The article scrutinizes some of the surprising commonalities in the reasonings of two recent decisions by two separate judicial forums: the ITLOS’s judgment in the M/V Norstar case and the award of an ad hoc arbitral tribunal in the Enrica Lexie case. One key connection between the two decisions is their heavy reliance on the Lotus judgment of the PCIJ. Another similarity between the two disputes is that both of them revolve around the concept of exclusive flag state jurisdiction under UNCLOS Article 92(1) and adjacent questions of jurisdiction on the high seas. The article is going to subject both decisions to criticism and argue that some of the more problematic positions adopted by the tribunals in both cases amount to no more than obiter dicta – thus establishing an additional parallel with Lotus, which also received heavy criticism for its controversial obiter dictum. The two tribunals’ new-found interest in Lotus also provides an opportunity to discuss the utility and legal weight of Lotus as a precedent in the face of a century of developments in treaty law and judicial practice. In this sense, this article builds on and attempts to continue the recent trend in scholarship advocating for a renewed appreciation of the Lotus case against the backdrop of decades of criticism against it. Accordingly, the article aims to facilitate a better understanding of all three disputes, the principles they applied, and the dynamics of international adjudication and international law in general.

本文仔细研究了两个独立司法论坛最近做出的两项裁决的推理中一些令人惊讶的共同点：国际海洋法法庭对 M/ V Norstar案的判决以及临时仲裁庭对Enrica Lexie案的裁决。这两个决定之间的一个关键联系是它们严重依赖PCIJ 的Lotus判断。这两起争端的另一个相似之处在于，它们都围绕《联合国海洋法公约》第92条第(1)款规定的专属船旗国管辖权概念以及相邻的公海管辖权问题。这篇文章将对这两项裁决提出批评，并认为仲裁庭在这两个案件中采取的一些更有问题的立场只不过是附言——从而与莲花建立了一个额外的相似之处，莲花也因其争议性而受到严厉批评。附言。面对条约法和司法实践一个世纪的发展，两个法庭对Lotus的新兴趣也提供了一个机会来讨论Lotus作为先例的效用和法律效力。从这个意义上说，本文基于并试图延续近期学术界的趋势，即在数十年对莲花案的批评的背景下，提倡重新认识莲花案。因此，本文旨在促进更好地理解所有三个争端、它们所适用的原则以及国际裁决和国际法的动态。