Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T00:03:54.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prompt Release Procedures and the Challenge for Fisheries Law Enforcement: The Judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in The ‘Volga’ Case (Russian Federation V Australia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Warwick Gullett
Warwick Gullett*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Environment, Australian Maritime College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Note and Comment
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 395 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11 ('The “Volga“ Case').

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 73(2) (entered into force 16 November 1994) ('LOSC').

3 See The M/V 'SAIGA' Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (1997) ITLOS Case No 1; The 'Camouco' Case (Panama v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 5; The 'Monte Confurco' Case (Seychelles v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 6; The 'Grand Prince' Case (Belize v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2001) ITLOS Case No 8; The 'Chaisiri Reefer 2' Case (Panama v Yemen) (Prompt Release) (Order 2001/4 of 13 July 2001) ITLOS Case No 9).

4 In 1999, Australia appeared before ITLOS with New Zealand in a partially successful action against Japan concerning quota allocations for southern bluefin tuna under the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, adopted 10 May 1993, Australia–New Zealand– Japan, [1994] ATS 16 (entered into force 20 May 1994): Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) (Provisional Measures) (1999) ITLOS Cases Nos 3 and 4. See, eg, Simon Marr, 'The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases: The Precautionary Approach and Conservation and Management of Fish Resources' (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law 815.

5 Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Annual Report 2001–2002 (2002) 73.

6 Ibid x.

7 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994).

8 Opened for signature 1 August 1980, 1329 UNTS 47 (entered into force 7 April 1982). See CCAMLR Schedule of Conservation Measures in Force 2002/2003 <http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/pubs/cm/02-03/toc.htm> at 25 April 2003. See also Donald R Rothwell, 'Environmental Regulation of the Southern Ocean' in James Crawford and Donald R Rothwell (eds), The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region (1995) 93, 104.

9 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, opened for signature 23 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975).

10 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, opened for signature 4 December 1995, [2001] ATS 8 (entered into force 11 December 2001).

11 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Oral proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, ITLOS/PV.02/02 (12 December 2002), 22.

12 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 73(1) (entered into force 16 November 1994). This article is given effect in domestic law in s 84 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth).

13 Food and Agricultural Organization, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995)<http://www.fao.org/fi/agreem/codecond/ficonde.asp> at 25 April 2003, art 7.6.2. See also arts 7.1.7, 8.1.1.

14 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 73(2) (entered into force 16 November 1994).

15 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Written proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, Statement in Response of Australia, 5.

16 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 111 (entered into force 16 November 1994); cf Canada's actions in 1995 when it seized a Spanish fishing vessel on the high seas adjacent to Canada's fishing zone. See, eg, Jamison Colburn, 'Turbot Wars: Straddling Stocks, Regime Theory, and a New U.N. Agreement' (1996) 6 Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 323; David Teece, 'Global Overfishing and the Spanish- Canadian Turbot War: Can International Law Protect the High-Seas Environment?' (1997) 8 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 89.

17 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 111(1) (entered into force 16 November 1994).

18 Ibid art 111(4); see also art 73(1). Note that the right of 'hot pursuit' was recognised under customary international law in the case of I'm Alone (Canada v USA) (1935) III RIAA 1609.

19 On 26 February 2002, the master of the Volga died after he consumed on the vessel a large quantity of cleaning liquid containing methanol apparently in the belief that it was alcohol. See The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Written proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, Statement in Response of Australia, 6.

20 Ibid 7.

21 Ibid; the fishing master faces two charges, and the fishing pilot and chief mate both face one charge under s 100(1) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth).

22 Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth) s 106A. The criminal trial will most likely take place in the first half of 2004.

23 Lijo v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2003] WASCA 4 (Unreported, Anderson,Templeman JJ and Olsson AUJ, 16 December 2002).

24 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Lijo [2002] WASC 154 (Unreported, Wheeler J, 14 June 2002).

25 Olbers Co Ltd v Commonwealth (No 2) [2003] FCA 177 (Unreported, French J, 11 March 2003).

26 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Written proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, Statement in Response of Australia, 8.

27 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 292(3) (entered into force 16 November 1994). The issue of whether the special prompt release procedures contained in LOSC also apply to a vessel detained pursuant to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which does not include a prompt release provision, is unsettled. See Tullio Treves, 'The Settlement of Disputes According to the Straddling Stocks Agreement of 1995' in Alan Boyle and David Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges (1999) 253, 268. See, also, Tim Stephens, 'A Paper Umbrella Which Dissolves in the Rain? Implications of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case for the Compulsory Resolution of Disputes Concerning the Marine Environment Under the 1982 LOS Convention' (2001) 6 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 297; Jacqueline Peel, 'A Paper Umbrella Which Dissolves in the Rain? The Future for Resolving Fisheries Disputes Under UNCLOS in the Aftermath of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration' (2002) 3 Melbourne Journal of International Law 53.

28 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 73(2) (entered into force 16 November 1994).

29 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Oral proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, ITLOS/PV.02/01 (12 December 2002), 9.

30 Ibid 16.

31 Ibid.

32 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Oral proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, ITLOS/PV.02/04 (13 December 2002), 13.

33 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Written proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, Statement in Response of Australia, 11.

34 Ibid.

35 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Oral proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, ITLOS/PV.02/03 (13 December 2002), 10.

36 See, eg, Kevin Bray, 'Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing' in Myron H Nordquist and John Norton Moore (eds), Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2000) 115. In fact, ITLOS itself has had experience in this regard. In the case of the vessel Camouco, which was the subject of an earlier ITLOS prompt release decision, it was renamed and reflagged twice following its release by the Tribunal only to be arrested once more by French authorities for fishing unlawfully for Patagonian toothfish: The 'Camouco' Case (Panama v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 5.

