Southern Bluefin Tuna (Australia & New Zealand v. Japan)
Australia-New Zealand-Japan Arbitration Tribunal
39 I.L.M. 1359 (2000)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
In 1982, the United Nations passed the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was enacted in 1994. UNCLOS provided, in part, that disputes pertaining to international maritime law be submitted to compulsory arbitration. In 1993, Australia (plaintiff), New Zealand (plaintiff), and Japan (defendant) concluded the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT Convention). The SBT Convention set quotas for the number of bluefin tuna that may be caught. The SBT Convention also provided different procedures for resolving disputes than UNCLOS. In 1994, Japan sought an increase in its allotment of bluefin tuna. Australia and New Zealand denied the request, and Japan later instituted a unilateral program in which Japan allowed fishermen to fish for bluefin tuna in excess of the SBT Convention’s quotas. Australia and New Zealand invoked the compulsory arbitration provisions of UNCLOS. Japan argued that the arbitration tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the procedures under the SBT Convention controlled.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
