Prohibition on Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration Beyond the Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Enrica Lexie Case

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-state and coastal state 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 silent in the UNCLOS. To resolve this issue, the PCA will have to expand its jurisdiction beyond the provisions of the UNCLOS and rely on other doctrines of public international law, an approach that is questionable in criminal matters. Examining the dimensions of this approach, relying on descriptive and analytical methods, is one of the goals and necessity of the present paper, which has 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 prevents the coastal state from exercising its criminal jurisdiction, is a matter of a criminal nature, the examination of its dimensions is not within the jurisdiction of the PCA. The expansion of the jurisdiction of the PCA by considering the issue of the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal state as the main issue is at stake in examining the status of the executive immunity of the marines of the flag state as a secondary issue that faces prohibition. This approach is wrong and disposable, even though its outcome was fair and favorable to the parties to the dispute.