This Chapter examines the potential of the advisory jurisdiction of the plenary of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to strengthen ocean governance. Since its conception, the legal basis of this judicial function has been unclear. In 2015, the ITLOS determined inter alia that the basis of its advisory function emanates from international agreements providing for it. This Chapter enquires as to the nature of the required agreements and proposes the use of ad-hoc jurisdictional agreements concluded between two or more entities to request an advisory opinion from ITLOS. Use of these instruments could assist in adapting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to new challenges such as climate change or technological developments. Moreover, the chapter recognizes the potential negative impacts of using these agreements and highlights the pertinence of ITLOS` discretionary powers as a mechanism of control.

This Chapter studies the management of living resources under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea considering the so-called precautionary principle/approach. It strives to give insights on the question whether the UN Convention demands application of the precautionary principle/approach with respect to the management of living resources vel non. The notions of the precautionary principle/approach, management and lastly that of living resources are discussed to evaluate the demand on common grounds. Taking the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases as a departure point, the analysis focuses on Part XII of the UN Convention. Finally, it gives an outlook on potential consequences of the required application to the ’package deal’.

This chapter looks at reciprocity in the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals, and the differences in the role reciprocity plays in inter-State dispute settlement, and in dispute settlement procedures that involve non-State entities such as individuals. It looks at the well-developed role that reciprocity plays in the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, before turning to the system of compulsory dispute settlement in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The chapter then analyzes three types of instance which concern individuals: the International Criminal Court; human rights courts and complaint mechanisms; and investment tribunals, specifically the issue of the extension of jurisdiction on the basis of an MFN clause.

This chapter analyses India’s challenges to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in 2014 and 2015, comparing the implications of the bodies’ differing procedures and perceptions of their own jurisdiction, and assessing the international relations dynamics at hand. In the Nuclear Zero and Enrica Lexie cases, high-profile matters of lethal weight were repeatedly held hostage by conflicting understandings of jurisdiction. India’s relationship with international jurisdiction, and especially its respective success and failure challenging ICJ and ITLOS jurisdiction, demonstrate how ITLOS procedure is designed to (and successfully does) cabin jurisdictional challenges in interstate disputes. After exploring the courts’ jurisdictional procedure in design and experience, this chapter offers reflections on the impact of the procedural variances, and future implications for states’ behaviour challenging jurisdiction – both for rising powers, who may wish to follow India’s example exerting status in nuanced embrace of international jurisdiction, and for major powers such as the United States, which in time may have to engage international courts if it cannot neutralise the decline of the status which allows it to broadly reject ICJ jurisdiction in state-to-state disputes.

This chapter first identifies the numerous ways in which scientific knowledge may gain legal significance in environmental disputes brought before ITLOS. It then discusses the framing techniques with which ITLOS adjusts the science-intensity of its legal inquiry. In particular, deeming science-intensive disputes justiciable, crafting precautionary justifications, mandating the parties’ expert-led co-operation in scientific issues, and utilizing scientific progress for setting a high bar for states’ due diligence obligations will be discussed. As to fact-finding, the chapter discusses the variety of evidentiary powers granted to the tribunal, and shows that it primarily relies on party-adduced evidence, while leaves its novel fact-finding avenues underutilized. The chapter concludes with discussing the causal tests announced by the tribunal on the rare occasions it has laid out a causal inquiry.