The Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), ITLOS Case No. 10, Order, Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum (December 3, 2001)
I concur fully with paragraph 89 as well as with the reasoning of the Order in general. The following observations are meant to add to the reasoning or to emphasise certain elements therein.
Article 282 of the Convention
The United Kingdom challenges the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to be established under Annex VII of the Convention by invoking article 282 of the Convention. The United Kingdom argues that parts of the case could have been brought or, in fact, had already been brought before different procedures for the settlement of disputes. Since such procedures as the one provided for in the OSPAR Convention or the Court of Justice of the European Communities would entail binding decisions, they would take precedence over the dispute settlement system as provided for in Part XV, section 2, of the Convention. This does not sufficiently take into consideration either the wording of article 282 of the Convention, the context in which it has to be read, or the objective pursued by Part XV of the Convention. The dispute settlement system under the OSPAR Convention is designed to settle disputes concerning the interpretation and application of that Convention and not concerning the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 220 of the EC Treaty empowers the Court of Justice of the European Communities to “… ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed …”. This provision has to be read together with article 292 of the EC Treaty, according to which “Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.” This does not suggest that the Court of Justice of the European Communities will decide on disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention.