1. As I see it, this case involves, among other things, two major institutions of the law of the sea. One is the closely-negotiated new institution of the exclusive economic zone; the other is the venerable freedom of navigation. These institutions have never been the subject of indepth judicial scrutiny. Neither has the vaunted internal harmony of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereafter “the Convention”). The factual setting of this case underscores the need for such scrutiny. In this separate opinion, I interpret relevant provisions of the Convention in a systematic manner in accordance with the rules in articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.1 The emphasis is on ascertaining the meaning of the provisions in their context and in the light of their object and purpose, with reference, as appropriate, to supplementary means of interpretation.2 As necessary, prior law has also been referred to. At times, a literary source is doctrine.
2. Based on the Applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal has stated that the main rights claimed to have been violated by the Respondent are: