Whether an additional state was an indispensable third party to a dispute and, if so, whether the Special Chamber had jurisdiction over the alleged dispute.
Whether the Special Chamber had jurisdiction to determine the disputed issue of sovereignty over an archipelago and what the legal status of the archipelago was.
Application and interpretation of the obligations referred to in Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’).
Whether there was a dispute concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between two states.
Whether the claims of a party constituted an abuse of process, using the UNCLOS’s mandatory dispute settlement procedures to obtain a ruling on a territorial dispute with a third state, and should therefore be rejected as inadmissible.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please subscribe, or log in via the Sign in panel on the left of this screen to access all subscribed content.