Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea

  • 1010 Accesses

Abstract

The role of various actors in dispute settlement processes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) may be assessed from different perspectives to assess the relevance or salience of those actors in decision-making processes. This chapter utilises a stakeholder identification theory, more commonly utilised in management contexts, to identify and prioritise the interests of different actors from the perspective of the judge in reaching decisions to advance the goals of UNCLOS dispute settlement. The theory is tested against the decisions made on the interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS in the South China Sea arbitration. The use of stakeholder identification theory enables us to examine the position of superpowers, as well as other states and non-state actors, in relation to a particular legal question and consider how well their interests and claims are met in judicial decision-making under UNCLOS. The author concludes that the theory is a useful explanatory tool and could bring greater transparency in decision-making but acknowledges limitations in its applicability to the UNCLOS context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These procedures are contained in Part XV of UNCLOS.

  2. 2.

    Art. 279 and Art. 280, UNCLOS.

  3. 3.

    As set forth in Arts 281 and 282 of UNCLOS.

  4. 4.

    Art. 287(1), UNCLOS.

  5. 5.

    Art. 287(5), UNCLOS.

  6. 6.

    Art. 286, UNCLOS.

  7. 7.

    Art. 293(1), UNCLOS.

  8. 8.

    Arts 297 and 298, UNCLOS. These exceptions include certain fisheries and marine scientific research disputes in the EEZ; maritime boundary delimitation; military activities and historic bay disputes.

  9. 9.

    This spectrum is exemplified in Article 33 of the UN Charter, which provides: ‘The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.’

  10. 10.

    Annex VII, Art. 9, UNCLOS.

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., Triggs (2006), p. 672 (referring to states following statements of law issued in the context of a non-binding advisory opinion).

  12. 12.

    Crawford (2012), p. 39.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    See UNCLOS Status. Iran and North Korea are at least signatories to UNCLOS, but have not ratified.

  15. 15.

    See South China Sea Arbitration (Jurisdiction and Admissibility); South China Sea Arbitration (Award); Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Award); Black Sea Arbitration.

  16. 16.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras 1081–1109.

  17. 17.

    See generally Mossop (2016).

  18. 18.

    See Permanent Court of Arbitration (2017).

  19. 19.

    Guyana v Suriname Arbitration (Award), paras 425–452.

  20. 20.

    The M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case.

  21. 21.

    The M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Preliminary Objections).

  22. 22.

    See, e.g., Camouco Case; Volga Case (Judgment). For general discussion, see Trevisanut (2017).

  23. 23.

    Art. 292(2) permits the application for prompt release to be made ‘by or on behalf of the flag State of the vessel.’

  24. 24.

    All but one Annex VII arbitration has been administered through the Permanent Court of Arbitration; the one exception being Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, which used the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as its registrar.

  25. 25.

    See, e.g., M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case, paras 35–38 (listing 11 witnesses that appeared before ITLOS and the questions posed to them).

  26. 26.

    These issues have been canvassed in literature dealing with gender balance in international courts. See, e.g., Grossman (2012).

  27. 27.

    See, e.g., Alter (2012).

  28. 28.

    Krasner (1982), p. 2.

  29. 29.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), para. 61 (citing a statement from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (emphasis added).

  30. 30.

    Thanks to Gerry Natzgaam, Monash University, for bringing this theory to my attention in the context of whaling.

  31. 31.

    A seminal work in this area is Freeman (1984). Stakeholder identification theory and how to determine the salience of stakeholders was expounded in an influential piece in 1997 by Mitchell, Agle and Wood. The 1997 piece remains the key starting point. Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 127.

  32. 32.

    Building on work in a new monograph: Klein and Parlett (2021).

  33. 33.

    Freeman (1984), p. 46.

  34. 34.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 855 This assessment involves determining stakeholder salience, which is ‘the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims’. Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 854.

  35. 35.

    See Mitchell et al. (1997), pp. 859–863 and 865–868.

  36. 36.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 865, citing Etzioni (1964), p. 59.

  37. 37.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 865.

  38. 38.

    Suchman (1995), p. 574, cited by Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 866.

  39. 39.

    Epitomized by Thomas Franck’s writing in the area. See, e.g., Franck (1995).

  40. 40.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 867. An additional dimension proposed to the urgency of a claim is the probability of the claim’s occurrence. See Driscoll and Starik (2004), discussed in Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 139. Although arguably this dimension could be captured in an assessment of the importance of the claim or relationship.

  41. 41.

    See Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 140, discussing the work of Eesley and Lennox (2006). Stakeholder urgency would instead be part of the power attribute.

  42. 42.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 868.

  43. 43.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), pp. 870–871.

  44. 44.

    Mitchell et al. (1997), p. 878. As there are three types of power, arguably the more of these types of power attributes exhibited then this would also positively influence the salience of the stakeholder. See Parent and Deephouse (2007).

