Практика международного трибунала по морскому праву - Джульетта Абгарян

57

Rosenne Sh. Provisional Measures in Interbational Law. OUP, 2005. P. 3.

58

Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Interim Measures) case, PCIJ, Series a/b 79, 1939. P. 199.

59

Rosenne Sh. Op. cit. P. 46.

60

Saxena J. N. Limits of compulsory jurisdiction in respect of the law of the sea disputes // Law of the sea. Caracas and beyond / Ed. by R. P. Anand. The Hague; Boston; L., 1980.

61

Декларации государств о выборе суда или арбитража см: Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, U. N. Office of Legal Affairs, Settlement of Disputes Mechanism: Choice of Procedure by States Parties Under Article 287 of the Convention. ‹http://www.un.org/Depts/los/lossdm1.htm›

62

Саксина Т. Г. Арбитражное урегулирование межгосударственных морских споров: Автореферат дисс… к. ю. н. М., 2007. С. 7.

63

Там же.

64

Хубиева М. Р. Практика международных судов и арбитражей, предусмотренных в Конвенции ООН по морскому праву 1982 г.: Дисс. к. ю. н. М., 2012. С. 28–29.

65

Хубиева М. Р. Указ. соч. С. 30.

66

Churchill R. Some Reflections on the Operation of the Dispute Settlement System of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea During its First Decade // The Law of the Sea. Progress and Prospects. Freestone D., Barnes R., Ong D. (eds). 2006. P. 294.

67

Хубиева М. Р. Указ. соч. С. 29.

68

Statement of Sri Lanka, 187th meeting. Official Records of the Third United nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Vol. 17. P. 48. Para. 161.

69

Statement by the UN Secretary-General, 14th meeting, 20 June 1974, Official Records of the Third United nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Vol. 1. P. 38. Para. 42.

70

Там же.

71

Предложение Перу о создании постоянной комиссии по морскому праву. UN Doc. A/Conf.62/L.22, Official Records of the Third United nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Vol. 9. P. 180.

72

Предложение Португалии относительно учреждения периодической конференции по морским делам. Doc. A/Conf.62/L.23, Official Records of the Third United nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Vol. 9. P. 181.

73

См.: Nordquist M. et al. eds. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. A Commentary. V. 5. 1989. P. 252–253.

74

См., напр.: Freestone D., Oude Elferink A. Flexibility and Innovation in the Law of the Sea: Will the LOS Convention amendment procedures ever be used? // Oude Elferink A. (ed.) Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: the Role of the LOS Convention, 2005. P. 173–183.

75

Freestone D., Barnes R., Ong D. (eds.). The Law of the Sea. Progress and Prospects. OUP, 2010. P. 14.

76

Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice. Address to the United Nations General Assembly. 26 October 1999.

77

Shigeru Oda. Some Reflections on the Dispute Settlement Clauses in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea // J. Macaraczyk (ed.) Essays in International Law, in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, 1984. P. 115.

78

A. Boyle. Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction//International and Comparative Law Quarterly. V. 46. 1997.

79

A. Boyle. Op. cit. P. 41.

80

Вспомогательный орган Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН, созданный для содействия кодификации и прогрессивному развитию международного права.

81

Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission «Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law» (Analytical Study) (2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682.

82

Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission «Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law» (Conclusions) (2006) UN Doc A/CN/.4/L.702.

83

См., напр.: Alvarez J. E. International Organizations as Law-makers. OUP, 2006. Р. 259.

84

Shahabuddeen M. Precedent in the World Court. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

85

Ibid. P. 232.

86

Ibid. P. 86, 90.

87

«stare decisis» – понятие в англо-американской юриспруденции, которое означает обязанность суда учитывать принятые ранее судебные решения, благодаря чему формируется прецедент.

88

Oda Sh. The International Court of Justice Viewed from the Bench (1976–1993) // Recueil des Cours, V. 244. 1993. P. 144–155.

89

Shahabuddeen M. Precedent in the World Court. P. 8–9.

90

Шинкарецкая Г. Г. Указ. соч. С. 100.