Opting Out of unclos Tribunals: The Impact of Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya)

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

On 2 February 2017, the International Court of Justice (icj) handed down its judgment on preliminary objections in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) holding that it may proceed to the merits phase. Kenya had raised an objection rooted in Part xv (“Settlement of disputes”) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos). It contended that the Convention’s dispute settlement system is an agreement on the method of settlement for its maritime boundary dispute with Somalia and therefore falls within the scope of Kenya’s reservation to its optional clause declaration recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory. The reservation excludes “[d]isputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method or methods of settlement”. This article provides an analysis of the icj’s interpretation of Part xv of unclos and assesses its potential implications for the Convention’s dispute settlement mechanism.
Original languageEnglish
JournalPortuguese Yearbook of the Law of the Sea
Volume1
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)117-134
Number of pages17
ISSN2950-1636
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15.07.2024

    Research areas

  • Law - United nations convention on the law of the sea, international dispute settlement, choice of forum, International Court of justice, International tribunal for the law of the sea, permanent court of arbitration