Abstract

The exhaustion of local remedies (“ELR”) rule is applicable in the settlement of maritime disputes, and it is not limited to the case of diplomatic protection. So far the manner in which the tribunals under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea dealt with the ELR issue in the cases of the flag State’s protection has raised the concern that the rule may become a dead letter in practice. Although the cases involved the protection of natural and legal persons by States, the tribunals rejected the objections to the admissibility of claims raised by the respondents based on the ELR rule in all cases. However, the approaches in which the tribunals dealt with the ELR issue are questionable, and the practice of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea contains dual imbalances. In the case of a mixed claim, the preponderance test suggested by the International Law Commission should be employed to determine the nature of the plaintiff’s claim as a whole. The test was mentioned in several cases, but it was not used correctly.

中文翻译：

---

用尽当地补救办法解决海事争端：《海洋法公约》法庭实践研究

摘要

力竭当地补救办法（“ ELR”）规则适用于解决海事纠纷，并且不仅限于外交保护。迄今为止，《联合国海洋法公约》各法庭在船旗国受到保护的情况下处理ELR问题的方式引起了人们的关注，即该规则在实践中可能成为一纸空文。尽管案件涉及国家对自然人和法人的保护，但法庭在所有案件中均拒绝接受被告基于ELR规则提出的主张的异议。但是，法庭处理ELR问题的方法令人怀疑，国际海洋法法庭的做法也存在双重失衡。对于混合索赔，应该使用国际法委员会建议的优势测试来确定原告索赔整体的性质。在几种情况下都提到了该测试，但未正确使用。