The Conflicts Of Jurisdiction Between International Court Of Justice And International Tribunal For The Law Of The Sea

Since the 1950 s, there has been only International Court of Justice to solve international disputes. At present, the number of the international judiciary organs has increased to more than a dozen. Although both of them play an important role in resolving disputes in the settlement of maritime, they have conflicts of jurisdiction. It is of great significance to analyze the conflicts and work out the coordination measures accordingly.This thesis has first analyzed the conflicts of jurisdiction between them. The concept of jurisdiction has been put forward, which has led to th e discussion of the jurisdiction of them.As for International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the focus of analysis was on the classification and scope of its jurisdiction.From the view of the establishment of the court, the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice has been discussed in terms of its definition and classification,which mainly involves Article 288 of the International Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 21 of Annex VI. The next chapter has explained the jurisdiction of the court, which includes the court’s jurisdiction over the parties of the Convention, the disputes over the interpretation and application of the Convention, the disputes related to the agreements in the Convention, along with the jurisdiction over some particular disputes. On this basis, the author has made a comparative analysis of the jurisdictions of them,which indicates that there is a big difference between the two in this regard.The subject of proceedings of International Court of Justice is limited to the countries, whereas Article 20 of Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law stipulates that the subject of litigation of International Tribunal for the Law, in addition to countries, also includes other certain entities. In terms of subject-matter jurisdiction, according to the treaty, the case range of International Court of Justice is wider and certain cases must also be submitted to the Tribunal.The author has also made a comparative analysis of compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the Tribunal, which involves the meaning of compulsory jurisdiction and the difference between the aspects of prescribed provisional measures and prompt release of the crews of the ve ssel. An analysis of the differences between the two indicates that it is necessary to identify the jurisdictional conflicts between the Court and the Tribunal and to analyze the general conflict, the issues of reserving statements, the impact of the statements made by the State parties in accordance with Article 287 of the 1982 Convention, as well as the relations between the constraints and options of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Tribunal.Finally, inspired by the analysis above, the author has tried to work out coordination measures to deal with the conflicts between the Court and the Tribunal, mainly in terms of the cooperative relations between the United Nations and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.