Abstract

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is heralded as a constitution for the oceans and, as part of this, provides for a compulsory dispute settlement procedure entailing binding decisions. However, case law and academic commentary have highlighted significant issues in definitively identifying other agreements that could preclude these compulsory procedures—a concept permitted by the Convention in certain circumstances. This article begins to explore this challenge by contending that the type of agreement plays a significant role in whether or not it could be determined to be an “exclusionary agreement.” In doing so, the article conducts a systematic interpretation of Articles 281 and 282 UNCLOS, underpinned by the application of relevant provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This provides a conclusive basis as to whether the status of an agreement as an “ad hoc agreement” (specific; adopted for the dispute) or an “existing agreement” (general; adopted prior to the dispute) holds any significance in the context of these articles.

摘要

《联合国海洋法公约》（UNCLOS）被宣布为海洋宪法，并且其中一部分规定了强制性的争端解决程序，需要作出具有约束力的决定。但是，判例法和学术评论在明确确定可以排除这些强制性程序的其他协定时，突出了重大问题，这是《公约》在某些情况下允许的概念。本文通过争辩该类型来开始探索这一挑战协议的一致性在是否可以将其确定为“排他性协议”方面起着重要作用。在这样做时，本条对《海洋法公约》第281条和第282条进行了系统的解释，并以适用《维也纳条约法公约》的有关规定为基础。这为在以下情况下，协议的地位是否为“临时协议”（具体；在争端中采用）或“现有协议”（一般；在争端之前采用）提供了结论性依据。这些文章。