COMPENDIUM

1|Page
 COMPENDIUM

TREATIES, CONVENTIONS AND STATUES

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

i. Article 87

Freedom of the high seas

1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high
seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of
international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States: (a) freedom
of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight; (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines,
subject to Part VI; (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted
under international law, subject to Part VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid
down in section 2; (f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other
States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights
under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.

ii. Article 287

Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall
be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for
the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention: (a)
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI; (b)
the International Court of Justice; (c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex
VII; (d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more
of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a
State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International

2|Page
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section
5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be
deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute,
it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the
dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties
otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice
of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way
affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article,
unless the parties otherwise agree. 8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof
to the States Parties.

2. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001

i. Article 2

Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State. There is an internationally wrongful act

of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:
(A) is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

ii. Article 4: Conduct of organs of a State

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international
law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions,
whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an
organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal
law of the State.

3|Page
 iii. Article 6

Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State The conduct of an organ
placed at the disposal of a State by another State shall be considered an act of the former State
under international law if the organ is acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental
authority of the State at whose disposal it is placed.

3. UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

i. Article 4: Commitments

1. All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their
specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall: (a)
Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the Conference of the Parties, in
accordance with Article 12, national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and
removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using
comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties;

2. The developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I commit themselves
specifically as provided for in the following:

(a) Each of these Parties shall adopt national1 policies and take corresponding measures on the
mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and
protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs. These policies and measures
will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends
in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention, recognizing that
the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol would
contribute to such modification, and taking into account the differences in these Parties' starting

4|Page
points and approaches, economic structures and resource bases, the need to maintain strong
and sustainable economic growth, available technologies and other individual circumstances,
as well as the need for equitable and appropriate contributions by each of these Parties to the
global effort regarding that objective. These Parties may implement such policies and measures
jointly with other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing to the achievement of the
objective of the Convention and, in particular, that of this subparagraph.

4. STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1. Article 36

(2) The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as
compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting
the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:
00the interpretation of a treaty;
0Any question of international law;
The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international
obligation;
The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
(6) In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled
by the decision of the Court.

2. Article 79

(1) Any objection by the respondent to the jurisdiction of the Court or to the admissibility of
the application, or other objection the decision upon which is requested before any further
proceedings on the merits, shall be made in writing as soon as possible, and not later than three
months after the delivery of the Memorial. Any such objection made by a party other than the
respondent shall be filed within the time-limit fixed for the delivery of that party’s first
pleading.

5|Page
 CASES

1. Philippines v China ICGJ 495 (PCA 2016)

The Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (the “Convention”) in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against
the People’s Republic of China has issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility.
While China and Philippines are both parties to the UNCLOS, China specifically made a
declaration in 2006 to exclude maritime boundary delimitation from its acceptance of
compulsory dispute settlement. In addition, China has shown disagreement with Philippines’
decision to take the matter to arbitration and has decided neither to agree with the decision of
the Tribunal nor to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal, on its end, has taken cognizance of these factors and has purported to not deal
with delimiting maritime boundaries. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not bar the proceedings,
on the basis of Article 9 of Annex VII of UNCLOS. In addition, the Tribunal also noted that
despite China’s absence from the proceedings, since it is a party to the UNCLOS, the decision
of the Tribunal would, in fact, be binding upon it, pursuant to Article 296 (1) and Article 11 of
Annex VII.

2. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic IT-94-1-A

The Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has also
addressed these issues. In the Tadić case, the Chamber stressed that:
The requirement of international law for the attribution to States of acts performed by private
individuals is that the State exercises control over the individuals. The degree of control may,
however, vary according to the factual circumstances of each case. The Appeals Chamber fails
to see why in each and every circumstance international law should require a high threshold
for the test of control.
The Appeals Chamber held that the requisite degree of control by the Yugoslavian authorities
over these armed forces required by international law for considering the armed conflict to be
international was overall control going beyond the mere financing and equipping of such forces
and involving also participation in the planning and supervision of military operations.

6|Page