Monthly Archives: June 2024

China: Coast Guard Order #3 enters into force

China Coast Guard CCG Order #3 issued 15 May 2024 entitled Provisions on Administrative Enforcement Procedures for Coast Guard Agencies 2024 entered into force on 15 June 2024. The order sets the conditions for exercising detention and review powers to Coast Guard commanders (see below unofficial machine-generated translation from the original in Chinese) [emphasis added]:

Chapter 14

Handling of Foreign-Related Administrative Cases

Article 257

Foreigners suspected of violating entry and exit control who meet any of the following circumstances and whose suspicion cannot be ruled out after on-the-spot questioning or continued questioning and who need further investigation may be detained for investigation upon approval by the head of the maritime police agency:

(1) Those suspected of illegally entering or leaving the country;

(2) Suspected of assisting others to illegally enter or exit the country;

(3) Those suspected of illegal residence or illegal employment;

(4) Suspected of endangering national security and interests, disrupting social public order, or engaging in other illegal or criminal activities.

When implementing detention and review, the detention and review decision letter shall be produced and questioning shall be conducted within twenty-four hours.

The detention and review period shall not exceed 30 days. If the case is complicated, it may be extended to 60 days with the approval of the higher-level maritime police agency. For those whose nationality and identity are unknown, the detention and review period shall be calculated from the date when their nationality and identity are clarified. If the provincial maritime police bureau makes a detention and review decision and needs to extend the detention and review period, it can be approved by the maritime police agency that made the decision.

In accordance with the Coast Guard Law of the People’s Republic of China, this order is to apply in “sea areas under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China” (Article 3) and may be oriented towards “major maritime rights protection” (Article 15); more specifically, Article 17 provides the legal basis for the exercise of detention powers being now defined in CCG Order #3. Further to that, Article 22 provides the legal basis for use of force by coast guard vessels for acts that infringe on China’s national sovereignty or jurisdiction.

An English translation of the 2021 Coast Guard Law of the People’s Republic of China may be found here; the original version can be retrieved from FAOLEX; CCG Order # 3 may be found here (in Chinese).

Leave a comment

Filed under State Practice

Courses: IPDM Law of the Sea Summer School 2024

IPDM – Instituto Português de Direito do Mar shall host its second edition of the Law of the Sea Summer School on 1-12 July 2024, in Cascais (Portugal). For more information on the programme, see here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Courses

CLCS: Partial Submission by the Philippines (West Palawan Region)

On 14 June 2024, in accordance with Article 76(8) of UNCLOS, the Philippines submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in the West Palawan Region. Consistent with UNCLOS, “[t]his Submission is made without prejudice to the right of the Philippines to make other Submissions on other areas at a future time” (Executive Summary (2024) p. 1).

This follows the seperate April 2009 submission of the Philippines in the Benham Rise region, for which recommendations (April 2012) and subsequent final and binding outer limits of the continental shelf were established based on said recommendations (UNCLOS, Article 76(8); ‘Benham Rise’ since renamed ‘Philippine Rise’ in May 2017).

At the time of writing, communications received and published with regard to this partial submission in the West Palawan Region include China (18 June 2024). Further communications may be foreseen given that the Executive Summary (2024) provides:

The Philippines notes that the 2009 joint submission of Malaysia and Viet Nam, the 2009 submission of Viet Nam in the northern area and the 2019 submission of Malaysia that were submitted to the CLCS cover areas that may overlap with the area of this Submission.
These earlier submissions were based on Article 76 of UNCLOS and are generally consistent with the principles affirmed in the 2016 Award on the Merits in the South China Sea Arbitration. The Philippines manifests its willingness to discuss with the relevant States the delimitation of the maritime boundaries.
The delineation of the continental shelf beyond 200 M is without prejudice to future delimitation with the limits of the territorial sea areas of individual high tide features in the South China Sea.

