CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

JAN ONDŘEJ other things, that in the case of a ship being chased, when the relevant steps are unsuccessful, only the last resort can be used to detain the ship. However, even in this case the pursued ship must be warned, and every effort must be made to ensure that human lives are not endangered. The case can be considered as an application of customary international law, 54 as rules of international law were not incompatible with the Convention on the Law of the Sea according to its Article 293. It can be stated that in particular the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea plays an important role in identifying, clarifying, establishing, and formulating the rules of international maritime law. 55 For example, in the ARA Libertad case, 56 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea interpreted the provisions of Article 32 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The tribunal stated: [t]hat, although Article 32 is included in Part II of the Convention entitled “Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone”, and most of the provisions in this Part relate to the territorial sea, some of the provisions in this Part may be applicable to all maritime areas, as in the case of the definition of warships provided for in Article 29 of the Convention. 57 In another case, 58 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea dealt with the interpretation of the term military activity in the sense of Article 298(1)(b) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. ‘In the view of the Tribunal, the distinction between military and law enforcement activities must be based primarily on an objective evaluation of the nature of the activities in question, taking into account the relevant circumstances in each case’ . 59 Also, the interim measures of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea play an important role in the protection of the marine environment, including marine living resources. 60 T he tribunal does not have to decide only in plenary, but can also create chambers. Such a chamber is the Seabed Disputes Chamber, which can make a significant contribution to clarifying the rules in relation to the seabed. On 1 February 2011, the Seabed Chamber unanimously adopted a historic advisory opinion. The assessment concerned the Responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and entities with regard to activities in the Area. 61 T he opinion is significant from the point of view of the interpretation of Article 139 of the Convention in the sense that the Seabed Disputes Chamber stated in this case that the state is only responsible for fulfilling its duty of vigilance. However, it is important, as emphasized in the opinion, that part of the duty of vigilance is also so-called direct obligations, which include obligations in the field of marine environment protection. The commitment is, for 54 CHURCHILL, R., LOWE, V., SANDER, A. The Law of the Sea . Fourth edition . Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2022, p. 42. 55 TANAKA, Y. The International Law of the Sea. Third edition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 535. 56 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, The ARA Libertad Case ( Argentina v. Ghana ) Order, List of Cases, No. 20, of 15 December 2012. 57 Order, par. 64. 58 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian Naval Vessels ( Ukraine v. Russian Federation ), Case No. 26. Order of 25 May 2019. 59 Order, par. 66. 60 TANAKA, Y. The International Law of the Sea. Third edition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, p. 535. 61 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area. Case No. 17. Advisory Opinion.http:// www.itlos.org/, 1 February 2011.

20