In a time of increasing resort by states to international dispute settlement, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has become one of the pre-eminent institutions for the settlement of disputes between states. With a jurisdiction and jurisprudence extending from “prompt release” cases to provisional measures and maritime boundary delimitation, as well as international fisheries and the international seabed, the tribunal is having an important impact in the development of the law of the sea. The jurisprudence of the tribunal has increased steadily and, as is the case with all new judicial institutions, keeping track of decisions, categorizing them, and putting them within a framework for further study and analysis is a challenge. In this regard, Bimal Patel, an eminent international legal scholar at Gujurat National Law University, has provided a great service to the international law community with his Case Commentary, Case-Law Digest and Reference Guide to the jurisprudence of ITLOS.

The work, which covers all of the decisions of ITLOS from its inception to the “ARA Libertad” (Argentina v Ghana) case of December 2012, ^{Footnote 1} is divided into four parts. The first part is a commentary on each of the cases, which gives an account of the facts and highlights the key legal contributions of the case. The second part, which constitutes the major part of the work, provides a digest of the cases, fitting them into their subject areas and noting the legal principles discussed in the case in each area. From this, one can obtain an insight into the diverse contribution to the development of the law of the sea made by the tribunal. The third part, which is the reference guide, is divided into two subparts. The first subpart deals with the contentious cases before ITLOS, and the second subpart deals with advisory opinions. The third part of the article reviews the decisions already commented upon by the author in the first part but considers them in terms of their more formal aspects. For each case, information is provided on the institution of proceedings, what is claimed, the number of hearings, the orders made, the date of any judgments, the operative part of the judgment, the legal instruments referred to, a list of the declarations made by the judges and of the concurring and dissenting opinions, and a list of the representatives of the parties. The fourth part provides the basic texts of the tribunal; its statute, its rules and their amendments, the tribunal’s resolution on its internal practice, and its guidelines on the preparation and presentation of cases and the posting of bonds.

Patel is no stranger to the production of case digests of this kind. As Judge Peter Tomka, a former president of the court from 2012 to 2015, points out in his foreword, Patel had already produced reference guides for the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He has obviously given much thought to how to structure the material in the way it will be of use to students, scholars, and practitioners. The work provides an opportunity to reflect on the contribution of the tribunal. Unlike a court of general jurisdiction, ITLOS has a jurisdiction that is quite specific in certain areas, particularly in relation to the prompt release of vessels. This is a relatively new concept that came into being with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ^{Footnote 2} Patel uses the now common abbreviation for the convention of “UNCLOS”—a term that in the past was applied to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Since the concept was new, ITLOS had to elaborate its own jurisprudence on prompt release, including the posting of bonds, about which the tribunal has issued guidelines for states. ^{Footnote 3} The application of these rules by ITLOS has not been without controversy, and there have been a significant number of dissents and separate opinions.

The digest gives a useful insight into the range of issues dealt with by ITLOS in dealing with prompt release cases; both specific to the prompt release issue and of more general application, such as the extent of the rights of a coastal state within its exclusive economic zone and the right of the flag state to bring claims on behalf of non-nationals who are on board their vessels. Indeed, when one looks at the categories and sub-categories of international law set out in the digest, which include the high seas, nationality of ships, conservation and the management of marine living resources, principles governing the Area (as it is termed by Part XI of UNCLOS), and, of course, maritime boundary delimitation, one sees the diversity of the contribution of the tribunal. And within each area, there are sub-categories, such as the immunity of warships and the right of hot pursuit. In short, the work of ITLOS, rather than narrowly focused, has become a significant part of the corpus of modern-day public international law.

What is interesting is that prompt release, which in its early years was the bread and butter of the tribunal’s work, is not listed in the digest as a separate category. Instead, it is treated as the principal topic under the headings for the high seas and freedom of navigation. No doubt some of the tribunal members in those early years were somewhat frustrated at having to deal with such matters as the setting of bonds and the proceeds from the sale of vessels and their catch — topics that did not fall within the purview of international lawyers in the past — but, as Patel’s work illustrates, in dealing with these topics, the tribunal was making an important contribution not only to the interpretation and application of specific provisions of the convention but also to international law more generally.

The involvement of ITLOS in deciding maritime boundary disputes was eagerly awaited. Would the tribunal simply follow the jurisprudence that had been developed by the ICJ and arbitral tribunals or would it undertake a critical analysis of that jurisprudence and set its own path? ITLOS chose the former course, largely endorsing the existing jurisprudence, although making additional contributions to areas not yet dealt with by the ICJ. In particular, it has made an important contribution on the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and the “grey area” problem. ^{Footnote 4} The tribunal has endorsed the articulation of the ICJ in Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) of the so-called “equidistance-relevant circumstances” method of delimitation, which entails a “three-stage” approach of, first, the drawing of an equidistance line; second, seeing if that line should be adjusted in the light of “relevant circumstances”; and, third, the determination of whether the result is disproportionate — the “disproportionality” test. ^{Footnote 5} In doing so, the tribunal simply adopted and maintained the intellectual and practical contradictions of this method — in particular, the overlap in the application of the first and second stages, drawing a provisional equidistance line and then adapting it to reflect relevant circumstances. It may be hoped that as the tribunal deals with further maritime boundary cases it will give additional thought to coherency in the application of this method.

Any new international dispute settlement body is confronted by issues that are to a certain extent procedural in nature but are necessary preconditions to dealing with the substantive claims: is there a “dispute”; is there jurisdiction; are the claims admissible; and has there been an exhaustion of local remedies? ITLOS has engaged on all of these questions, and a significant section of the digest is devoted to them. The tribunal has also had to deal with the non-appearance of a party and the challenges to which this gives rise for ensuring equality between the parties. An important part of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is considering applications for provisional measures, which raises its own questions of jurisdiction, as well as questions of harm and environmental impact, and the digest identifies them all. The fact that ITLOS decides on provisional measures with respect to cases that are dealt with on the merits by an Annex 7 tribunal leaves open the possibility of inconsistency between the two dispute settlement bodies, as illustrated in Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan). ^{Footnote 6}

Modelled on the ICJ’s Statute, the ITLOS Statute also contains the power to give advisory opinions, and the tribunal has done so on two occasions — one by the Seabed Disputes Chamber in regard to the responsibility of states sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area ^{Footnote 7} and one by the tribunal on the obligations of states with respect to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. ^{Footnote 8} Unfortunately, the opinion of the tribunal in regard to the latter request was delivered after the completion of the digest. As a result, the digest focuses on the advisory opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber.

A final chapter of the digest is headed “General,” which deals with issues for which Patel presumably could not find appropriate categories or it would have resulted in a series of single-category listings. Within this chapter, however, there are some important sub-categories concerning the legal contributions of ITLOS. These include both procedural and substantive issues relating to treaties and their interpretation, obligations relating to due diligence and the precautionary approach, the relationship of treaties to domestic law, and the concept of estoppel.

A digest is, of course, no substitute for reading the cases that are digested, but it does give guidance on where to look and what to look for. And it provides a quick way of finding what has been said by the tribunal in particular areas, and such details as who were the dissenting judges, what were the claims, and who were the counsel in a particular case — matters that would otherwise require more extensive research. A user can readily find what a case is all about and, thus, whether it should be considered further in researching a particular topic.

However, the digest is more than this. Patel has provided a ready insight into the jurisprudence of ITLOS and its contribution to international law and provided greater insight into the functioning of this dispute settlement institution. One appreciates from Patel’s work how much ITLOS has adopted and endorsed the jurisprudence of the ICJ throughout its decisions and not just in respect of maritime boundary delimitation. In this way, the tribunal has contributed to avoiding fragmentation in key areas of international law, one of the matters on which Patel hoped his work would throw light, as he notes in the book’s introduction and acknowledgements. More generally, this volume gives clear evidence that in its relatively short existence ITLOS has established itself as an institution that has gained credibility and respect in international law and relations.

The digest is well produced and carefully presented. It is a work of value to students, scholars, and practitioners. It is easy to use, and the categories generally can be followed and understood with facility. Perhaps the only lack is that of an index, which would greatly facilitate searching the digest. A final thought — a work of this nature needs continuous updating, and another edition would be welcome before too long. Indeed, Patel describes this as a first edition. Where continuous updating is needed, then an electronic form of this work would make considerable sense. Thus, an enterprising publisher should make it possible for Patel to provide a searchable online publication of this work that could be updated regularly and would take Patel’s remarkable achievement with this book an important further step.