Executive Summary (2024) p. 4

For more information see the statement of the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs.

Leave a comment

Filed under International Organizations, State Practice

Courses: Online Training School on Sustainable Marine Governance in the Mediterranean

The United Nations Environmental Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) and the Mediterranean Programme for International Environmental Law And Negotiation (MPIELAN) are hosting a week-long online training school. The Training School will be held from 7 to 12 October 2024 and the working language will be English. This course was designed and developed by and organized in cooperation with the European Public Law Organization (EPLO). It provides an integrated platform for knowledge exchange, discussion and capacity building in the field of sustainable environmental governance within the framework of the Barcelona Convention system and its evolving inter-linkages with relevant international treaty regimes and processes, focusing on the unique challenges and opportunities in the Mediterranean region. Application deadline is 26 August 2024; see further here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Courses, Events

English Court of Appeal: judgment on the MV Ever Given salvage claim dispute rendered

The English Court of Appeal rendered judgment in the dispute between salvors and the shipowners as to whether a salvage contract on commercial terms had been made in connection with the re-floating of the “Ever Given” in the Suez Canal in March 2021 (SMIT Salvage & Ors v. Luster Maritime SA & Anr (The Ever Given) [2024] EWCA Civ 260).

The appellants, the owners of the ‘Ever Given’, contended that such a contract was concluded, leaving other contractual terms to be agreed at a later stage (although they never were), and that its effect is to preclude a claim for salvage under the International Convention on Salvage 1989 or at common law. The salvors said that no such contract was concluded and that they are therefore able to bring their claim for salvage services rendered, with the quantum of their claim to be determined by the Admiralty Court. The Admiralty judge held that no such contract was concluded. He did so on the ground that although what the parties agreed was capable of amounting to a contract as to the remuneration payable to the salvors for any services which they provided, the parties did not on an objective view intend that agreement to be legally binding until the remaining terms (including as to what services the salvors would provide) were also agreed. See Admiralty Court judgment, dated 30 March 2023, here.

The English Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the owners highlighting that several issues had not been agreed, including “such basic matters as the nature of the services which SMIT would provide, the standard of care which it would be required to exercise, and the payment terms, and left it for future agreement a detailed contract on the Wreckhire 2010 form”. The court found that the owners did not demonstrate an unequivocal intention to be legally bound, based on the parties’ exchanges; that the ultimatums do not undermine the analysis that no binding contract was formed; and that although the urgency to finalize the contract diminished after the remuneration terms were agreed upon, SMIT’s strong position and likelihood of a salvage award defused the urgency, indicating no prior binding agreement on remuneration terms alone. As the court agreed with the Admiralty judge’s conclusion that no binding contract was formed, it found it unnecessary to consider the standard of review on appeal. See Court of Appeal judgment, dated 19 March 2024, here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence

ITLOS: The “Zheng He” Case, Provisional Measures Request

As previously suggested, on 7 June 2024 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) received a request from Luxembourg for the prescription of provisional measures in The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico) (UNCLOS, Article 290(1)). According to the Request for Provisional Measures of Luxembourg:

79. In accordance with article 17, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, Luxembourg appoints Professor Marcelo Gustavo Kohen to sit as a member of the Tribunal.
80. For the reasons set out above, Luxembourg respectfully requests the Tribunal to prescribe the following provisional measures:
1. In order to safeguard the basic rights and freedoms of the crew:

  • Order Mexico to continue to ensure the freedom of circulation of the crew members off board the vessel and their access to health-care establishments, places of worship and recreational facilities;
  • Order Mexico to continue to ensure that there will be no impediments to the renewal of the crew and the necessary rotations;
  • Order Mexico to continue to ensure that the crew will not be compelled by law enforcement agencies to disembark from the vessel nor be prevented from reembarking the vessel;

