On the occasion of Judge and Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum's 70 th birthday, it gives us great pleasure to contribute to this Festschrift in his honour with a chapter on provisional measures in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Judge Wolfrum, as a Member of that Tribunal since 1996 and its President from 2005 to 2008, has greatly contributed to the evolution of the practice of the Tribunal and the development of its jurisprudence. Moreover, from both his judicial office in Hamburg and his academic office as Director of the Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, he has made a great contribution to the international law of the sea and to international law more generally. The topic of our piece is thus perhaps a fitting tribute.
A. General Comments on Provisional MeasuresThe essence of provisional measures is to protect the rights at issue of either party in a case pendente litis, and to prevent the extension or aggravation of a dispute. Such measures were * Vice-President of the International Court of Justice. ** Lecturer in Law, Durham University. Served as Associate Legal Officer/Law Clerk to Vice-President Tomka, as well as Judge Bruno Simma, at the International Court of Justice from 2007-2010. 1 One of the classic statements justifying the indication of provisional measures was given by the International Court of Justice in Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland; Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports 1972, 16, para. 21, and 34, para. 22: "Whereas the right of the Court to indicate provisional measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Statute has its objective to preserve the respective rights of the Parties pending the decision of the Court, and presupposes that irreparable prejudice should not be caused to rights which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings, and that the Court's judgements should not be anticipated by reason of any initiative regarding the measures which are in issue …".discretion therefore permeates the very nature of provisional measures, although, in the case law of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at least, some criteria have been articulatedwhich help to define objectively the exercise of the power to indicate provisional measures. 2 ITLOS is not in a formal relationship with the ICJ, as both bodies stand independent of and separate from each other; yet in substance, there is a relationship between the two which follows from the fact that the substantive competences of both institutions are broadly situated in the field of the peaceful settlement of international disputes through judicial means. 3 There are of course differences in competence ratione materiae between the ICJ and the Tribunal.The ICJ has wider material jurisdiction over legal inter-state disputes in all areas of international law, whilst the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the interpretation or application of UNCLOS or an international instrument related to the purposes of UNCLOS. 4How...