Panel I: International Procedural Law Before the ICJ, the ITLOS and Annex VII Arbitral Tribunals

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The panel provides valuable insights into procedural law, drawing on the extensive experience of the speakers. Prof. Kohen’s presentation is particularly strong, offering a comparative analysis that highlights both commonalities and differences between watercourse and maritime disputes. He supports his arguments with references to specific cases, such as Pulp Mills, Chagos, South China Sea, and ARA Libertad, demonstrating a solid grounding in jurisprudence. The discussion is well-structured and addresses key procedural challenges, including jurisdiction, admissibility, and provisional measures. The argumentation is persuasive, though it reflects the speakers’ professional perspectives rather than a neutral academic analysis.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The panel maintains a high level of scientific rigor, with speakers citing specific cases and legal provisions. The sources are primarily judicial decisions and treaties, which are appropriate for the topic. The title accurately reflects the content, focusing on procedural law before the three main forums for law of the sea disputes. The discussion is well-organized and stays on topic, with minimal deviation. The speakers’ expertise adds credibility, and the references to case law are precise. However, as a panel discussion, it does not provide a comprehensive literature review or systematic analysis, but it offers valuable expert perspectives.

The title accurately reflects the content, which focuses on procedural law before the ICJ, ITLOS, and Annex VII arbitral tribunals.

8/10

The panel features highly qualified legal experts (professors and practitioners) with direct experience in international dispute resolution. The discussion is grounded in established legal frameworks and case law, providing a reliable overview of procedural issues. However, as a panel discussion, it reflects expert opinions and interpretations rather than peer-reviewed research.

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

• 00:00Introduction by Prof. Alfred Soons and opening remarks by conference organizers.
• 11:00Prof. Marcelo Kohen begins his presentation on commonalities between watercourse and law of the sea disputes.
• 20:00Discussion of jurisdiction issues, including references to Pulp Mills and Chagos cases.
• 30:00Analysis of admissibility, joinder of cases, and counterclaims with examples from Costa Rica/Nicaragua cases.
• 40:00Examination of provisional measures, including the ITLOS's role and the requirement of urgency.
• 50:00Discussion of the obligation to exchange views under Article 283 UNCLOS and its interpretation.
• 1:00:00Conclusion of Prof. Kohen's presentation and transition to the next speaker.

• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — Referenced as the primary legal framework for law of the sea disputes, particularly Article 283 on exchange of views.
• Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) — Cited as an example of jurisdiction and provisional measures in international watercourse disputes.
• Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) — Mentioned in the context of jurisdiction and territorial sovereignty issues in Annex VII arbitration.
• South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China) — Referenced as a recent example of non-participation and jurisdictional challenges.
• ARA Libertad (Argentina v. Ghana) — Cited in the discussion of provisional measures and the requirement of exchange of views.

• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea — The panel's discussion aligns with the provisions of UNCLOS, particularly Part XV on dispute settlement.
• ICJ Statute — The procedural rules of the ICJ are relevant to the discussion on jurisdiction and provisional measures.

• South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China)