Andrew Serdy, Ph.D. (2009, Australian National University), is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Southampton, specialising in the Law of the Sea. Previously of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia), he has published widely on ocean resources law.

"Serdy’s monograph re-examines the merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), in which an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the LOSC) declined to proceed to the merits on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. [..] The monograph draws the reader’s attention to the new perspectives that the Whaling case provides concerning the judicial review of allegedly scientific programmes targeting marine living resources." - Valentin Johannes Schatz, Research Associate, Chair of Public International Law, University of Trier

• The Other Australia/Japan Dispute on Living Marine Resources: Inferences on the Merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration in Light of the Decision in the Whaling CaseAndrew Serdy Faculty of Business, Law and Art University of Southampton1Introduction2The Whaling case judgment3Southern bluefin tuna: the fish4Historical overview of the Japanese SBT fishery5First interactions6The state of the stock7The first quotas and their subsequent reduction8Gestation of the dispute – interpretation of CPUE9Impasse in the CCSBT10Japan’s experimental fishing11The relevant law identified in the Statements of Claim12The ITLOS hearing and Order13The parties’ arguments before the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal14The Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal’s Award on jurisdiction15Resolution of the disputeaThe SBT Scientific Research ProgrambJapanese commercial catch affected by the ITLOS OrdercThe new-old quota of 200316Issues left unresolved because the case did not go to the meritsaPossible damaging admissions by Japan in the Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionbBest scientific evidence (design of the experimental fishing programme and analysis of its results)cThe allegation that Japan’s experimental fishing was commercially motivateddDecision-making in the CCSBT and the duty of cooperationeThe relationship between conservation and optimum utilisation17Concluding observationsAPPENDIX SBT fishery scienceMaximum sustainable yield – the surplus production model of fisheriesVirtual population analysisScientific advice to managers

Andrew Serdy, Ph.D. (2009, Australian National University), is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Southampton, specialising in the Law of the Sea. Previously of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia), he has published widely on ocean resources law.

"Serdy’s monograph re-examines the merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), in which an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the LOSC) declined to proceed to the merits on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction. [..] The monograph draws the reader’s attention to the new perspectives that the Whaling case provides concerning the judicial review of allegedly scientific programmes targeting marine living resources." - Valentin Johannes Schatz, Research Associate, Chair of Public International Law, University of Trier

• The Other Australia/Japan Dispute on Living Marine Resources: Inferences on the Merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration in Light of the Decision in the Whaling CaseAndrew Serdy Faculty of Business, Law and Art University of Southampton1Introduction2The Whaling case judgment3Southern bluefin tuna: the fish4Historical overview of the Japanese SBT fishery5First interactions6The state of the stock7The first quotas and their subsequent reduction8Gestation of the dispute – interpretation of CPUE9Impasse in the CCSBT10Japan’s experimental fishing11The relevant law identified in the Statements of Claim12The ITLOS hearing and Order13The parties’ arguments before the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal14The Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal’s Award on jurisdiction15Resolution of the disputeaThe SBT Scientific Research ProgrambJapanese commercial catch affected by the ITLOS OrdercThe new-old quota of 200316Issues left unresolved because the case did not go to the meritsaPossible damaging admissions by Japan in the Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionbBest scientific evidence (design of the experimental fishing programme and analysis of its results)cThe allegation that Japan’s experimental fishing was commercially motivateddDecision-making in the CCSBT and the duty of cooperationeThe relationship between conservation and optimum utilisation17Concluding observationsAPPENDIX SBT fishery scienceMaximum sustainable yield – the surplus production model of fisheriesVirtual population analysisScientific advice to managers