Monthly Archives: July 2023

The International Court of Justice handed down on 13 July 2023 its Judgment in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia). In the Application instituting proceedings, filed in September 2013, Nicaragua requested the Court to delimit the boundaries between, on the one hand, the continental shelf of Nicaragua beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Nicaragua is measured and, on the other hand, the continental shelf of Colombia (see previous post).

In the operative clause of its Judgment, the Court:

1) Rejects the request made by the Republic of Nicaragua that the Court adjudge and declare that the maritime boundary between the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of Colombia in the areas of the continental shelf which, according to the Republic of Nicaragua, appertain to each of them beyond the boundary determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] follows geodetic lines connecting the points 1 to 8, the co-ordinates of which are referred to in paragraph 19 [of the Judgment];

2) Rejects the request made by the Republic of Nicaragua that the Court adjudge and declare that the islands of San Andrés and Providencia are entitled to a continental shelf up to a line consisting of 200-nautical-mile arcs from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Nicaragua is measured connecting the points A, C and B, the co-ordinates of which are referred to in paragraph 19 [of the Judgment];

3) Rejects the request made by the Republic of Nicaragua with respect to the maritime entitlements of Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo.

The text of the Judgment, the summary and the court’s press release may be found here.

On 27 June 2023 the European Court of Human Rights (Chamber) delivered its Judgment in Bryan and Others v. Russia (Application no. 22515/14), which concerned the 2013 attempted protest action by Greenpeace & others at the Prirazlomnaya offshore oil drilling platform, located in the Pechora Sea within the exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) of the Russian Federation, including their subsequent arrest and detention. The applicants complaint concerned a breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The situation had also given rise to separate arbitration between the Netherlands and Russia under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as a settlement agreement (see previous reporting and The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia)).

In Bryan and Others v. Russia, observations were submitted by the applicants and Russia. Comments were also submitted by the Netherlands, Sweden and Ukraine, whose nationals were involved, as well as two NGOs given leave to intervene, Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) and ARTICLE 19. The nationals of Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom were involved, but these governments chose to not submit any comments.

The Judgment in Bryan and Others v. Russia found:

A Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Serghides is in favour of all the operative elements of the Judgment, but dissents on an element of the reasoning provided for not granting the applicants any monetary amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 1 July 2023 a Review Panel established under Article 17 and Annex II of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (Review Panel) issued its Findings and Recommendations with regards to the objection by the Russian Federation to the Conservation and Management Measure for Trachurus murphyi (CMM 01-2023) adopted by the Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) at its Eleventh Meeting (7-17 February 2023). On 10 April 2023 Russia objected to the determination of its share in the total allowable catch (“TAC”) of Trachurus murphyi in 2023 (Findings and Recommendations, para 4). On 20 April 2023 China also objected to the determination of its share in the TAC of Trachurus murphyi in 2023, but withdrew its objection to CMM 01-2023 shortly after issuance of Procedural Directive No. 1 by the Review Panel (Findings and Recommendations, paras 5, 16 and para 20 on allocation of expenses; unpublished Final Decision of the Review Panel as Comprised of Five Members (7 June 2023)). The South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, Russia, Chinese Taipei, European Union, New Zealand, Chile and Peru participated in the written phase of proceedings, while the Hearing was attended (in-person/remotely) by Chile, Chinese Taipei, Russia, China, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands), the Organisation and Peru, with oral interventions by Chile and Russia.

The Findings and Recommendations of the Review Panel:

145. In light of the foregoing, pursuant to Article 17(5)(e) of the Convention, the Review Panel:
     
     a. Finds that the Decision to which objection has been presented unjustifiably discriminates in form or in fact against Russia;
     
     b. Finds that the alternative measures for 2023 adopted by Russia are equivalent in effect to the Decision to which objection has been presented, subject to the following specific modification recommended by the Review Panel:
     
     Russia will authorise vessels registered in Russia to fish for Trachurus murphyi in the Convention Area in 2023 only up to a catch limit fixed by Russia, which will not exceed 33,974 tonnes for all such vessels;
     
     c. Finds that all provisions of CMM 01-2023 that are not covered by Russia’s Objection, including in particular the TACs in paragraphs 4 and 9, remain binding upon Russia; and
     
     d. Finds, without prejudice to the foregoing, that the Decision to which objection has been presented by Russia is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention or other relevant international law as reflected in the 1982 Convention or the 1995 Agreement.

Findings and Recommendations, paragraph 145

For more information see PCA Case No. 2023-33.