A Reappraisal of the ITLOS Judgment in The M/V “Norstar†Case (Panama v. Italy) (10 April 2019): A Framework of Non-Flag State Measures under UNCLOS and the Exclusive Flag State Jurisdiction

This article reassesses the M/V “Norstar†judgment (ITLOS, 10 April 2019) from the perspective of balancing the interests of flag states and coastal states under UNCLOS. The judgment, which found Italy in violation of Article 87(1) by issuing a decree of seizure targeting the Norstar's bunkering activities on the high seas, has attracted substantial scholarly criticism for its sparse reasoning. Contrary to the prevailing view that the majority and the joint dissenting opinion represent opposing interpretations of Articles 87 and 92, this article argues that both opinions share a common understanding: non-flag state measures may, in certain circumstances, violate these provisions even without physical enforcement. The fundamental disagreement concerned the characterization of Italy's conduct -specifically, whether the decree of seizure “criminalized†the Norstar's lawful high seas activities. This reading is supported by UNCLOS's regulatory structure, under which coastal state authority diminishes progressively from the territorial sea through the EEZ to the high seas. The article also identifies unresolved questions regarding the distinction between measures directed at vessels and those directed at persons on board and highlights the limited verifiability of the judgment's reasoning due to the largely non-public nature of the documents relied upon.