FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W65643178> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W65643178 startingPage "655" @default.
• W65643178 abstract "It is not possible for me to convey to you fully my sense of personal and professional honor at being invited to participate in this symposium in remembrance of Professor Louis Sohn. Louis Sohn and I first had the opportunity to work closely together when he, the late John R. Stevenson, then Legal Adviser of the Department of State, and I began to formulate the position of the United States with respect to the settlement of disputes in connection with the negotiation of a new Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention). When John Stevenson and I first elaborated on U.S. views regarding preparations for the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea in the American Journal of International Law, we took the then-unprecedented step of indicating not only that the United States would seek a system of compulsory and binding third-party dispute settlement as an integral part of any new convention but also that the utility of any such convention was in significant measure linked to the inclusion of a compulsory dispute settlement system.1 This suggests an appropriate perspective on the topic suggested by Sean Murphy for my remarks today, namely whether the dispute settlement system is working. For in significant measure, this question affords us a seamless transition from the first panel this morning, which addressed a similar question with respect to the Convention as a whole. To determine whether the dispute settlement system is working, we must consider its objectives, and those objectives include but are not necessarily limited to the overall goals of the Convention as a whole. In this regard, we might consider that the dispute settlement system set forth in the Convention functions simultaneously as part; of two regimes. The first regime, which explains its very existence, is the regime for the oceans. That regime is established by a very widely ratified Convention that emerged from the political cauldron of decades of international negotiation and constitutional processes that would be difficult to duplicate. Viewed in that context, the dispute settlement system is part and parcel of a much larger system of treaty obligations expressly assumed by the parties to the Convention in their own interest and in the general interest. The second regime, which transcends that Convention, is the broader regime for the settlement of international disputes. In this respect, it is useful to recall two central points about that broader regime: first, states continue to adhere to the position that express consent is required to afford jurisdiction to an international tribunal; second, the majority of states have not accepted compulsory arbitration or adjudication of all or even most international legal disputes, including some of the most intractable. Let me try to orient the Convention's dispute settlement system within that broader regime for the settlement of disputes. What is noteworthy about the Convention is not that it contains exceptions to compulsory jurisdiction; that is to be expected given the fact that the default position in international law is no compulsory jurisdiction at all. What is noteworthy about the Convention is that it reverses the default position that characterizes the general international regime of dispute settlement: compulsory arbitration and adjudication are accepted by the parties to the Convention as the norm, on condition of important limitations and exceptions without which this could not have been achieved and, in my view, could not be sustained even now. This nuanced relationship between rule and exception is evident from the structure of Part XV of the Convention. Article 286 is the very first article of section 2 on compulsory settlement of disputes. It provides: Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section. …" @default.
• W65643178 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W65643178 creator A5088892309 @default.
• W65643178 date "2007-05-30" @default.
• W65643178 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W65643178 title "A Tribute to Louis Sohn - Is the Dispute Settlement System Under the Law of the Sea Convention Working?" @default.
• W65643178 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W65643178 type Work @default.
• W65643178 sameAs 65643178 @default.
• W65643178 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W65643178 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W65643178 hasAuthorship W65643178A5088892309 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C183988256 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C2777038452 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C2777063073 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C2780608745 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C4317488 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C552677042 @default.
• W65643178 hasConcept C8705443 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C10138342 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C144024400 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C145097563 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C160151201 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C162324750 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C170706310 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C17744445 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C183988256 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C199539241 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C2777038452 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C2777063073 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C2780608745 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C4317488 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C552677042 @default.
• W65643178 hasConceptScore W65643178C8705443 @default.
• W65643178 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W65643178 hasLocation W656431781 @default.
• W65643178 hasOpenAccess W65643178 @default.
• W65643178 hasPrimaryLocation W656431781 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W155659131 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W195364941 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2110121904 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2118209011 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2262898876 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2301197347 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2302244530 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2506100597 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2742065750 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W295173390 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2952111098 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2993996118 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W2995853658 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W3121417608 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W3185634392 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W3200884539 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W815249569 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W839457897 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W843293994 @default.
• W65643178 hasRelatedWork W847776797 @default.
• W65643178 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W65643178 isParatext "false" @default.
• W65643178 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W65643178 magId "65643178" @default.
• W65643178 workType "article" @default.