Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:10:07.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “ARA Libertad”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James Kraska
James Kraska*
Affiliation:
United States Naval War College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On December 15, 2012, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Tribunal or ITLOS) ordered Ghana to resupply and, upon payment of security, to refuel and release the Argentine naval frigate ARA Libertad, which was being held by authorities in the Ghanaian port of Tema. The Tribunal ordered release of the vessel in response to Argentina’s request for provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention or UNCLOS). The Tribunal accepted Argentina’s prima facie showing that the Libertad, a tall, three-masted sailing ship commissioned in the Argentine Navy being used as a training vessel for officer cadets, qualifies as a “warship” under Article 29 of UNCLOS, and was therefore entitled to immunity and release to avoid irreparable harm to Argentina pending the final outcome of the case (paras. 93–95).

Keywords

Convention on the Law of the Seawarship immunityscope of applicability of Conventionprovisional measuresdefinition of warshiparbitral jurisdiction
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 404 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “ARA Libertad” (Arg.v. Ghana), Case. No. 20, Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures, para. 108 (ITLOS Dec. 15, 2012) [hereinafter Libertad]. The order and other documents of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea cited herein are available online at its website, http://www.itlos.org.

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397, available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/[hereinafterUNCLOS].

3 The Superior Courts of Judicature of Ghana are composed of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court.

4 NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Arg., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19046 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2009),aff’d, 699 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2012).

5 Libertad, Written Statement of the Republic of Ghana, app. 3, at 61–62 (Nov. 28, 2012).

6 Libertad, Republic of Argentina Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures, para. 1 (Nov. 14, 2012) [hereinafter Argentina Request].

7 Id., para. 28.

8 Id., para. 31. see International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning the Immunity of State-Owned Vessels, Art. 3, Apr. 10, 1926, 176 LNTS 199, reprinted in 26 AJIL Supp. 527, 566 (1932) (in French); see also Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, Art. 32, Oct. 13, 1919,11 LNTS 173; Convention on International Civil Aviation, Dec. 7, 1944, 61 Stat. 1180, 15 UNTS 295.

9 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Art. 22, Apr. 29, 1958, 15 UST 1606, 516 UNTS 205. The relevant provision of the 1958 Convention states that “nothing in these articles affects” the immunities of government ships operated for noncommercial purposes.

10 Libertad, Public sitting, Doc. ITLOS/PV.12/C20/1, at 1 (Nov. 29, 2012) [hereinafter Public sitting].

11 Id. at 25.

12 MOX Plant (Ir. v. UK), Case No. 10, Provisional Measures, para. 64 (ITLOS Dec. 3, 2001).

13 MOX Plant (Ir. v. UK), Order No. 3, Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, paras. 35, 38, 58 (UNCLOS Ann. VII Arb. Trib. June 24, 2003), 42 ILM 1187 (2003), available at http://www.pca-cpa.org.

14 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v. Ice.), Provisional Measures, 1972 ICJ Rep. 12, paras. 15, 20–21 (Aug. 17).

15 The definition in Article 29 is drawn almost verbatim from Article 8(2)of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, 13 UST 2312, 450 UNTS 82.

16 Public sitting, supra note 10, at 8.

17 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, para. 214 (June 27), quoted in id. at 9.

18 The Tribunal conducted oral proceedings on November 29 and 30, 2012. see Public sitting, supra note 10, at 9; Libertad, Docs. ITLOS/PV.12/C20/2 (Nov. 29, 2012); ITLOS/PV.12/C20/3–4 (Nov. 30, 2012).

19 Argentina Request, supra note 6, paras. 40, 41; see also Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in International Law 404 (2002) (“Certain categories of property are regarded as so sensitive that they are under special protection and absolutely immune from execution....”), quoted in id., para. 47.

20 The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812).

21 Id. at 144.

22 Editorial, Lawless at Sea, Wall ST. J., Dec. 24, 2012, at A12. The incident provides “[a] case study in the dangers of the Law of the Sea Treaty.” Id., text box.

23 President William J. Clinton issued the following statement during the last hours of his presidency: “Pursuant to the property clause of Article IV of the Constitution, the United States retains title indefinitely to its sunken State craft unless title has been abandoned or transferred....” Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken Warships, 37 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 195, 195 (Jan. 22, 2001), 2001 WLNR 4638318; see also Bederman, David J., Congress Enacts Increased Protections for Sunken Military Craft, 100 AJIL 649 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, Jason R., Protecting Sunken Warships as Objects Entitled to Sovereign Immunity, 33 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 101 (2002)Google Scholar; Roach, J. Ashley, France Concedes United States Has Title to CSS Alabama, 85 AJIL 381 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.