The contract cannot therefore be read in isolation or independently of the main contract or in contradiction with the main contract. In simple terms, the Maxim-Accessorium non ducit sed sed sequitur suum principal (an accessory does not draw, but follows its principle) finds its importance not only in the context of terms within a single agreement, but equally dynamically in the harmonization of separate but integrated main chords and accessories. Since the creation of the United Nations, the number of treaties and the themes they have addressed has increased considerably. It is increasingly common for the same issues to be addressed in complementary global, regional and bilateral treaties. Many of these treaties contain provisions for resolving disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the treaty itself. Only some of these provisions establish mandatory jurisdiction. These circumstances indicate an increasing likelihood of a dispute between states on the basis of the physical provisions of two complementary contracts with dispute resolution clauses, only one of which provides for mediation or a binding decision in general or in connection with that dispute. 70 Article 116, point a), of the LOS Convention states in particular: “All States have the right to fish their nationals on the high seas, subject to: (a) their contractual obligations”. See also Infra Note 125.
“It seems likely that an empirical examination would show that the first of these two characteristics is divided by a whole series of agreements, that the latter does not necessarily follow agreements that mention an arbitration procedure, but which have the first characteristic, and that the third is unusual (particularly in an article that begins with the repetition of the fundamental commitment of Article 33 of the United Nations Charter). In this context, the emphasis on the second feature, and in particular the third, in Part 57 of the arbitration award (see below) could be taken into account. Each jurisdiction before which a dispute has been filed under this party applies the relevant provisions of the LOS Convention, that agreement and any relevant sub-regional, regional or global fisheries agreement, as well as generally accepted standards for the conservation and management of marine biological resources and other rules of international law incompatible with the agreement. This assumption may have other consequences in communal law. The absence or exclusion of compulsory jurisdiction is generally not considered relevant to the intention of States to enter into a legally binding international law agreement. However, a municipal court, which is faced with a comprehensive action agreement applicable to all the provisions of a private agreement that includes the Confederation, could conclude that the express exclusion of any judicial, arbitrary or equivalent recourse for infringement is inconsistent with the intention to create a legally binding private law contract. As a result, it may nullify or unenforce the entire agreement.