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 explores the potential for the revival of the common law of contract.The emphasis is on the possibility of judicial action to reverse some of the movements explored earlier in the work. Contract scholars with a more pragmatic or practical approach to the subject have long maintained that contract law must do more to distinguish different contracting contexts and to develop appropriate rule sets accordingly. The recent engagement with the concept of relational contracting demonstrates a judicial ambition (admittedly not shared by all) to create a more responsive, contextual and flexible contract law.The development of relational contracts is considered and critiqued in the chapter. Developments in other common law jurisdictions (notably the elaboration of an organising principle of good faith in Canada) are contrasted with English law. The chapter concludes that English law is unlikely to follow the lead of other common law countries in articulating good faith principles. Limitations on the litigation system in England are also examined.