While voting against, I believe it is necessary to clarify certain points with respect to the present case. The following observations meant to explain briefly my position on requirements of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the Convention”) related to the prescription of provisional measures and my reservations regarding the use of a bond or other security as provisional measures. 

1. The option of prescription of provisional measures is well-known to both domestic and international proceedings. Their main purpose is to ensure that pending settlement of a dispute, its subject or the relevant rights and interests of the parties are not transformed or distorted so much that the prevailing party would be prevented from recovering the subject or enjoying claimed rights and interests. Thus, provisional measures are intended to restrain or otherwise direct actions of parties prior to a decision on the merits of a dispute itself.