On Provisional Measures Of ITLOS

The Arctic Sunrise Case, which is the seventh case about provisional measures made by the ITLOS after its foundation, is Kingdom of the Netherlands submission to the ITLOS against Russian’s Federation’s detention of the “Arctic Sunrise” and its crew in Oct.4th, 2013. It provides a very precedent to the future cases. As to this case, the related mechanisms under the UNCLOS for the releasing of the vessel and its crew are about two which are the prompt release and provisional measures. The main purpose of this dissertation is about recognizing and analyzing the present provisional measures made by ITLOS.There are three parts of this dissertation. For the first part, it is to introduce the Arctic Sunrise Case chronologically and logically with pointing out the outstanding meaning to the ITLOS, considering as the first case it has faced nonappearance by a party in one dispute settlement and in which the provisional measures are made to release a vessel other than a warship or a fishing ship, moreover, the human rights are also taken into account by the ITLOS. This case is really a landmark case for both the ITLOS and the future cases. For the second part, then the related mechanisms(prompt release and provisional measures) are fairly concluded to show the application matching rate to this case. For the third part, it embodies the process and elements which should be considered in making the verdict by comparing and borrowing from the other cases made by ITLOS and ICJ. First of all, the tribunal’s jurisdiction problem is held to be discussed. Furthermore, how the Russian’s nonappearance before the Tribunal have influenced the Tribunal’s decision in making the verdict, in which the Annex VI(ITLOS Statute) of UNCLOS seems to be relevant. Last but not least, how the human right concerns are taken into consideration underpinning the order is a big problem. For the forth part, which is the highlight of the whole paper, combining with the current mechanism, other practice and also academic comments, it explores the prior problems discussed above. Firstly, it deeply analyzes how the nonappearance of Russian would effect the verdict of provisional measures. Secondly, in making the verdict, if the Tribunal put every factor into proper analysis, whether the Tribunal do perfect in requesting the bond from the Netherland, balancing the interests between the two and the nature of the provisional measures itself is still yet unknown. Thirdly, if it is clearly right for the Tribunal considering human rights in this case is considered. For the last part, it is to conclude all the elements which have influenced the Tribunal’s decision and the appropriate for the Tribunal in making this verdict as alluded to above, and further statements about the significance of the Arctic Sunrise Case for ITLOS and its future cases are made.