The Effectiveness of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as a Global Security Institution in the Resolution of the M/V Saiga Dispute (1997-1999)

This study analyzes the effectiveness of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as an international institution for the peaceful settlement of maritime disputes through the M/V Saiga case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea, 1997–1999). Using a qualitative case-study method, it examines primary legal materials, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the two distinct ITLOS proceedings: the 1997 prompt-release case (Case No. 1) and the 1999 merits case (Case No. 2). Guided by Robert O. Keohane’s Neoliberal Institutionalism, the analysis applies four indicators: dispute resolution, prevention of conflict escalation, clarification and application of international law of the sea, and state compliance with tribunal rulings. The 1997 judgment ordered the prompt release of the vessel and its crew upon the provision of a bond, while the 1999 judgment examined the merits of the dispute, including the legality of Guinea’s conduct under UNCLOS and compensation. Taken together, the proceedings illustrate the value and limits of judicial dispute settlement: ITLOS can clarify legal obligations and provide binding remedies, but effectiveness also depends on implementation. The Bangladesh/Myanmar maritime-boundary case (2012) is used as a brief comparison, not as a substitute for analysis of both M/V Saiga proceedings.