## Facts

- A Japanese-flag fishing vessel, the 88th *Hoshinmaru*, held a Russian-issued license to fish for salmon and trout in specified areas of the Russian exclusive economic zone (EEZ), including set quantities of sockeye and chum salmon.
- While operating in Russia’s EEZ, the vessel was boarded and inspected by Russian authorities, who alleged the catch records misreported approximately 20,000 kg of sockeye salmon as lower-value chum salmon.
- Russia treated the alleged misreporting as a serious fisheries violation connected to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing concerns, detained the vessel and crew, and brought them to a Russian port.
- Russia set a bond of 22,000,000 roubles, calculated with reference to potential fines, procedural costs, an asserted environmental-damage component, and the vessel’s value.
- Japan sought the vessel’s and crew’s prompt release, asserting the bond was disproportionate given the alleged reporting offense, the vessel’s valid license, and the cooperative fisheries relationship between the States.
- Japan initiated prompt-release proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under UNCLOS article 292, invoking article 73(2)’s requirement of prompt release upon posting a reasonable bond or other security.

## Issues

1. Whether Russia failed to comply with UNCLOS article 73(2) by conditioning prompt release of the vessel and crew on an unreasonable bond.
2. Whether the 22,000,000-rouble bond was disproportionate in light of the alleged offense and surrounding circumstances.
3. What amount and form of bond or other financial security was appropriate for prompt release under UNCLOS articles 73(2) and 292.

## Decision

- ITLOS held it had jurisdiction under UNCLOS article 292 and that Japan’s application was admissible.
- ITLOS emphasized the limited scope of article 292 proceedings: it would not decide the merits of the alleged fisheries violations or the lawfulness of the arrest, but only whether prompt release had been denied or unreasonably conditioned.
- ITLOS found that Russia had not complied with UNCLOS article 73(2) because the bond set was not reasonable in the circumstances.
- ITLOS ordered the prompt release of the *Hoshinmaru* and its crew upon Japan’s posting of a reduced bond or other financial security in an amount determined by the Tribunal, lower than the bond fixed by Russia.

## Legal Principles

- UNCLOS article 292 provides an expedited remedy enabling a flag State to seek review of whether a coastal State has complied with the Convention’s prompt-release obligations, without requiring exhaustion of local remedies.
- In article 292 proceedings, the tribunal does not adjudicate guilt, the legality of the arrest, or the underlying fisheries-law dispute; it assesses compliance with the obligation of prompt release upon a “reasonable bond or other security.”
- “Reasonableness” of a bond under UNCLOS article 73(2) is an objective assessment that depends on the circumstances, including the seriousness of the alleged offense and the potential penalties under domestic law.
- A reporting violation may be treated as serious because inaccurate reporting can undermine conservation and management regimes, even where the vessel holds a valid license and is authorized to fish in the EEZ.
- Bond components and overall amount must remain proportionate to the alleged conduct and enforcement aims; a bond that effectively negates prompt release is inconsistent with article 73(2).
- State-to-State cooperation relevant to the regulated fishery may be considered when calibrating the bond amount in a prompt-release setting.

## Conclusion

ITLOS ordered prompt release because the coastal State’s bond was unreasonable under UNCLOS article 73(2), clarifying that prompt-release security must be proportionate to the alleged offense and circumstances, including the seriousness of reporting violations and the cooperative context between the States.


Hoshinmaru (Japan v. Russ. Fed’n), Case No. 14 (Int’l Trib. L. Sea Aug. 6, 2007)