Whether the dispute between the Parties concerned the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’), such that the tribunal could exercise jurisdiction over the dispute under Article 288(1) UNCLOS.
Whether Malta, as the flag State of the chemical tanker Duzgit Integrity, had standing to bring claims against São Tomé and Príncipe under UNCLOS.
Whether Malta was prevented from bringing claims in relation to the Duzgit Integrity by the Settlement Agreement concluded between Duzgit’s Integrity’s owners, DS Tankers, and São Tomé and Príncipe.
Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider claims arising from the detention of the Duzgit Integrity other than those under UNCLOS, including claims under international human rights law.
Whether the detention of the Duzgit Integrity was a lawful exercise of São Tomé and Príncipe’s sovereign powers to regulate the conduct of ships in its archipelagic waters.
Whether the fines imposed on the Duzgit Integrity and the Marida Melissa by the Port and Maritime Institute for unlawful ship-to-ship operations in São Tomé and Príncipe’s archipelagic waters were unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.
Whether the other charges and penalties imposed by São Tomé and Príncipe were unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.
Whether the actions by São Tomé and Príncipe exposed the marine environment to unreasonable risk in violation of Articles 192, 194, and 225 of UNCLOS.
Whether the ship-to-ship operations conducted by the Duzgit Integrity fell under the right of passage under Article 25 of UNCLOS.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
to access all content.