Arbitragem internacional sob o anexo VII da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar e as controvérsias mistas: análise de casos recentes

Alexandre Pereira da Silva

Resumen


Nos últimos anos duas arbitragens internacionais constituídas sob o anexo VII da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar (CNUDM) – “Arbitragem sobre a Área Marinha Protegida de Chagos (Maurício vs. Reino Unido)” e “Arbitragem do Mar da China Meridional (Filipinas vs. China)” – parecem ter emitido sinais contraditórios sobre a jurisdição dessas cortes arbitrais para lidar com as disputas mistas, ou seja, aquelas controvérsias que envolvem questões de direito do mar, mas também aspectos de soberania territorial. Uma terceira arbitragem instituída sob o mesmo regime jurídico da CNUDM – “Disputa Relativa aos Direitos do Estado Costeiro no Mar Negro, Mar de Azov e Estreito de Kerch (Ucrânia vs. Rússia)” –, ainda em andamento, também apresenta características de uma disputa mista e, como as anteriores, terá que enfrentar o dilema se tem ou não jurisdição para analisar os pedidos formulados pelo Estado demandante. Portanto, este artigo, que empregou os métodos dedutivo e comparativo, por meio de pesquisa bibliográfica e análise de decisões arbitrais, procura examinar como as duas primeiras arbitragens, já concluídas, trataram a questão das disputas mistas e como a terceira, em curso, poderá reagir frente a desafios similares.

Palabras clave


Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Direito do Mar; Arbitragem internacional; Anexo VII; Disputas Mistas; Jurisdição

Texto completo:

PDF (Português (Brasil))

Referencias


BUGA, Irina. Territorial Sovereignty Issues in Maritime Disputes: A Jurisdictional Dilemma for Law of the Sea Tribunals. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 27, 2012, pp. 59-95.

CHINA. Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 3 de janeiro de 2019.

DE SANTO, E. M.; JONES, P. J. S.; MILLER, A. M. M. Fortress Conservation at Sea: A Commentary on the Chagos Marine Protected Area. Marine Policy, vol. 35, 2011, pp. 258-260.

KARAMAN, Ygor V. Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012.

LOW, Jocelyn Chan. The making of the Chagos Affair: myths and reality. In: EVERS, Sandra J. T. M.; KOOY, Marry (eds.). Eviction from the Chagos Islands: Displacement and Struggle for Identity Against Two World Powers. Leiden: Brill, 2011, pp. 61-79.

OXMAN, Bernard H. Courts and Tribunals: The ICJ, ITLOS, and Arbitral Tribunals. In: ROTHWELL, Donald R., OUDE ELFERINK, Alex G., SCOTT, Karen N., STEPHENS, Tim. The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 394-415.

PROELSS, Alexander. The Limits of Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae of UNCLOS Tribunals. Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics, vol. 46, 2018, pp. 47-60.

QU, Wensheng. The Issue of Jurisdiction Over Mixed Disputes in the Chagos Marine Protection Area Arbitration and Beyond. Ocean Development & International Law, vol. 47, n. 1, 2016, pp. 40-51.

RAO, Patibandla Chandrasekhara. Law of the Sea, Settlement of Disputes. Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 3 de janeiro de 2019.

SCHATZ, Valentin; KOVAL, Dmytro. Insights from the Bifurcation Order in the Ukraine vs. Russia Arbitration under Annex VII of UNCLOS. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 3 de janeiro de 2019.

SLOBODA, Pedro Muniz. Anexação da Crimeia pela Rússia: uma análise jurídica. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Internacional, vol. 13, 2014, pp. 1-22.

TZENG, Peter. Ukraine v. Russia and Philippines v. China: Jurisdiction and Legitimacy. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 46, n. 1, 2017, pp. 1-19.

UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Treaty Collection. Status of Treaties. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 3 de janeiro de 2019.

VOLTERRA, Robert G.; MANDELLI, Giorgio F.; NISTAL, Álvaro. The Characterisation of the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 33, 2018, pp. 1-9.

WHOMERSLEY, Chris. The South China Sea: The Award of the Tribunal in the Case Brought by Philippines against China – A Critique. Chinese Journal of International Law, n. 15, 2016, pp. 239-264.

WOLFRUM, Rüdiger. Statement by the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Informal Meeting of Legal Advisers of Ministers Foreign Affairs, New York, 23 October 2006. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 3 de janeiro de 2019.

YEE, Sienho. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Potential Jurisdictional Obstacles or Objections. Chinese Journal of International Law, vol. 13, 2014, pp. 663-739.

Casos

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ). Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 40.

PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION (PCA). PCA Case no. 2011-03. In the matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Reasoned Decision on Challenge, 30 November 2011.

_____. PCA Case no. 2011-03. In the matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Procedural Order no. 2 (Application to Bifurcate Proceedings), 15 January 2013.

_____. PCA Case no. 2011-03. In the matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Award, 18 March 2015.

_____. PCA Case no. 2011-03. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Dissenting and Concurring Opinion. Judge James Kateka and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum.

_____. PCA Case no. 2013-19, In the matter of an arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015.

_____. PCA Case no. 2013-19, In the matter of the South China Sea arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award, 12 July 2016.

_____. PCA Case no. 2017-06. In the matte of an arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in respect of Dispute Concerning Coastal States Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait, Procedural Order no. 3 (Regarding Bifurcation of the Proceedings), 20 August 2018.

_____. PCA Case no. 2017-06. In the matte of an arbitration before an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in respect of Dispute Concerning Coastal States Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait, Procedural Order no. 4 (Regarding the Timetable for the Parties’ Written Pleadings on Jurisdiction), 27 August 2018.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v16i1.5893

ISSN 2236-997X (impresso) - ISSN 2237-1036 (on-line)

Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia