1. Though I share the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in this case, including the finding that the Annex VII tribunal has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, I do not agree with the reasoning sustained and the interpretation given by paragraphs 48 to 53 of the Order in respect of the application of article 282 of the Law of the Sea Convention, on the relationship between that Convention and the OSPAR Convention.
2. The interpretation made seems to be too narrow, to the point of precluding the possibility that in some cases the choice of procedure under article 282 might be applicable.
3. It is precisely because the parallelism of treaties is a frequent device used by States in regulating their different interests, establishing including the parallelism of procedures for the settlement of disputes that may arise, that article 282 was inserted in the Law of the Sea Convention to indicate which procedure should prevail in case there is a situation of competing settlement procedures between the Law of the Sea Convention and an agreement of a general, regional or bilateral nature.
4. The OSPAR Convention is one of such regional agreements referred to in article 282. The issue here was therefore for the Tribunal to determine whether the procedure indicated in the OSPAR Convention should prevail over the procedures of the Law of the Sea Convention, as claimed by the United Kingdom.