Stakeholders in Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

  • Natalie KleinEmail author
Conference paper


The role of various actors in dispute settlement processes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) may be assessed from different perspectives to assess the relevance or salience of those actors in decision-making processes. This chapter utilises a stakeholder identification theory, more commonly utilised in management contexts, to identify and prioritise the interests of different actors from the perspective of the judge in reaching decisions to advance the goals of UNCLOS dispute settlement. The theory is tested against the decisions made on the interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS in the South China Sea arbitration. The use of stakeholder identification theory enables us to examine the position of superpowers, as well as other states and non-state actors, in relation to a particular legal question and consider how well their interests and claims are met in judicial decision-making under UNCLOS. The author concludes that the theory is a useful explanatory tool and could bring greater transparency in decision-making but acknowledges limitations in its applicability to the UNCLOS context.


  1. Alter KJ (2012) The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. In: Jeffrey LD, Mark AP (eds) International law and international relations: synthesizing insights from interdisciplinary scholarship. Cambridge University Press, pp 345–370Google Scholar
  2. Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia) (Award, 14 August 2015) PCA Case No. 2014-02 (Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Award))Google Scholar
  3. Beckman R (2013) The UN convention on the law of the sea and the maritime disputes in the South China sea. Am J Int Law 107(1):142–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Damrosch LF, Oxman BH (2013) Agora: the South China sea, editors introduction. Am J Int Law 107:95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation) PCA Case No. 2017-06 (Black Sea Arbitration)Google Scholar
  7. Driscoll K, Starik M (2004) The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. J Bus Ethics 49:55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duzgit Integrity Arbitration (Malta v. São Tomé and Príncipe) (Award, 5 September 2016) PCA Case No 2014-07 (Duzgit Integrity Arbitration)Google Scholar
  9. Eesley C, Lennox MJ (2006) Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strat Manag J 27:765–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elferink AGO (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration’s Interpretation of Article 121(3) of the LOSC: A Disquieting First. JCLOS Blog.
  11. Etzioni A (1964) Modern organizations. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk R, Juergensmeyer M, Popovski V (eds) (2012) Legality and legitimacy in global affairs. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Franck TM (1995) Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. PitmanGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman N (2012) Sex on the bench: do women judges matter to the legitimacy of international courts. Chicago J Int Law 12:647–686Google Scholar
  16. Guyana v Suriname (Award, 17 September 2007) PCA Case No. 2004-04 (Guyana v Suriname Arbitration (Award))Google Scholar
  17. Klein N (2016) Rocks and Islands after the South China sea arbitration. Aust Year Book Int Law 34:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein N, Parlett K (2021) Judging the law of the sea: judicial contributions to the UN convention on the law of the sea. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Krasner SD (1982) Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. Int Organ 36(2):185–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McDorman TL (2016) The South China sea arbitration. Am Soc Int Law Insight 20(17).
  21. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell RK, Lee JH, Agle BR (2017) Stakeholder prioritization work: the role of stakeholder salience in stakeholder research. In: Wasieleski DM, Weber J (eds) Stakeholder management. Emerald Publishing, pp 123–157. Scholar
  23. Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 18 December 2000, Declaration of Judge Vukas) ITLOS Reports 2000, 122 (Monte Confurco Case (Declaration of Judge Vukas))Google Scholar
  24. Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 18 December 2000, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson) ITLOS Reports 2000, 128 (Monte Confurco Case (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anderson))Google Scholar
  25. Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 18 December 2000) ITLOS Reports 2000, 86 (Monte Confurco Case)Google Scholar
  26. Mossop J (2016) Protests against oil exploration at sea: lessons from the arctic sunrise arbitration. Int J Mar Coast Law 31:60–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parent MM, Deephouse DL (2007) A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. J Bus Ethics 75:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Permanent Court of Arbitration (2017) Press Release, Timor-Leste and Australia continue engagement with Greater Sunrise Joint Venture and agree timeframe for signature of maritime boundary treaty.
  29. Qui J, Liu W (2009) Should the Okinotori Reef be entitled to a continental shelf? A comparative study on uninhabited Islands in extended continental shelf submissions. China Oceans Law Rev 2009(2):221–238Google Scholar
  30. Smith LH (2017) To accede or not to accede: an analysis of the current US position related to the United Nations law of the sea. Mar Policy 83:184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China) (Award, 25 October 2015) PCA Case No. 2013-19 (South China Sea Arbitration (Jurisdiction and Admissibility))Google Scholar
  32. South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China) (Award, 12 July 2016) PCA Case No. 2013-19 (South China Sea Arbitration (Award))Google Scholar
  33. Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Australia v. Japan; New Zealand v. Japan) (2000) 39 ILM 1359 (Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, Jurisdiction and Admissibility)Google Scholar
  34. Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) (1999) 38 ILM 1624 (Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases)Google Scholar
  35. Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20:571–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Talmon S (2014) The South China sea arbitration: is there a case to answer? In: Talmon S, Jia BB (eds) The South China sea arbitration: a Chinese perspective. Hart, pp 15–79Google Scholar
  37. Talmon S (2017) The South China sea arbitration and the finality of “final” awards. J Int Dispute Settlement 8:388–401Google Scholar
  38. The ‘Camouco’ Case (Panama v France), Prompt Release (Judgment of 7 February 2000) Case Reports 2000, 10 (Camouco Case)Google Scholar
  39. The ‘Volga’ Case (Russian Federation v Australia), Prompt Release (Judgment of 23 December 2002, Declaration of Vice-President Vukas) ITLOS Reports 2001, 42 (Volga Case (Declaration of Vice-President Vukas))Google Scholar
  40. The ‘Volga’ Case (Russian Federation v. Australia), Prompt Release (Judgment of 23 December 2002) ITLOS Case Reports 2002, 10 (Volga Case (Judgment))Google Scholar
  41. The M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Panama v Italy) Preliminary Objections (Judgment of 4 November 2016) ITLOS Case No. 25: (M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Preliminary Objections))Google Scholar
  42. The M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case (Panama/Guinea-Bissau) (Judgment of 14 April 2014) ITLOS Reports 2014 (M/V ‘Virginia G’ Case)Google Scholar
  43. Trevisanut S (2017) Twenty years of prompt release of vessels: admissibility, jurisdiction, and recent trends. Ocean Dev Int Law 48:300–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Triggs G (2006) International law: contemporary principles and practices. Lexis NexisGoogle Scholar


  1. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Antarctic Division (undated) Marine Reserve.
  2. The Guardian (2015) Obama says China bullying smaller nations in South China Sea row.
  3. United Nations (undated) Status of UNCLOS and related agreements as at 31 July 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South Wales, Faculty of LawSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations