1. It is with great regret that I submit the present dissenting opinion. I am unable to lend support to the present Order because in my view, for the reasons explained below: the request submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (hereinafter “the Netherlands”) is inadmissible; the Tribunal wrongly concludes that the arbitral tribunal, to be constituted, would have prima facie jurisdiction; and a decision by the Tribunal on provisional measures does not conform to the requirements set out in article 290, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter “the Convention”). 

Prima facie jurisdiction and admissibility 

2. The Netherlands and the Russian Federation take differing positions on the question of whether a disagreement between them on the Russian Federation’s rights and obligations as a coastal State in its exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf may be subject to the procedures contained in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention.