Supplemental Jurisdiction under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Prongs, Scope, Potentials

Abstract

Inter-state adjudication most often commences on the basis of compromissory clauses of subject-specific treaties. However, disputes between states are usually far more complex and multifaceted than the existing compartmentalised structure of international adjudication. Consequently, disputes submitted under specific treaties often implicate issues which are not explicitly regulated by the invoked treaty. A central question that frequently arises in this connection is the existence and scope of jurisdiction over the submitted dispute. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) provides for one of the most comprehensive compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms while ambitiously aiming to regulate ‘all issues relating to the law of the sea’. As ocean usage, as well as states’ activities, evolve over time, the implication of issues not explicitly regulated by the LOSC in disputes brough under its compulsory dispute settlement mechanism intensifies in this context. This thesis aims to contribute to the scholarly discussion on the contours of ratione materiae jurisdiction under the LOSC and to investigate whether and to what extent LOSC tribunals, when seized under the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention, can engage with disputes and claims that call for the determination of issues that are not explicitly regulated by the Convention.