  45. 45.

    Context will remain important, including the characteristics of the judges making the decisions. See Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 141.

  46. 46.

    See, e.g., Duzgit Integrity Arbitration, para. 132.

  47. 47.

    A fully entitled island may be used by the sovereign state to claim a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ and continental shelf. See UNCLOS, Art. 121(1). The South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal utilised the terminology of a ‘fully entitled’ island to distinguish features under Article 121(1) from those classified as a rock under Article 121(3). A rock, while still an island, is not entitled to either an EEZ or a continental shelf.

  48. 48.

    UNCLOS, Art. 121(3).

  49. 49.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras. 552–553. See further Klein (2016), pp. 28–30; Elferink (2016).

  50. 50.

    See South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras. 512–520.

  51. 51.

    See South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras. 482–553.

  52. 52.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award).

  53. 53.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), para. 547.

  54. 54.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras. 499–500.

  55. 55.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), para. 503. As such, economic life derived from the EEZ or the continental shelf of the feature could not be considered as meeting this criterion. Id., para. 502.

  56. 56.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), para. 621.

  57. 57.

    See, e.g., The Guardian (2015).

  58. 58.

    See discussion of the Philippines’ strategy in Talmon (2014), p. 72 (‘More important than winning the case seems the opportunity for the Philippine Government to publicise its case against China to the world.’).

  59. 59.

    An argument that the Philippines made in the context of China’s aggravation of the dispute as a discrete violation of international law. See South China Sea Arbitration (Award), paras. 1163–1180.

  60. 60.

    Volga Case (Declaration of Vice-President Vukas), paras 2–6; Monte Confurco Case (Declaration of Judge Vukas), p. 122.

  61. 61.

    See, e.g., Monte Confurco Case (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson), p. 128.

  62. 62.

    For discussion, see Qui and Liu (2009).

  63. 63.

    See Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Antarctic Division (undated).

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., Monte Confurco Case, p. 86; Camouco Case, p. 10; Volga Case (Judgment); Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases; Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Jurisdiction and Admissibility).

  65. 65.

    For a map of the claims, see Damrosch and Oxman (2013), p. 96. Taiwan is also a claimant, but it is not universally recognised as a state and is not a party to UNCLOS.

  66. 66.

    McDorman (2016).

  67. 67.

    See Beckman (2013), p. 144.

  68. 68.

    See Beckman (2013), p. 144.

  69. 69.

    As required under Article 123 of UNCLOS, which reads in part: ‘States bordering an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea should cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties under this Convention.’

  70. 70.

    See Klein (2016), p. 28.

  71. 71.

    For recent discussion on the US position, see Smith (2017).

  72. 72.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), para. 58.

  73. 73.

    South China Sea Arbitration (Award), para. 133 (citations omitted).

  74. 74.

    Ultimately, this assessment is an impressionistic analysis. Preferably, interviews would be conducted with each of the stakeholders (if possible) as a more rigorous method for testing the relative strength of each of the interests involved.

  75. 75.

    See, e.g., Oude Elferink (2016) and Talmon (2017).

  76. 76.

    See, e.g., discussions in Falk et al. (2012).

  77. 77.

    This power is derived from the rules of treaty interpretation. Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides: A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. VCLT, Art. 31(1).

  78. 78.

    Such a lens may be captured by the idea of ‘interactive salience’, which acknowledges that ‘prioritization of stakeholders appears to be influenced by multiple activities within and outside of the organization’. Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 143.

  79. 79.

    As noted above, interviews with the stakeholders may fill important knowledge gaps in this regard. However, this method involves its own challenges (including access to all stakeholders and questions of privileged information in a lawyer-client relationship).

  80. 80.

    As is the case in the management context. See Mitchell et al. (2017), p. 148 (referring to the ‘explanatory potential’ of the stakeholder salience model).

References

  • Alter KJ (2012) The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. In: Jeffrey LD, Mark AP (eds) International law and international relations: synthesizing insights from interdisciplinary scholarship. Cambridge University Press, pp 345–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) (Award, 14 August 2015) PCA Case No. 2014-02 (Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Award))

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman R (2013) The UN convention on the law of the sea and the maritime disputes in the South China sea. Am J Int Law 107(1):142–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Damrosch LF, Oxman BH (2013) Agora: the South China sea, editors introduction. Am J Int Law 107:95–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation) PCA Case No. 2017-06 (Black Sea Arbitration)

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll K, Starik M (2004) The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. J Bus Ethics 49:55–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duzgit Integrity Arbitration (Malta v. São Tomé and Príncipe) (Award, 5 September 2016) PCA Case No 2014-07 (Duzgit Integrity Arbitration)

    Google Scholar 

  • Eesley C, Lennox MJ (2006) Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strat Manag J 27:765–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elferink AGO (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration’s Interpretation of Article 121(3) of the LOSC: A Disquieting First. JCLOS Blog. https://site.uit.no/jclos/2016/09/07/the-south-china-sea-arbitrations-interpretation-of-article-1213-of-the-losc-a-disquieting-first/

