The MV Arctic Sunrise, a vessel bearing the flag of the Netherlands, was detained by Russian authorities. The Netherlands instituted Annex VII arbitral proceedings against the Russian Federation and requested the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to prescribe provisional measures for the immediate release of the vessel and its crewmembers. On January 22, 2013, the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings to challenge China’s claims over the South China Sea and the underlying seabed. Both China and Russia claim that the tribunal in question does not have jurisdiction, and neither of them appeared before the tribunal. This article offers an analysis of the facts and reasoning in the Arctic Sunrise case concerning Russia’s declaration and its nonappearance. Furthermore, this article explores the relevant provisions of UNCLOS and relevant views, as well as attitudes of ITLOS towards certain issues.

1. Overview
 2. The Significance of Arctic Sunrise Case
 3. The Order of Arctic Sunrise case
  A. The Russian Declaration to Exclude the Procedures in Section 2of Part XV of the UNCLOS
  B. The Non-Appearance of Russia
 4. Implications of the South China Sea Arbitration
  A. China’s 2006 Declaration on the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal
  B. Non-Appearance
 5. The Legal Nature of Non-Appearance
 6. Will Non-Appearance Hinder the Functioning of theTribunal?
 7. Would a One-Party Arbitration be Futile?
 8. Conclusion

• Chao Zhang(Shandong University School of Law)
• Yen-Chiang Chang(Shandong University Law School of Law)