scholarly journals Remarks by Joanna Mossop

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zones ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Economic Zones

The Tribunal's conclusion that Itu Aba and other features in the South China Sea are rocks that are incapable of generating exclusive economic zones came as a surprise to some scholars and government officials who have never interpreted Article 121(3) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the strict way adopted in this case. In the absence of any previous judicial interpretation of the article, a range of interpretations of Article 121(3) have been seen in the academic literature, and in state practice. Although much of the decision is extremely well argued, I must disagree with the Tribunal's approach to Article 121(3).

Scrutinising the Maritime Zones Around Australia’s Sub-Antarctic Islands

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-65
Author(s):  
Karina Galliford
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zones ◽  
State Practice ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Economic Zones

Abstract In 2016, the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal was the first tribunal or court to interpret Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Tribunal’s interpretation raises international law questions regarding the validity of claimed exclusive economic zones (eezs) and continental shelf maritime areas around many islands including Australia’s sub-Antarctic Islands. Owing to their geographical remoteness, harsh climates, lack of resources, as well as never been ‘home’ to any group of people in a settled way, questions have been raised as to the validity of Australia’s claimed maritime zones with respect to Article 121(3) in both pre- and post-South China Sea Arbitral Award commentary. The article assesses the validity of Australia’s claim by applying the Tribunal’s interpretation of Article 121(3) to the physical and historical facts of the Islands while raising alternate interpretations offered by prior and subsequent commentary. Three examples of possible State practice are reviewed for evidence of other interpretations that may have been agreed to by parties to the Convention. The findings are that Heard and Macquarie Islands are likely classified as islands entitled to an eez and continental shelf whereas McDonald Island is more likely to be an Article 121 ‘rock’.

scholarly journals Fishery Depletion and the South China Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaymes MacKinnon
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zones ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Economic Zones ◽  
The Relationship

Fishery depletion is a driving force in the militarization of the South China Sea. Using Garrett Hardin’s theory “the tragedy of the commons” as an analytical lens, this paper explores the relationship between the lack of legitimate territory designations and the illegal overexploitation of wild fish stocks. It argues that China, as the regional hegemon, has triggered conflicts by pursuing an agenda of maritime territorial expansionism. Some Southeast Asian countries, affected by these resource-driven incursions, defend their exclusive economic zones through military buildup. Therefore, the rising violence and decreasing availability of fish force some non-commercial fishermen to pursue piracy as an alternate form of income. The findings of this paper suggest that increased militarism of the South China Sea has not only predominantly affected the lives of non-commercial fishermen but also negatively impacted the regional environmental health. In the future, without multilateral resource management, this militarization will only worsen.

scholarly journals Remarks by David Freestone

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 4-7
Author(s):  
David Freestone
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
China Sea ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Unclos ◽  
Arbitration Award

As a teacher of international law for more years than I care to admit, I have to declare at the start of my comments that I admire the South China Sea Arbitration Award greatly. It presents an interpretation of the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on islands and rocks in a comprehensive, carefully considered and intellectually satisfying way. As my colleagues will doubtless point out, it does present problems relating to current existing state practice, but it does to my mind capture what the UNCLOS III drafters had in mind when the 1982 Convention text was put together.

The South China Sea

Asian Survey ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein Tønnesson
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
Government Behavior ◽  
China Sea ◽  
The Law

The article looks at three ways in which international law has affected government behavior in the South China Sea. It has exacerbated disputes. It has probably curtailed the use of force. And it has made it difficult to imagine solutions that violate the law of the sea.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunalin Philippines V.China Under UNCLOS and in the absence of China

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 266-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Parlett
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
China Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Law

It is not uncommon for decisions of international tribunals to be reported in the pages of the Washington Post or feature on the BBC News website. It is rather less common for awards to feature on the giant screens of New York’s Times Square. But less than two weeks after the Arbitral Tribuna lunder Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its Awardin Philippines v.China, a three-minute video featuring China’s position was broadcast repeatedly on the screen better known forbroadcasting New Year’s Eve festivities than argumentation on the competence of international tribunals. The video asserted that China’s “indisputable sovereignty over [the South China Sea islands] has sufficient historic and legal basis” and that “the Arbitral Tribunalvainly attempted to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.” It further stated that “China did not participate in the illegal South China Sea arbitration, nor accepts the Awardso as to defend the solemnity of international law.” This latter statement goes to the very heart of the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) and its competence to decide the case despite China’s nonparticipation in the proceedings.

An International Law Perspective on Insular Features (Islands) and Low-tide Elevations in the South China Sea

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted L McDorman
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
China Sea ◽  
The Law

The numerous insular features (islands/rocks) and low-tide elevations (reefs, shoals, etc.) within the South China Sea have long been the centre of attention and dispute involving Brunei, China (the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)), Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. This contribution focuses on said maritime features from the perspective of the law of the sea. A general overview is provided of the international legal rules that apply to islands, rocks and low-tide elevations with reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, customary international law and international adjudications. The article then examines what the littoral states have said and done respecting the insular features in the South China Sea and offers some reflections in the context of the Philippine-China arbitration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document