Adjudication in Maritime Disputes

2019 ◽  
pp. 201-209
Author(s):  
Vladimir Golitsyn
Keyword(s):  
Maritime Disputes

South Korea’s and Taiwan’s Territorial Disputes with Japan, 1990s to 2018

Asian Survey ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 583-606
Author(s):  
Christina Lai
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
State Building ◽  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Constructivist Perspective ◽  
Senkaku Islands ◽  
Taiwanese Government

South Korea and Taiwan are former Japanese colonies that have undergone similar processes of state-building since WWII. But they have chosen different rhetorical frameworks in their maritime disputes with Japan. In South Korea, negotiating with Japan can be viewed as threatening the country’s independence and pride, whereas in the Taiwanese government, cooperation with Japan is considered mutually beneficial. Why have these two countries taken such divergent stances toward Japan? This article examines the territorial disputes between South Korea and Japan over Dokdo, and between Taiwan and Japan over the Senkaku Islands. It sets forth a rhetorical framework of comparison, and it proposes a constructivist perspective in understanding South Korea’s and Taiwan’s legitimation strategies toward Japan from the late 1990s to 2018. This comparative study suggests that the differences between their legitimation strategies can be traced to their different colonial experiences with Japan.

scholarly journals Defining eez Claims from Islands: A Potential South China Sea Change

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Beckman ◽  
Clive H. Schofield
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Face ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention

In the face of seemingly intractable territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea, the article examines how the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc), sets out what maritime claims States can make in the South China Sea and how it establishes a framework that will enable States to either negotiate maritime boundary agreements or negotiate joint development arrangements (jdas) in areas of overlapping maritime claims. It provides an avenue whereby the maritime claims of the claimants can be brought into line with international law, potentially allowing for meaningful discussions on cooperation and maritime joint development based on areas of overlapping maritime claims defined on the basis of the losc.

Submissions to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: The Practice of Developing States in Cases of Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes. Part Two

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 615-679
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Trinidad And Tobago ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Present Part

Abstract This is the second part of a two-part article surveying state practice regarding Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes under the Rules of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). It reviews basic principles and the interpretation of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the CLCS Rules. As the 2006 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh v. Myanmar Judgment reaffirmed, the CLCS Recommendations must in no way prejudice existing and prospective boundary delimitations, nor must they prejudice other land or maritime disputes. All practical means of giving effect to such “without prejudice” principles are carefully analysed. Part One covers Latin America and the Wider Caribbean, Northeast and Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific. The present Part Two covers South Asia and the Middle East, East Africa-Indian Ocean, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa.

scholarly journals Causal Inference, International Law, And Maritime Disputes

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 389-393
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Appel
Keyword(s):  
Causal Inference ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Empirical Tests ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Sara Mitchell and Andrew Owsiak's examination of the impact of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Article 287 declarations on the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes significantly advances the literature on the relationship between international law/international courts and maritime issues. To their credit, the authors employ a wide range of empirical tests in the article to provide readers with confidence in the empirical results. Nonetheless, there are some important limitations in their approach. Drawing on insights from the causal inference literature, I argue that Mitchell and Owsiak's empirical analyses suffer from two biases that both (1) raise concerns about the causal relationships identified in the article, and (2) suggest some important scope conditions in its empirical findings. I investigate the biases and propose suggestions for legal scholarship to produce more credible results.

scholarly journals Arbitrability of Maritime Disputes with a Public Element

2021 ◽  
pp. 196-205
Author(s):  
Anna G. Arkhipova ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina A. Abrosimova
Keyword(s):  
Maritime Disputes

scholarly journals The UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System: What Role Can It Play in Resolving Maritime Disputes in Asia?

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Ngoc NGUYEN
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The World ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
The Unclos

AbstractAsia is currently the scene of some of the most high-profile maritime disputes in the world. Even though the majority of states in Asia are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], its dispute settlement system has only been utilized in a handful of cases. Given that negotiations have brought about limited results in easing many of the tensions, it is worth asking whether the UNCLOS dispute settlement system can play a role in the resolution of maritime disputes in Asia. This paper, based on a review of the disputes before UNCLOS Tribunals, as well the advantages and limitations of the system, argues that the UNCLOS dispute settlement system can make meaningful contributions to resolving thorny disputes between Asian states. It does so by providing a solution to the disputes brought before them, clarifying the legal framework for the conduct of the parties and facilitating co-operation amongst countries in the region.

Experiences in Dealing with Maritime Disputes

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seokwoo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
Northeast Asia ◽  
The Yellow Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Development Zone ◽  
Joint Development ◽  
Fishery Resources ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Sustainable Fishery ◽  
Japan And China

Maritime disputes in the Northeast Asia region are nothing new. The Exclusive Economic Zone (eez) regime under the u.n. Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) spurred many coastal states, including these countries, to declare eezs. This has led Korea to conclude bilateral fishery agreements with Japan and China, with the goals of achieving sustainable fishery management in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and the Yellow Sea, and peacefully cooperating with these countries in sharing fishery resources in the region. While not without shortcomings, the agreements provide important procedures for cooperation in fisheries management and sustaining fishery resources. In addition to competition over fishery resources, Korea and Japan agreed to establish a Joint Development Zone (jdz) in 1974. Although the Korea-Japan jdz, however, has not produced oil so far, it nevertheless serves as a model for maritime dispute resolution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document