  • Etzioni A (1964) Modern organizations. Prentice-Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk R, Juergensmeyer M, Popovski V (eds) (2012) Legality and legitimacy in global affairs. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck TM (1995) Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman N (2012) Sex on the bench: do women judges matter to the legitimacy of international courts. Chicago J Int Law 12:647–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyana v Suriname (Award, 17 September 2007) PCA Case No. 2004-04 (Guyana v Suriname Arbitration (Award))

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein N (2016) Rocks and Islands after the South China sea arbitration. Aust Year Book Int Law 34:21–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein N, Parlett K (2021) Judging the law of the sea: judicial contributions to the UN convention on the law of the sea. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner SD (1982) Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. Int Organ 36(2):185–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDorman TL (2016) The South China sea arbitration. Am Soc Int Law Insight 20(17). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/17/south-china-sea-arbitration

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Lee JH, Agle BR (2017) Stakeholder prioritization work: the role of stakeholder salience in stakeholder research. In: Wasieleski DM, Weber J (eds) Stakeholder management. Emerald Publishing, pp 123–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920170000006

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 18 December 2000, Declaration of Judge Vukas) ITLOS Reports 2000, 122 (Monte Confurco Case (Declaration of Judge Vukas))

    Google Scholar 

  • Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 18 December 2000, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson) ITLOS Reports 2000, 128 (Monte Confurco Case (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson))

    Google Scholar 

  • Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 18 December 2000) ITLOS Reports 2000, 86 (Monte Confurco Case)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossop J (2016) Protests against oil exploration at sea: lessons from the arctic sunrise arbitration. Int J Mar Coast Law 31:60–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parent MM, Deephouse DL (2007) A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. J Bus Ethics 75:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Court of Arbitration (2017) Press Release, Timor-Leste and Australia continue engagement with Greater Sunrise Joint Venture and agree timeframe for signature of maritime boundary treaty. https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2017/12/20171226-Press-Release-No-12-EN.pdf

  • Qui J, Liu W (2009) Should the Okinotori Reef be entitled to a continental shelf? A comparative study on uninhabited Islands in extended continental shelf submissions. China Oceans Law Rev 2009(2):221–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith LH (2017) To accede or not to accede: an analysis of the current US position related to the United Nations law of the sea. Mar Policy 83:184–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China) (Award, 25 October 2015) PCA Case No. 2013-19 (South China Sea Arbitration (Jurisdiction and Admissibility))

    Google Scholar 

  • South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China) (Award, 12 July 2016) PCA Case No. 2013-19 (South China Sea Arbitration (Award))

    Google Scholar 

  • Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Australia v. Japan; New Zealand v. Japan) (2000) 39 ILM 1359 (Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, Jurisdiction and Admissibility)

    Google Scholar 

  • Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) (1999) 38 ILM 1624 (Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases)

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20:571–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2014) The South China sea arbitration: is there a case to answer? In: Talmon S, Jia BB (eds) The South China sea arbitration: a Chinese perspective. Hart, pp 15–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2017) The South China sea arbitration and the finality of “final” awards. J Int Dispute Settlement 8:388–401

    Google Scholar 

  • The ‘Camouco’ Case (Panama v France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 7 February 2000) Case Reports 2000, 10 (Camouco Case)

    Google Scholar 

  • The ‘Volga’ Case (Russian Federation v Australia), Prompt Release (Judgment of 23 December 2002, Declaration of Vice-President Vukas) ITLOS Reports 2001, 42 (Volga Case (Declaration of Vice-President Vukas))

    Google Scholar 

  • The ‘Volga’ Case (Russian Federation v. Australia), Prompt Release (Judgment of 23 December 2002) ITLOS Case Reports 2002, 10 (Volga Case (Judgment))

    Google Scholar 

  • The M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Panama v Italy) Preliminary Objections (Judgment of 4 November 2016) ITLOS Case No. 25: https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-25/case-no-25-preliminary-objections/#c3043 (M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Preliminary Objections))

    Google Scholar 

  • The M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Judgment of 14 April 2014) ITLOS Reports 2014 (M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case)

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevisanut S (2017) Twenty years of prompt release of vessels: admissibility, jurisdiction, and recent trends. Ocean Dev Int Law 48:300–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triggs G (2006) International law: contemporary principles and practices. Lexis Nexis

    Google Scholar 

Documents

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Natalie Klein

Authors
  1. Natalie Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Klein .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Marta Chantal Ribeiro

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fernando Loureiro Bastos

  3. Faculty of Law, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsoe, Norway

    Tore Henriksen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Klein, N. (2020). Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In: Ribeiro, M., Loureiro Bastos, F., Henriksen, T. (eds) Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42670-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42671-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation