DOCSLIB.ORG

Current Legal Developments International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Current Legal Developments International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARINE AND COASTAL The International Journal of LAW Marine and Coastal Law 28 (2013) 375–387 brill.com/estu Current Legal Developments International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea TheAra Libertad Case (Argentina v. Ghana, 15 December 2012), Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures Introduction On 15 December 2012, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS or the Tribunal) unanimously prescribed provisional measures in the ARA Libertad case between the Argentine Republic (hereafter Argentina) and the Republic of Ghana (hereafter Ghana).1 ITLOS thus added another impor- tant decision concerning provisional measures to its jurisprudence.2 Yet the fact that the provisional measures were prescribed by the unanimous decision of ITLOS did not mean that no differences of opinion existed between the members of the Tribunal. In fact, Judge Wolfrum and Judge Cot, in their Joint Separate Opinion, disagreed with the reasoning of the Tribunal concern- ing the prima facie jurisdiction of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal, even though they eventually voted for the prima facie jurisdiction for a different reason. Thus this contribution will seek to succinctly examine principal issues in the ARA Libertad Order. 1 The ARA Libertad Case (Argentina v. Ghana), Case No. 20, Order of 15 December 2012. The text of the Order is available via the homepage of the ITLOS: http://www.itlos.org/. The analysis of this contribution relies on the electronic version of the Order. The page numbers quoted in this contribution are the numbers of the electronic text. 2 The ARA Libertad case is the seventh case involving provisional measures in the ITLOS jurisprudence. The previous cases were: The M/V ‘SAIGA’ (No. 2) case (Case No. 2, 1998, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (Case No. 3 and No. 4, 2000, New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), the MOX Plant Case (Case No. 10, 2002, Ireland v. United Kingdom), Case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Case No. 12, 2003, Malaysia v. Singapore), and the M/V Louisa case (Case No. 18). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15718085–12341281 Y. Tanaka / 376 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 28 (2013) 375–387 Course of the Litigation The central issue in the ARA Libertad case concerned the detention of the Frigate ARA Libertad, a warship of the Argentine Navy, by the authorities of Ghana at the port of Tema on 2 October 2012. The vessel is used for navy cadet training trips and it has been sailing the oceans for more than 50 years. The Governments of Argentina and Ghana agreed on the visit of the vessel to the port of Tema, Ghana. On 4 June 2012, the Government of Ghana autho- rized the visit and notified its decision to Argentina through diplomatic chan- nels. The Frigate ARA Libertad arrived on the scheduled date of 1 October 2012, and on the same day a formal welcome ceremony was held on board the ship. On 2 October 2012, however, an official of the Judicial Service of the Superior Court of Judicature of Ghana (Commercial Division) arrived at the vessel and delivered an official letter, requiring that the Frigate ARA Libertad be held at the Tema Port.3 According to Ghana, this measure derived from a series of cases brought by NML in the courts of the United States and the United Kingdom against Argentina.4 These litigations concerned sums said to be due to NML under two series of bonds issued by Argentina pursuant to a Fiscal Agency Agree- ment of 19 October 1994. On 11 May 2006, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted NML’s motion for summary judg- ment in respect of sums due to it under the bonds. On 18 December 2006, the US District Court entered a judgment in favor of NML in the amount of US $284,184,632.20 (the New York Judgment). NML sought to have the judgment enforced in the United Kingdom. On appeal, the United Kingdom Supreme Court acceded to NML’s request and agreed with the findings of the District Court that Argentina was not entitled to claim state immunity by reason of a wide-ranging waiver contained in the Bond Agreement.5 On 2 October 2012, NML filed a Statement of Claim before the High Court of the Republic of Ghana, sitting in Accra, seeking to obtain satisfaction of the New York Judgment debt from Argentina. The Ghanaian High Court thus made an Order for Interlocutory Injunction and Interim Preservation detaining the Frigate ARA Libertad.6 3 Request for provisional measures submitted by Argentina, 14 November 2012, pp. 2–3, paras. 3–6. 4 NML is reported to be a company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands and a subsidiary of a US company which is engaged in the management of investments. Written Statement of the Republic of Ghana, 28 November 2012, p. 1, para. 3. 5 [2011] UKSC 31. 6 Supra note 4, pp. 1–2, paras. 3–4..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
    English Version ITLOS/PV.19/C26/1/Rev.1 INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA 2019 Friday, 10 May 2019, at 10 a.m., at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Hamburg, President Jin-Hyun Paik presiding CASE CONCERNING THE DETENTION OF THREE UKRAINIAN NAVAL VESSELS (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) Verbatim Record Present: President Jin-Hyun Paik Vice-President David Attard Judges José Luís Jesus Jean-Pierre Cot Anthony Amos Lucky Stanislaw Pawlak Shunji Yanai James L. Kateka Albert J. Hoffmann Zhiguo Gao Boualem Bouguetaia Elsa Kelly Markiyan Kulyk Alonso Gómez-Robledo Tomas Heidar Óscar Cabello Sarubbi Neeru Chadha Kriangsak Kittichaisaree Roman Kolodkin Liesbeth Lijnzaad Registrar Philippe Gautier ITLOS/PV.19/C26/1/Rev.1 ii 10/05/2019 a.m. Ukraine is represented by: H.E. Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister, as Agent; and Ms Marney L. Cheek, Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia; Covington & Burling LLP, Mr Jonathan Gimblett, Member of the Bar of Virginia and the District of Columbia; Covington & Burling LLP, Professor Alfred H.A. Soons, Utrecht University School of Law; Associate Member of the Institute of International Law, Professor Jean-Marc Thouvenin, University Paris Nanterre; Secretary General of the Hague Academy of International Law; Member of the Paris Bar; Sygna Partners, as Counsel and Advocates; Ms Oksana Zolotaryova, Director, International Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colonel Leonid Zaliubovskyi, Colonel of Justice, Naval Forces of Ukraine, Mr Nikhil V. Gore, Covington & Burling
    [Show full text]
  • Ara Libertad” Case
    RUL-34 332 INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA YEAR 2012 15 December 2012 List of cases: No. 20 THE “ARA LIBERTAD” CASE (ARGENTINA v. GHANA) Request for the prescription of provisional measures ORDER Present: President YANAI; Vice-President HOFFMANN; Judges CHANDRA- SEKHARA RAO, AKL, WOLFRUM, NDIAYE, JESUS, COT, LUCKY, PAWLAK, TÜRK, KATEKA, GAO, BOUGUETAIA, GOLITSYN, PAIK, KELLY, ATTARD, KULYK; Judge ad hoc MENSAH; Registrar GAUTIER. THE TRIBUNAL, composed as above, after deliberation, Having regard to article 290 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter “the Convention”) and articles 21, 25 and 27 of the Statute of the Tribunal (hereinafter “the Statute”), Having regard to articles 89 and 90 of the Rules of the Tribunal (hereinafter “the Rules”), RUL-34 INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS THE “ARA LIBERTAD” CASE (ARGENTINA v. GHANA) List of cases: No. 20 PROVISIONAL MEASURES ORDER OF 15 DECEMBER 2012 2012 TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL DU DROIT DE LA MER RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS, AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES AFFAIRE DE L’« ARA LIBERTAD » (ARGENTINE c. GHANA) Rôle des affaires : No. 20 MESURES CONSERVATOIRES ORDONNANCE DU 15 DECEMBRE 2012 RUL-34 Official citation: “ARA Libertad” (Argentina v. Ghana), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012, p. 332 ----------------- Mode officiel de citation : « ARA Libertad » (Argentine c. Ghana), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 décembre 2012, TIDM Recueil 2012, p. 332 RUL-34 15 DECEMBER 2012 ORDER THE “ARA LIBERTAD” CASE (ARGENTINA v. GHANA) PROVISIONAL MEASURES AFFAIRE DE L’« ARA LIBERTAD » (ARGENTINE c.
    [Show full text]
  • La Inmunidad Soberana Y El Embargo De Un Buque De Guerra: El Caso Del Ara Libertad
    International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional ISSN: 1692-8156 [email protected] Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Colombia Alejandro Casella, Daniel LA INMUNIDAD SOBERANA Y EL EMBARGO DE UN BUQUE DE GUERRA: EL CASO DEL A. R. A. LIBERTAD International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, núm. 23, julio-diciembre, 2013, pp. 17-51 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá, Colombia Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=82430529002 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto ISSN:1692-8156 LA INMUNIDAD SOBERANA Y EL EMBARGO DE UN BUQUE DE GUERRA: EL CASO DEL A. R. A. LIBERTAD SOVEREIGN STATE IMMUNITY AND THE EMBARGO OF A WARSHIP THE A. R. A. LIBERTAD CASE DANIEL ALEJANDRO CASELLA* PARA CITAR ESTE ARTÍCULO / TO CITE THIS ARTICLE Casella, D. A., La inmunidad soberana y el embargo de un buque de guerra: el caso de A.R.A. Libertad, 23 International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, Pág: 17-52 (2013). 1692-8156(201307)13:23<17:LISEBG>2.0.CO;2-G * Socio del bufete Casella & Hilal, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Profesor Adjunto Ordinario de Derecho de los egocios Internacionales, Universidad Argentina de la Empresa (UADE). Profesor de la Maestría en Negociaciones Jurídicas Internacionales de la Universidad Francisco Marroquín (UFM), de la República de Guatemala. Abogado por la Universidad de Belgrano (UB), Argentina y Master of Laws (LLM) Tulane University School of Law (EE.UU.).
    [Show full text]
  • The Peculiar Case of the ARA Libertad: Provisional Measures and Prejudice to the Arbitral Tribunal’S Final Result
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HNR\20-1\HNR107.txt unknown Seq: 1 15-JUL-15 10:01 The Peculiar Case of the ARA Libertad: Provisional Measures and Prejudice to the Arbitral Tribunal’s Final Result Thomas E. Robins* CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 266 R II. The Course of Litigation.............................. 268 R A. The New York Federal Court and the United Kingdom Supreme Court ......................... 269 R B. The Ghanaian High Court ........................ 270 R III. The Resort to Arbitration............................. 273 R A. UNCLOS Arbitration ............................. 273 R B. The Argentine Claim ............................. 274 R C. The Default to ITLOS ............................ 275 R IV. ITLOS Provisional Measures ......................... 277 R A. Provisional Measures ............................. 277 R B. The Parties’ Positions............................. 278 R C. The Decision ..................................... 280 R V. Analysis: The Effect of ITLOS Provisional Measures............................................. 282 R A. Party Choice as the Foundation of Arbitration .... 283 R B. Prejudice to the Final Result ..................... 285 R VI. Conclusion ........................................... 287 R * Thomas E. Robins is a law clerk in the Family Court of the State of Delaware and a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, The Dickinson School of Law. The author would like to thank his family and friends for their support during the writing and editing process. The author is also indebted to the mentorship, encour- agement, and excellent teaching of Professors David H. Blankfein-Tabachnick and Thomas E. Carbonneau, among others. 265 \\jciprod01\productn\H\HNR\20-1\HNR107.txt unknown Seq: 2 15-JUL-15 10:01 266 Harvard Negotiation Law Review [Vol. 20:265 I. INTRODUCTION The ARA Libertad sailed into the Ghanaian port of Tema, near the capital Accra, on October 1, 2012.1 The ship itself is something of an oddity among the modern navies of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • DURANTE LA GUERRA DE MALVINAS 75 Capitán De Corbeta Angel Gustavo VILDOZA
    Indice SEMINARio “MALVINAS 2012” A 30 AÑOS DE LA GesTA CONTRAALMIRANTE (RE) VGM CARLOS E. CAL 7 CRUcerO ARA “GenerAL BELgrANo”. LA OPerACIÓN AerONAVAL DE BÚSQUedA Y rescATe CAPITÁN DE FRAGATA VGM (RE) DANIEL OMAR CAVALIERI 19 LA DECISIÓN DE CAPTURAR LAS MALVINAS DR. JORGE RAFAEL BÓVEDA 45 ALERTA TEMPRANA DESDE SUBMARINOS LA EXPerIencIA DE LA ROYAL NAVY en MALVINAS 1982 MARIANO SCIARONI 59 LOS VIAJES DEL TRANSPORTE ARA “CABO DE HORNOS” DURANTE LA GUERRA DE MALVINAS 75 CAPITÁN DE CORBETA ANGEL GUSTAVO VILDOZA EL APrendIZAJE SITUADO en LA ARMADA ArgeNTINA CAPITÁN DE FRAGATA ALBERTO E. GIANOLA OTAMENDI 89 LA GESTIÓN DEL CONOCIMIENTO OPERATIVO EN LA ARMADA ARGENTINA Y SU INFLUENCIA EN EL ADIESTRAMIENTO TÁCTICO DE LOS OFICIALES CAPITÁN DE FRAGATA FRANCISCO JOSÉ BROSZ 103 EL CONSEJO DE DEFENSA SUDAMERICANO: UN NUEVO NOMBRE PARA UN VIEJO CONCEPTO CAPITÁN DE CORBETA JAVIER ANDRÉS LINHART 131 LAS MISIONes DE PAZ Y SU CONTRIBUCIÓN AL ROL FUNDAMenTAL DEL INSTRUMenTO MILITAR CAPITÁN DE CORBETA LUIS ALEJO BONANNI 145 INTELIGENCIA PROSPECTIVA: APLICACIÓN DEL MODELo “Acuña – KONOW” CAPITÁN DE NAVÍO VGM (RE) ALVARO FIGUEROA 163 ANÁLISIS COMBINADO segÚN HIPÓTESIS COMPETITIVAS Y Redes BAYesIANAS CAPITÁN DE NAVÍO (DN) GUILLERMO MARTÍN TAJAN 181 AcTIVIDAdes DE LA EscUELA DE GUERRA NAVAL 199 INFORME DE LA BIBLIOTecA DE LA ESGN "DR. ISIDORO RUIZ MOrenO" 207 NUEVO ALMIRANTE DecANO DE LA ARMADA 217 NORMAS edITORIALes PARA LA PUBLICACIÓN DE ARTÍCULOs 219 5 Mensaje del Director de la Escuela de Guerra Naval CAPITÁN DE NAVÍO VGM RICARDO RAÚL CHRISTIANI El año 2012 ha traído dos hitos significativos para nuestra Escuela de Guerra Naval, que en esencia están íntimamente ligados.
    [Show full text]
  • Administración Central • Ministerio De Defensa Programa
    MINISTERIO DE DEFENSA 1- Administración Central • Ministerio de Defensa Programa: Conducción y Planificación para la Defensa El programa alcanzó una ejecución global de $1.183,9 millones en 2020, monto que representó el 84,4% del crédito final. En la estructura de gasto el 67,8% se destinó a Personal, el 21,5% a Servicios no Personales (fundamentalmente, Alquileres con Opción de Compra; Limpieza, Aseo y Fumigación; Juicios y Mediaciones; Mantenimiento y Reparación de Edificios y Locales y Primas y Gastos de Seguros), el 3,9% a Bienes de Uso, el 3,5% a Transferencias a Actividades Científicas o Académicas y el 3,3% a Bienes de Consumo. Las acciones están destinadas a sustentar la logística y el funcionamiento del Ministerio de Defensa, permitiendo el desenvolvimiento operativo de sus objetivos. En este sentido, el programa centraliza las actividades destinadas a desarrollar la estrategia de la política de Defensa Nacional, la conducción del personal y la administración de los bienes y servicios del Ministerio. Por otra parte, reformula la inteligencia táctica de las Fuerzas y desarrolla actividades dirigidas a fomentar la investigación científica y tecnológica en el campo de la Defensa y en el ámbito de instituciones civiles, universidades y otros institutos educativos en vinculación con otras dependencias de naturaleza similares a las Fuerzas Armadas. También se registran las actividades conducentes a la coordinación y articulación del instrumento militar en respuesta a situaciones de emergencia o desastres de origen natural, antrópico o tecnológico, y a la coordinación y ejecución de asistencia en emergencias. Esto incluye el despliegue y la operatividad de recursos civiles y militares en el territorio nacional, conjuntamente con el fortalecimiento y la preparación de las comunidades para reducir las vulnerabilidades.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Note: Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine V Russian Federation) (Provisional Measures) (International Tribu
    CASE NOTE: DETENTION OF THREE UKRAINIAN NAVAL VESSELS (UKRAINE V RUSSIAN FEDERATION) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES) (INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA, CASE NO 26, 25 MAY 2019) Michael White* Introduction The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS or the Tribunal) was established pursuant to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) after the Convention came into force in 1994.1 Annex VI established the actual Tribunal2 and, as The Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg agreed to pay for the cost of the land and premises, so the negotiating parties agreed that ITLOS have its seat and headquarters there.3 The composition of the Tribunal was to be of 21 judges with recognized competence in law of the sea with the ability for the parties to appoint an ad hoc judge each if one of their nationality was not already on the Tribunal.4 One of the better things from UNCLOS was the establishment of ITLOS and one of the better things from ITLOS is that it is a convenient international Tribunal to which a flag State may apply for the prompt release of its vessel that has been arrested by a foreign State.5 Over the 22 years of its decision making the Tribunal has decided 26 cases and it has one pending, and of those 27 cases 18 are related to shipping of which most are for prompt release of the vessel. This Case Note is concerned with the most recent prompt release decision from ITLOS (as at June 2019), namely Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Provisional Measures).6 Facts In 2014 the Ukraine was invaded by Russia, initially under the guise of militia, and there has been armed conflict ever since, mainly on the land but also in the air and at sea.
    [Show full text]
  • A Suitcase from the Titanic
    A Suitcase from the Titanic WITPRESS WIT Press publishes leading books in Science and Technology. Visit our website for the current list of titles. www.witpress.com WITeLibrary Home of the Transactions of the Wessex Institute, the WIT electronic-library provides the international scientific community with immediate and permanent access to individual papers presented at WIT conferences. Visit the WIT eLibrary athttp://library.witpress.com About the author Enrique Rodolfo Dick was born in 1950 in a beautiful hilly area at the geographical heart of Argentina. He studied first at the German Elementary College in Córdoba, later attending a Military Lyceum, a prestigious secondary school run by the Argentine Army, who demand high academic standards of their students. In 1968 he enrolled in the Army Military College, from where he graduated with the rank of Second Lieutenant. He went on to serve in a number of parachute units and later graduated as a Mechanical and Weapons Engineer from the Army University in Buenos Aires. Enrique then continued his studies in France, where he obtained a degree in Aeronautics from ENSAE (the National Higher School of Aeronautics and Space) in Toulouse. After his return to Argentina in 1986 he worked at the Argentine Armed Forces Institute for Scientific and Technical Research (CITEFA). At around this time, and whilst continuing with his scientific research and publications, he also started to pursue more literary interests, which started with his fulfilling a promise he had made to his father who had been a member of the crew of the pocket battleship the Graf Spee which had been dramatically scuttled in the River Plate in 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Request of Ukraine for the Prescription of Provisional Measures Under Article 290, Paragraph 5, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
    INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA DISPUTE CONCERNING THE IMMUNITY OF THREE UKRAINIAN NAVAL VESSELS AND THE TWENTY-FOUR SERVICEMEN ON BOARD UKRAINE v. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REQUEST OF UKRAINE FOR THE PRESCRIPTION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 290, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA 16 April 2019 IMMUNITY OF THREE UKRAINIAN NAVAL VESSELS AND THE TWENTY-FOUR SERVICEMEN ON BOARD TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 3 JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 4 STATEMENT OF LEGAL GROUNDS .................................................................. 5 I. The Measures Requested ........................................................................................ 5 II. Legal Grounds for Ukraine’s Request .................................................................... 6 III. Possible Consequences of the Continued Detention of Ukraine’s Naval Vessels and Servicemen, and the Urgency of the Situation Presented by their Detention ........................................................................................................ 8 A. Prejudice to the Flag State and Urgency Associated with the Detention of Naval Vessels and the Servicemen on Board ......................
    [Show full text]
  • Homenaje a La Fragata Ara Libertad
    ACADEMIA NACIONAL DE INGENIERÍA HOMENAJE A LA FRAGATA ARA LIBERTAD BUQUE ESCUELA DE LA ARMADA ARGENTINA y Patrimonio cultural de la República Argentina Aístides Bryan Domínguez Académico de Número Buenos Aires REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA 2012 ACADEMIA NACIONAL DE INGENIERÍA ARA Libertad (Q-2) Banderas Historial Astillero Astillero Río Santiago Tipo Fragata de tres palos Iniciado 11 de diciembre de 1953 Botado 30 de mayo de 1956 Asignado 28 de mayo de 1963 (recibido) 28 de mayo de 1963 (afirmación del Pabellón Argentino) Destino En Servicio Características generales Desplazamiento 3765 t a plena carga Eslora 103,75 m Manga 14,31 m Calado 6 m Armamento 4 cañones Hotchkiss de 47 mm como batería de saludo Propulsión 2 motores diésel Sulzer enclochados a un solo eje a través de un sistema Pomini. Potencia 2 × 1200 CV ACADEMIA NACIONAL DE INGENIERÍA Velocidad 13,8 Nudos Sensores Radar de navegación Decca. Tripulación • 24 Jefes y Oficiales • 187 hombres de tripulación • 150 cadetes embarcados Número OMI 6125398 Cuando la Fragata ARA Presidente Sarmiento salió de servicio activo, todos los hombres de mar se unieron en un deseo común: construir en el país, con planos nacionales y mano de obra argentina, un buque-escuela que reeditara los laureles de aquel glorioso antepasado. La Fragata ARA Libertad es el noveno buque en la Armada Argentina que lleva este nombre. Sus antecesores fueron: • bergantín corsario Libertad (1827), • goleta Libertad (1841), • goleta Libertad (1845), • ballenera Libertad (1853), • vapor armado en guerra Libertad (1862), • transporte Libertad (1865), • acorazado de río Libertad (1892), • crucero auxiliar Libertad (1955), ex transporte FANU. ACADEMIA NACIONAL DE INGENIERÍA 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Crime: a Manual for Criminal Justice Practictioners
    Maritime Crime: A Manual for Criminal Justice Practictioners GLOBAL MARITIME CRIME PROGRAMME UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Maritime Crime: A Manual for Criminal Justice Practitioners Global Maritime Crime Programme UNITED NATIONS New York, 2017 © United Nations, March 2017. All rights reserved, worldwide. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Manual was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Dr. Robert McLaughlin, a consultant engaged by the UNODC Global Maritime Crime Programme. Contributing to the development of the Manual were: William Anderson, UNODC Siri Bjune, UNODC Alan Cole, UNODC Phillip Drew, Australian National University Anthony Francis Tissa Fernando, Court of Appeal of Seychelles Douglas Guilfoyle, Monash University Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, Public Law (International Law, European Law and ForeignConstitutional Law) Foundation, European University Viadrina Patricia Jimenez Kwast, University of Oxford Ali Kamal-Deen, CEMLAWS Africa Stuart Kaye, University of Wollongong Benoit Le Goaziou, UNODC David Letts, Australian National University Patrick J McGuire, United
    [Show full text]
  • Law of the Sea Provisional Measures in ARA Libertad: on the Margins of Jurisdictional Discourse
    Law of the Sea Provisional Measures in ARA Libertad: On the Margins of Jurisdictional Discourse Nuwan Peiris Attorney General’s Department, Colombo, Sri Lanka Introduction The ARA Libertad, the recent case of provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS, or the “Tribunal”), reflects the problem of attempting to accommodate a dispute involving the detention of a warship in a port within the jurisdictional parameters of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).1 The Tribunal, as a pro- visional measure, ordered the release of the Argentine warship ARA Libertad, which was held in detention by a Ghanaian court. The arrest of this warship was made in pursuance of an action instituted by NML Ltd., which owns Argentina’s defaulted sovereign bonds. This case reflects, in general, how when the Tribunal overcomes a jurisdic- tional objection, it still faces the challenge of determining the extent and scope of remedial measures within the provisions of UNCLOS. The Tribunal, in the main, had to consider the applicability of UNCLOS to internal waters and whether a general rule on a warship’s immunities was incorporated within Article 32. Both of these issues created perceivable difficulties at the begin- ning, during the hearing, and at the stage of granting relief. Hence, this article attempts to give an account of this case of provisional measures and examines how the Tribunal approached these issues. Factual Matrix The series of sovereign bonds had been issued by Argentina from February to July 2000. The Fiscal Agency Agreement (FAA) between Argentina and the Bankers Trust Company had a New York law as the applicable proper law.
    [Show full text]