ممنوعیت توسعه صلاحیت دیوان دائمی داوری فراتر از کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها در پرونده کشتی اِنریکالِکسی

The PCA's position in the Enrica Lexie case is based on Annex VII to the UNCLOS and its jurisdiction is limited to its provisions. The resolution of the disputes between the two flag and coastal states in this case depends on a decision on the functional immunity of two naval officers stationed on a non-state merchant ship, the status of which is not addressed in the UNCLOS. To resolve this issue, the PCA is compelled to expand its jurisdiction beyond the provisions of the UNCLOS and to rely on other doctrines of public international law, an approach that is questionable in criminal matters. Examining the dimensions of this approach through a descriptive-analytical method constitutes one of the goals and necessities of the present paper and possesses research innovation. The main question of the research is: What are the dimensions of the prohibition on expanding the jurisdiction of the PCA beyond the UNCLOS in the Enrica Lexie case? The research findings show that the investigation into the immunity of two naval officers of the flag state is outside the jurisdiction of the PCA. The concept of naval immunity of the flag state—which bars the coastal state from exercising its criminal jurisdiction—is a matter of a criminal nature, and the examination of its dimensions falls outside the jurisdiction of the PCA. Expanding the jurisdiction of the PCA—by treating the issue of the coastal state's criminal jurisdiction as the principal issue while the status of the functional immunity of the flag state's naval riflemen is examined as a secondary issue—is subject to prohibition. This approach is wrong and disposable, even though its outcome was fair and favorable to the parties to the dispute.