37 The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Oral proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, ITLOS/PV.02/03 (13 December 2002), 15.

38 The 'Camouco' Case (Panama v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 5, Separate Opinion of V-P Nelson, 3.

39 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 111(4) (entered into force 16 November 1994) provides that a hot pursuit is commenced where the pursuing ship has satisfied itself 'by such practicable means as may be available' that the vessel is within the EEZ. Australia's position is that this subjective test is not undermined if subsequent, more accurate land-based calculations determine that there had been an error in determining the precise location of the vessel at the time of the first communication and that the vessel was in fact outside the EEZ at the relevant time. To hold otherwise, this argument proceeds, would be to defeat the rationale of the hot pursuit doctrine by invalidating an otherwise lawful action to enforce a coastal state's laws in its EEZ due to a mistaken – but reasonable – determination of the location of the vessel. It is also Australia's position that the requirement in art 111(4) for the pursuing vessel to give a stop order might be satisfied by the necessary implication that a vessel is required to stop if a message is given that the vessel will be boarded from a helicopter: The 'Volga' Case (Russian Federation v Australia) (Prompt Release) (Oral proceedings) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, ITLOS/PV.02/02 (12 December 2002), 13.

40 The 'Volga' Case (Judgment) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, 24.

41 On 4 December 2002, Australia, pursuant to art 17(2) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Annex VI to LOSC, and without objection from Russia, notified the Tribunal of its intention to choose Mr Ivan Shearer AM, Challis Professor of International Law, University of Sydney, to participate as judge ad hoc. The sitting judge on ITLOS from the Russian Federation is Judge Kolodkin.

42 The 'Volga' Case (Judgment) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, 25.

43 Ibid. See, eg, LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 226(1)(c) (entered into force 16 November 1994).

44 The 'Volga' Case (Judgment) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, 25.

45 Ibid 26.

46 Ibid 28.

47 The 'Volga' Case (Judgment) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson, 3.

48 Ibid 4.

49 Ibid 7.

50 Ibid 9.

51 The 'Volga' Case (Judgment) (2002) ITLOS Case No 11, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Shearer, 3.

52 Ibid 4.

53 Ibid 6–7.

54 Ibid 8.

55 Ibid 1.

56 For reviews see Rainer Lagoni, 'The Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Preparatory Report' (1996) 11 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 147; David Anderson, 'Investigation, Detention and Release of Foreign Vessels under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and Other International Agreements' (1996) 11 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 165; Tullio Treves, 'The Proceedings Concerning Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea' (1996) 11 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 179; E D Brown, 'The M/V Saiga Case on Prompt Release of Detained Vessels: The First Judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea' (1998) 22 Marine Policy 307; Bernard Oxman and Vincent Bantz, 'The “Grand Prince"' (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law 219.

57 The M/V 'SAIGA' Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (1997) ITLOS Case No 1; The 'Camouco' Case (Panama v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 5; The 'Monte Confurco' Case (Seychelles v France) (Prompt Release), (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 6; The 'Grand Prince' Case (Belize v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2001) ITLOS Case No 8; The 'Chaisiri Reefer 2' Case (Panama v Yemen) (Prompt Release) (Order 2001/4 of 13 July 2001) ITLOS Case No 9.

58 The 'Camouco' Case (Panama v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 5; The 'Monte Confurco' Case (Seychelles v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 6; The 'Grand Prince' Case (Belize v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2001) ITLOS Case No 8. See, also, Donald R Rothwell, 'The Law of the Sea and the Antarctic Treaty System: Rougher Seas Ahead for the Southern Ocean?' in Julia Jabour-Green and Marcus Haward (eds), The Antarctic: Past, Present and Future (2002) 113, 122-3; Stuart Kaye, International Fisheries Management (2001) 468-9; Sam Bateman and Eric Grove, 'Maritime Enforcement in the Southern Ocean: Some Operational and Policy Considerations' in Sam Bateman and Donald R Rothwell (eds) Southern Ocean Fishing: Policy Challenges for Australia (1998) 115, 117.

59 See LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, arts 218(4), 220(7), 226(1)(b), 228(1), 292(1) and (4) (entered into force 16 November 1994).

60 The 'Monte Confurco' Case (Seychelles v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 6.

61 The 'Camouco' Case (Panama v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 5, [67].

62 The 'Monte Confurco' Case (Seychelles v France) (Prompt Release) (Judgment) (2000) ITLOS Case No 6, [76].

63 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 73(2) (entered into force 16 November 1994).

64 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Report of the Twenty-first Meeting of the Commission, Report No XXI (2002) 39.

65 Ibid 39―41. See, also, arguments that the LOSC regime needs 'modernising': Kevin Bray, 'Fish or Foul: Can the Law of the Sea and International Fisheries Co-Exist?' International Law Downunder: Antipodean Contributions and Challenges (Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, Canberra, Australia, 13–14 June 2001) 113, 114 <http://law.anu.edu.au/anzsil/Conferences/2001proceedings.pdf> at 25 April 2003.

66 See, generally, Warwick Gullett, Chris Paterson and Elizabeth Fisher, 'Substantive Precautionary Decision-Making: The Australian Fisheries Management Authority's “Lawful Pursuit” of the Precautionary Principle' (2001) 7 Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy 95.

67 See, for example, offences with regard to threatened species (ss 18A, 196) and migratory and marine species (ss 20A, 211, 254).

68 LOSC, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, art 73(2) (entered into force 16 November 1994).