Welcome back. In this video, we will focus on the Dispute Settlement Architecture of the law of the Sea Convention. It is very important to understand the whole picture before we can focus on arbitration. UNCLOS is a very sophisticated text that devotes nearly 100 articles to dispute settlement, and provides for a multiplicity of procedures. For this reason, it is often contended that it constitutes a comprehensive framework. But, is it really so? In other words, does UNCLOS regulate every aspect of dispute settlement, or is there room for mechanisms outside the conventions framework? This is the question that will answer in this video. The dispute settlement procedures under UNCLOS are set out in Part 15 of the Convention. They form an integral part of the convention rather than being contained in a separate optional protocol. This is a very important point. Practically speaking, this means that when a state consents to be bound by UNCLOS, it accepts its detailed regulation of dispute settlement procedures. They are part of the package such as say. And bear in mind that no reservations to UNCLOS are possible, therefore states cannot opt out. To make this possible, it was necessary to grant state parties freedom to choose what procedures for settling disputes they preferred, and a wide array of options to choose from. The basic principle underpinning Part XV is, as long as states resolve their disagreements through peaceful means, they can freely choose the means of settlement. The convention provides for both voluntary and compulsory procedures for settling disputes. Voluntary procedures are traditional consent-based procedures, such as negotiation, reconciliation, or settlement through a separate agreement. Voluntary procedures include a dock arbitration outside the conventions framework if both parties consent to it. You will find more details on these procedures in Part XV Section 1 of UNCLOS. Compulsory procedures are those that entail a binding third-party settlement. They are set out in Part XV Section 2 of UNCLOS. And comprise the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, The International Court of Justice, and Arbiter Tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII, and a special Arbiter of Tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for certain categories of disputes. This compromise between compulsory third-party settlement, and flexibility is the product of years of negotiations during the diplomatic conference preceding the adoption of UNCLOS. Some states saw the compulsory settlement was necessary to safeguard the text of the convention in two main ways. First, the convention was innovative in many respects, and the assumption was that these innovations would produce disputes. And second, compulsory dispute settlement would also ensure uniform interpretation of the convention. Some developing states also favored a binding regime as a way to safeguard their rights against more powerful states. All states are equal before the law and history prove them right. In fact, there have been a few examples of disputes involving unequal parties. Think for example of the case brought by Mauritius against the UK concerning the Chagos Archipelago ordered by the Philippines against China concerning their maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. Some aspects of the Law of the Sea were considered to be too politically sensitive to be automatically subject to compulsory arbitration or adjudication. The exclusions and limitations to compulsory settlement are set out in section 3 of Part XV. There are also three categories of disputes the states can exclude from compulsory settlement by means of a written declaration. These are disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military or law enforcement activities, and disputes in relation to which the Security Council is exercising its functions under the UN Charter. That's what you need to remember, is that compulsory settlement in Section 2 is subject to the exclusions and limitations in Section 3 of Part XV. Let's now turn to the relationship between voluntary and compulsory procedures. To put it simply, voluntary procedures take precedence over compulsory procedures. Let's take the example of two states that have agreed to settle their dispute through negotiation. Either state can resort to the compulsory procedures under Section 2 if two conditions are met. First, if no settlement was reached through the negotiation. And second, if the procedure agreed to doesn't exclude recourse to the compulsory means of settlement under Section 2 of UNCLOS. This is stipulated in Article 281 of the convention. The key point of controversy here is whether there must be an explicit exclusion of other dispute settlement procedures or not. We will return to this point later on. But there is another scenario that we need to consider, and that is when the parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS are also parties to an agreement which has its own dispute settlement mechanism entailing binding decisions. So, does Part XV apply in this case, or does the other agreement prevail? Article 282 of UNCLOS provides that the dispute settlement procedures under other agreements apply instead of the compulsory procedures under UNCLOS. And finally, when a dispute arises, states have an obligation to exchange views concerning the means of settlement to be adopted. This underscores the importance of negotiations. Again, a state party to a dispute cannot resort to the compulsory procedures in Section 2 without having first fulfilled their obligation to exchange views. As you can see, the compulsory procedures in Section 2 of UNCLOS are procedural to the voluntary dispute settlement procedures in Section 1. In this video, we have highlighted some of the compromises underpinning the dispute settlement system of the Law of the Sea Convention. The key principle that you need to remember is peaceful settlement with free choice of means. The parties to a dispute can agree to peaceful dispute settlement mechanisms of their own choice, including outside the convention's framework. And these take precedence over the compulsory procedures in the convention. This fact demonstrates that Part XV UNCLOS is not a truly comprehensive regime for the compulsory settlement of disputes concerning the Law of the Sea. And that alternative disputes resolution mechanism play an important role. In the next video, we will have a closer look at Arbitration under UNCLOS.