    2. In order to safeguard the rights of Luxembourg as the flag State:
  • Order Mexico to allow Luxembourg to effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over the vessel, and to enable any measures necessary for the preventive and corrective maintenance of the Zheng He in order to ensure its compliance with the national, European and international standards applicable to vessels flying the flag of Luxembourg;
  • Prohibit Mexico from directly or indirectly exploiting the vessel Zheng He;
  • Prohibit Mexico from taking any measures to create or transfer real rights to the vessel and from changing the flag of the vessel Zheng He;

    3. In order to avoid aggravating or extending the dispute:
  • Prohibit Mexico from collecting the customs fine of 1,616,462,343.52 Mexican pesos imposed on European Dredging Company SA;
  • Prohibit Mexico from immobilizing, confiscating and expropriating, in any proceeding whatsoever, vessels related to the vessel Zheng He flying the flag of Luxembourg, whether they be the property of European Dredging Company SA, its parent company SOFIDRA or any other subsidiary of SOFIDRA;
  • Prohibit Mexico from initiating new national proceedings or new actions against the Zheng He, European Dredging Company SA, its parent company SOFIDRA or any other subsidiary of SOFIDRA;

    4. In order to ensure equality of the parties in the proceedings before the Tribunal:
  • Authorize the agents of Luxembourg to conduct on the territory of Mexico, without restriction, any investigations in connection with the present proceedings, in particular to ascertain the condition of the vessel Zheng He and to collect any relevant evidence;
  • Transmit to Luxembourg, at its request and after verification by the Tribunal, the information and documents to which Luxembourg was unable to gain access relating to the non-contentious and contentious proceedings under Mexican law concerning the Zheng He, including forthwith:
    • The identification of the different quays in the Port of Tampico, with their official and/or common names, and the GPS coordinates of the endpoints of each quay;
    • The regulatory texts of Mexico in force on 21 October 2023 that were officially published relating to the tax and customs regime of each quay in the Port of Tampico.
Request for Provisional Measures of Luxembourg, paras 79-80 (80 as translated in ITLOS/Press 352)

One may note that the Request for Provisional Measures by Luxembourg refers to a request being made, “pending settlement of the merits of the dispute, whether resulting from a judgment of the Tribunal or an amicable agreement reached during the proceedings” (para 8).

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice

Courses: IOI Ocean Governance Training Programme

The International Ocean Institute – Southern Africa (IOI-SA) is hosting its annual 4-week Ocean Governance Training Programme from 4-29 November 2024 in Cape Town (South Africa). The course focuses on Africa and emphasises the benefits of harmonising ocean policies to promote a shared, integrated and common approach to ocean management. Deadline for registration is 28 June 2024. More information is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Courses

Call for papers: Future Trajectories for the Law of the Sea

The Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS) will host the NCLOS Annual Conference 2024, themed, Future Trajectories for the Law of the Sea, 5-7 November 2024 in Tromsø, Norway. Abstracts are welcome until 30 June 2024. For more information see here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Calls, Events

Netherlands: 2024 Amendments of the Ocean Cleanup Agreement

On 8 June 2018, The Netherlands and Ocean Cleanup signed an Agreement between the State of the Netherlands and The Ocean Cleanup concerning the deployment of systems designed to clean up plastic floating in the upper surface layer of the high seas to facilitate and support the activities of ‘The Ocean Cleanup’ on the high seas, whilst also fulfilling the duty of care of the Netherlands under UNCLOS at the State of nationality of ‘The Ocean Cleanup’ (a dutch entity) concerning its activities on the high seas. Consistent with Article 7, this Agreement was extended in 2023 following an evaluation, with the intention of the Parties to seek amending and updating the Agreement. This update sought to address developments in how the activities of the Ocean Cleanup occur, as well as developments in the international regulatory field, notably the adoption of the BBNJ Agreement and updated safety standards (Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management Decision Note (2024)).

On 29 May 2024, The Netherlands and Ocean Cleanup signed an Agreement to amend and update the Agreement between the State of the Netherlands and The Ocean Cleanup concerning the deployment of systems designed to clean up plastic floating in the upper surface layer of the high seas to “extend the Agreement as well as to update it to take into account the latest insights and developments”. The amended agreement contains numerous elements of interest to the law of the sea, including the promotion of “national and international cooperative measures to reduce plastic pollution in the marine environment, including existing plastic pollution” (UNEP Resolution 5/14 (2022), para 3(c); 2024 Amendments – Explanatory notes, p. 2).

To highlight here, one may note the existence of State practice reflecting relevant “best practice” for implementing the environmental impact assessment pillar (Part IV) of the BBNJ Agreement (not formally provisional application under BBNJ Agreement, Article 69). The wording of Article 3.1a of the Agreement “has been based as far as possible on the wording of the recently signed BBNJ Agreement” (2024 Amendments – Explanatory notes, p. 3).

Article 1.2 Interests
The Parties will take appropriate precautionary measures to secure the safety of shipping, the protection of the marine environment and marine biodiversity and other uses of the high seas.
[…]
Article 3.1a Environmental impact assessment
The Minister may carry out an evaluation of the screening or the environmental impact assessment or have it carried out by an independent third party. If the conclusions of the third party differ from the screening or assessment by The Ocean Cleanup, the parties may consult with each other about this.
The Ocean Cleanup shall conduct a screening for any significant change made to the design of the system or to the manner in which the system operates, when it is expected that this significant change may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment or when the effect of this significant change are unknown or poorly understood, to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is required.
If reasonable grounds are found for believing that the significant change referred to in paragraph 1 may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, The Ocean Cleanup shall conduct an environmental impact assessment on the basis of relevant national or international legislation. This involves identifying, as much as reasonably possible, the possible effects on the ecosystem and the costs and benefits of the cleanup activities on the marine environment.
The Ocean Cleanup will inform the Minister in good time that the screening or environmental impact assessment, as the case may be, is being carried out and will submit the results to the Minister as soon as reasonably possible
.

2018 Agreement between Netherlands and Ocean Cleanup (as amended, 29 May 2024) [amendments in bold]

Leave a comment

Filed under Non-State Actors, State Practice

ITLOS: The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico)

On 3 June 2024, Luxembourg instituted proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) against Mexico in a dispute regarding the detention of the “Zheng He”, a dredger flying the flag of Luxembourg. Both States have exercised their rights in selecting ITLOS in respect of their choice of procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS (UNCLOS, Article 287(1); Mexico (1983): 1. ITLOS, 2. ICJ, 3. Annex VIII Tribunals; Luxembourg (2024) 1. ITLOS).

According to the Application submitted by Luxembourg:

2. The dispute concerns, among other things, the violation by Mexico of the provisions of the Convention relating to the freedom and right of navigation and/or the uses of the sea for other internationally lawful purposes referred to in article 58 of the Convention.
[…]
16. For these reasons, Luxembourg asks the Tribunal to rule that:
a. Mexico has violated the provisions of Articles 2, 17, 18, 19, 21, 58, 87, 90, 92, 131 and 300 of the Convention. Consequently, Mexico’s international responsibility is engaged.
[…]

Application submitted by Luxembourg, paras 2 & 16 [See original in French]

According to the Application submitted by Luxembourg, Luxembourg will also seek to exercise other rights available under UNCLOS:

5. As the Tribunal does not include any members of its nationality, in accordance with the provisions of article 17(3) of the Statute [UNCLOS, Annex VI], Luxembourg intends to designate as soon as possible a person of its choice to sit as a member of the Tribunal and to hear the present case.
[…]
17. On or about the date of the filing of this Application instituting proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Luxembourg will institute a request for the prescription of provisional measures in accordance with article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Application submitted by Luxembourg, paras 5 & 17 [See original in French]

For more information see The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico).

Leave a comment

Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice