gündüz, Aslan. Milletlerarası Hukuk Temel Belgeler Örnek Kararlar. 5. Baskı, Beta, 2003.
• Harrison, James. “Article 73.” İç. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, editör Alexander Proelss, 556-563. Nomos, 2017.
• Harrison, James. “Safeguards against Excessive Enforcement Measures in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Law and Practice.” İç. Jurisdiction over Ships: Post-UNCLOS Developments in the Law of the Sea, editör Henrik Ringbom, 217-247. Brill-Nijhoff, 2015.
• Harrison, Trevor. Legal Issues in Bunkering: An Introduction to the Law Relating to the Sale and Use of Marine Fuels. Petrospot Limited, 2011.
• Hayashi, Moritaka. “Military and Intelligence Gathering Activities in the EEZ: Definition of Key Terms.” Marine Policy 29 (2005): 123-137.
• Ishii, Yurika. “Comments on ITLOS, M/T “San Padre Pio” Case (Switzerland v. Nigeria), Provisional Measures Order (6 July 2019).” EJIL: Talk!, 31.07.2019. <https://www.ejiltalk.org/comments-on-itlos-m-t-san-padre-pio-case-switzerland-v-nigeria-provisional-measures-order-6-july-2019/>, e.t. 02.02.2022.
• Jakobsen, Ingvild Ulrikke. Marine Protected Areas in International Law: An Arctic Perspective. Brill Nijhoff, 2016.
• Jennings, Robert ve Arthur Watts. Oppenheim’s International Law, Cilt 1: Peace, Bölüm 2-4. 9. Baskı, Longman, 1996.
• Klein, Natalie. Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• Koh, Tommy T. B. “Remarks on the Legal Status of the Exclusive Economic Zone.” İç. Freedom of Seas, Passage Rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, editör Myron H. Nordquist, Tommy T. B. Koh ve John Norton Moore, 53-55. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Koh, Tommy T. B. “The Exclusive Economic Zone.” Malaya Law Review 30 (1988): 1-33.
• Kopela, Sophia. “The ‘Territorialisation’ of the Exclusive Economic Zone: Implications for Maritime Jurisdiction.” 2009. <https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/s_kopela_paper.pdf>, e.t. 26.10.2021.
• Kuran, Selami. Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku. 4. Baskı, Beta, 2014.
• Kwiatkowska, Barbara. “Military Uses in the EEZ: A Reply.” Marine Policy 11 (1987): 249-250.
• Kwiatkowska, Barbara. The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989.
• La Fayette, Louise de. “ITLOS and the Saga of the Saiga: Peaceful Settlement of a Law of the Sea Dispute.” The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 15 (2000): 355-392.
• Lagoni, Rainer. “Offshore Bunkering in the Exclusive Economic Zone.” İç. Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah, editör Tafsir Malick Ndiaye ve Rüdiger Wolfrum, 613-627. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.
• Lauterpacht, Eli. “The First Decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: the M/V Saiga.” İç. Liber Amicorum: Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, editör Gerhard Hafner ve diğerleri, 395-418. Kluwer Law International, 1998.
• Leanza, Umberto ve Maria Cristina Caracciolo. “The Exclusive Economic Zone.” İç. The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Cilt 1: The Law of the Sea, editör David J. Attard, Malgosia Fitzmaurice ve Norman A. Martínez Gutiérrez, 177-216. Oxford University Press, 2014.
• Limão, Lourenço. “Bunkering in the EEZ.” Academia, 2015. <https://www.academia.edu/18935625/Bunkering_in_the_EEZ>, e.t. 05.12.2021.
• Lowe, Vaughan. “The Role of Equity in International Law.” Australian Year Book of International Law 12 (1992): 54-81.
• Lupinacci, Julio Cesar. “The Legal Status of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.” İç. The Exclusive Economic Zone: A Latin American Perspective, editör Francisco Orrego Vicuña, 75-121. Westview Press, 1984.
• Nelson, Dolliver. “Exclusive Economic Zone.” MPEPIL (Mart 2008).
• Nordquist, Myron H., Satya N. Nandan, Shabtai Rosenne ve Neal R. Grandy. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Cilt 2. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
• Orrego Vicuña, Francisco. The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under International Law. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Oxman, Bernard H. “Jurisdiction of States.” İç. EPIL, Cilt 3, editör R. Bernhardt, 55-60. Elsevier, 1997.
• Oxman, Bernard H. ve Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz. “The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment (ITLOS Case No. 2).” AJIL 94 (2000): 140-150.
• Oxman, Bernard H. ve Vincent P. Cogliati-Bantz. “The M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau).” AJIL 108 (2014): 769-775.
• Özman, Aydoğan. Deniz Hukuku I. Turhan Kitabevi, 2006.
• Pazarcı, Hüseyin. Uluslararası Hukuk. 18. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi, 2019.
• Pedrozo, Raul. “Military Activities in and over the Exclusive Economic Zone.” İç. Freedom of Seas, Passage Rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, editör Myron H. Nordquist, Tommy T. B. Koh ve John Norton Moore, 235-248. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Peiris, Nuwan. “Bunkering in the Exclusive Economic Zone and on the High Seas under the Law of the Sea Convention: An Entangling Experiment with Saiga, Virginia G, Norstar and San Padre Pio.” Ocean Yearbook 35 (2021): 423-442.
• Pirim, Ceren Zeynep. “Uluslararası Hukukta Hakkaniyetin Normatif Niteliği.” Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi 26 (2016): 169-201.
• Proelss, Alexander. “Article 55.” İç. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, editör Alexander Proelss, 408-418. Nomos, 2017.
• Proelss, Alexander. “Article 56.” İç. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, editör Alexander Proelss, 418-437. Nomos, 2017.
• Proelss, Alexander. “Article 58.” İç. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, editör Alexander Proelss, 458-463. Nomos, 2017.
• Proelss, Alexander. “Article 59.” İç. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, editör Alexander Proelss, 458-463. Nomos, 2017.
• Proelss, Alexander. “The Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone in Perspective: Legal Status and Resolution of User Conflicts Revisited.” Ocean Yearbook 26 (2012): 87-112.
• Quince, Charles. The Exclusive Economic Zone. Vernon Press, 2019.
• Roach, J. Ashley ve Robert W. Smith. Excessive Maritime Claims. 3. Baskı, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012.
• Rothwell, Donald R. ve Tim Stephens. The International Law of the Sea. Hart Publishing, 2010.
• Scalieri, Erietta. “Discretionary Power of Coastal States and the Control of Its Compliance with International Law by International Tribunals.” İç. Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals, editör Angela Del Vecchio ve Roberto Virzo, 349-381. Springer, 2019.
• Schatz, Valentin J. “Combating Illegal Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Flag State Obligations in the Context of the Primary Responsibility of the Coastal State.” Goettingen Journal of International Law 7 (2016): 383-414.
• Shaw, Malcolm. International Law. 8. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
• Shearer, Ivan. “Oceans Management Challenges for the Law of the Sea in the First Decade of the 21st Century.” İç. Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses, editör Alex G. Oude Elferink ve Donald R. Rothwell, 1-17. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.
• Skaridov, Alexander. “Military Activity in the EEZ: Exclusive or Excluded Right?.” İç. Freedom of Seas, Passage Rights and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, editör Myron H. Nordquist, Tommy T. B. Koh ve John Norton Moore, 249-264. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
• Sohn, Louis B. Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea. 2. Baskı, Brill Nijhoff, 2014.
• Stylianidou, Yiouli. “Bunkering in the EEZ: An Aspect of the High-Seas Freedom of Navigation?.” Mondaq, 15.10.2020. <https://www.mondaq.com/cyprus/marine-shipping/994936/bunkering-in-the-eez-an-aspect-of-the-high-seas-freedom-of-navigation>, e.t. 18.12.2021.
• Sur, Melda. Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları. 14. Baskı, Beta, 2020.
• Tanaka, Yoshifumi. “Jurisdiction of States and the Law of the Sea.” İç. Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law, editör Alexander Orakhelashvili, 110-150. Edward Elgar Publishing , 2015.
• Tanaka, Yoshifumi. The International Law of the Sea. 3. Baskı, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Testa, David. “Coastal State Regulation of Bunkering and Ship-to-Ship (STS) Oil Transfer Operations in the EEZ: An Analysis of State Practice and of Coastal State Jurisdiction Under the LOSC.” Ocean Development & International Law 50 (2019): 363-386.
• Testa, David. “Comments on Coastal and Flag State Jurisdiction in the M/T “San Padre Pio” Dispute.” EJIL: Talk!, 03.09.2019. <https://www.ejiltalk.org/comments-on-coastal-and-flag-state-jurisdiction-in-the-m-t-san-padre-pio-dispute/>, e.t. 02.01.2022.
• Thirlway, Hugh. The Sources of International Law. 2. Baskı, Oxford University Press, 2019.
• Topsoy, Fevzi. “Münhasır Ekonomik Bölgede Yürütülen Yabancı Askeri Faaliyetlerin Hukuki Niteliği.” Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 16 (2012): 217-265.
• Tütüncü, Ayşe Nur. “Milletlerarası Hukukta Denizde Bilimsel Araştırmanın Farklı ve Çakışan Deniz Alanlarında Yönetimine Genel Bir Bakış.” Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 25/2 (2019) (Prof. Dr. Ferit Hakan Baykal Armağanı): 1358-1388.
• Valencia, Mark J. ve Kazumine Akimoto. “Guidelines for Navigation and Overflight in the Exclusive Economic Zone.” Marine Policy 30 (2006): 704-711.
• Walker, George K. Definitions for the Law of the Sea: Terms Not Defined by the 1982 Convention. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012.
• Wegelein, Florian. Marine Scientific Research: The Operation and Status of Research Vessels and Other Platforms in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005.
• Yang, Haijiang. Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea. Springer, 2006.
• Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), ICJ, Judgment of 19.12.1978.
• Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), ICJ, Judgment of 03.06.1985.
• Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), ICJ, Judgment of 24.02.1982.
• Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Arbitral Tribunal, Award of 18.03.2015.
• Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), ICJ, Judgment of 25.07.1974.
• Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), ICJ, Judgment of 22.12.1986.
• ILC, “Articles concerning the Law of the Sea with Commentaries.” Yearbook of the ILC (1956/2).
• Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), ITLOS, Advisory Opinion of 02.04.2015.
• The “Monte Confurco” Case (Seychelles v. France), ITLOS, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson of 18.12.2000.
• The “Monte Confurco” Case (Seychelles v. France), ITLOS, Judgment of 18.12.2000.
• The M/T “San Padre Pio” Case (Switzerland v. Nigeria), ITLOS, Declaration of Judge Kittichaisaree of 06.07.2019.
• The M/T “San Padre Pio” Case (Switzerland v. Nigeria), ITLOS, Order of 06.07.2019.
• The M/T “San Padre Pio” Case (Switzerland v. Nigeria), ITLOS, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Murphy of 06.07.2019.
• The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v. Italy), ITLOS, Judgment of 04.11.2016.
• The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v. Italy), ITLOS, Judgment of 10.04.2019.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Separate Opinion of Judge Vukas of 01.07.1999.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Separate Opinion of Judge Laing of 01.07.1999.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Separate Opinion of Judge Anderson of 01.07.1999.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Judgment of 01.07.1999.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Memorial Submitted by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines of 19.06.1998.
• The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Separate Opinion of Judge Zhao of 01.07.1999.
• The M/V “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson of 04.12.1997.
• The M/V “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Wolfrum and Judge Yamamoto of 04.12.1997.
• The M/V “Saiga” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS, Judgment of 04.12.1997.
• The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), ITLOS, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Hoffmann and Judges Marotta Rangel, Chandrasekhara Rao, Kateka, Gao and Bouguetaia of 14.04.2014.
• The M/V “Virginia G” Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), ITLOS, Judgment of 14.04.2014.
• The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Arbitral Tribunal, Award of 12.07.2016.
• UN Doc. A/CONF.62/L.12/Rev.1: Note by the President of the Conference, 02.08.1976.