Arbitration of the Philippine Claim Against China

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.C.W. PINTO

AbstractThis paper discusses the Tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over the Philippine claim notwithstanding China’s publicly declared and law-based withholding of consent to the proceedings instituted by the Philippines. The Tribunal relied on its interpretation of China’s general commitment under Section 2 of Part XV (Settlement of Disputes) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1 which was subjected to a Convention-authorized “exception” under Article 298 (China’s Declaration of 25 August 2006) that had selectively deprived any such proceeding of the essential element of China’s consent. The paper calls for inventive consideration of the methods available for resolving disputes, which might be seen currently as excessively influenced by procedures designed for resolving international trade disputes where only one party is a state.

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves

Abstract This article examines in detail the obligations of ‘due regard’ found in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It considers the way these are reflected in the International Seabed Authority (ISA) current Prospecting and Exploration Regulations, and then looks at the way that ‘due regard’ obligations have been considered by international courts and tribunals and by scholars. It then considers the specific ‘due regard’ issues raised by cable laying, and the modalities for settlement of disputes that may arise from such activities.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted L McDorman

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.


Author(s):  
Erik Franckx ◽  
Aster Boeye

According to a 2018 count, there are twenty-two states that claim archipelagic state status. It was only after the independence of the Philippines and Indonesia at the end of the Second World War, when both countries made unilateral claims during the 1950s, that the demand for a specific regime for archipelagic states became articulated. Third states wanted to retain their navigational rights in archipelagic waters for economic and military purposes, while the archipelagic states wanted to claim these archipelagic waters as internal waters, following the swift development of the concept of coastal archipelagos after the 1951 judgement of the International Court of Justice through the creation, and codification a few years afterward, of the notion of straight baselines. The concept of an archipelagic state was only incorporated in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 LOSC), after nine years of negotiations on this issue during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, 1973–1982), of which the first session was totally devoted to procedural matters. At the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, 1958) and during its preparatory work undertaken by the International Law Commission (ILC, 1949–1956), the Special Rapporteur J. P. A. François already developed the concept of a group of islands or archipelagic states in 1953. States were, however, unable to find common ground because the concept at that time. Especially the legal nature of the waters on the inside of the archipelago proved to be elusive. It was consequently deleted from the ILC draft and even though specific proposals were introduced during UNCLOS I and II (1960) on this issue, neither conference reached any conclusion on the matter. The issue was picked up again during the work of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction (Sea-bed Committee) in 1971, which prepared the agenda for UNCLOS III. At UNCLOS III, the debate after a while (1976) totally narrowed down to mid-ocean archipelagic states, dashing the hopes of continental states, sometimes referred to as mixed states, to see their mid-ocean “archipelagos” included in the system being elaborated at that time. In the early 21st century, the provisions of Part IV of the 1982 LOSC determine the regime of archipelagic states in international law of the sea and can be considered as progressive development of international law. Never before had such a concept been written down in an international treaty. Due to the package-deal approach, a balance of interests can clearly be found in these provisions. New concepts are created such as archipelagic states, archipelagic baselines, and archipelagic sea-lanes passage, all of which are being carefully defined in the 1982 LOSC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document