International Maritime Dispute Resolution: Comparative Insights from ITLOS and ICJ Rulings

Abstract

International maritime disputes increasingly demand principled, consistent, and technically informed mechanisms for peaceful settlement. This study offers a comparative analysis of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the two primary judicial bodies adjudicating maritime conflicts under international law. By examining landmark rulings on maritime delimitation, navigational rights, fisheries, and environmental protection, the research evaluates how each institution interprets the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), applies judicial reasoning, and balances equity with predictability. The study identifies key divergences in procedural approaches, evidentiary standards, and jurisprudential philosophies, as well as notable convergences that are gradually shaping a more coherent body of maritime law. Through doctrinal analysis and case comparison, the paper highlights the complementary roles of ITLOS and the ICJ in strengthening rule-based ocean governance and suggests how their evolving jurisprudence can guide states toward more effective dispute resolution strategies. The objective of this study is to comparatively assess how ITLOS and the ICJ interpret and apply international maritime law in resolving disputes in order to understand their contributions to a coherent and effective maritime dispute-resolution framework. The expected outcome of this study is a clearer understanding of the key similarities and differences in ITLOS and ICJ rulings, offering insights that can help states choose more effective pathways for resolving maritime disputes.

Dhaka University Law Journal, 2026, 37 (1), 179-201