Whether the silent non-response of one State was sufficient for establishing the existence of a dispute, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (‘ITLOS’).
Whether a request for detention of a vessel could render the issuing State the proper respondent, or whether the State complying with and executing the request for detention was the proper respondent, or at least an indispensable party to the proceedings.
Whether the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or general international law, provided a time limit regarding the institution of proceedings before ITLOS.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full
to access all content.