The United States freedom of navigation program: A bridge for international compliance with the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea?

1996 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Galdorisi
Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (11 (109)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
German Gigolaev

The USA, as well as the USSR, initiated the convocation of the III UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973—1982). However, after the Ronald Reagan administration came to the White House, American diplomacy significantly changed its policy toward the Conference, which eventually resulted in US refusal to support the draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was worked out during the Conference. This behavior was in line with policy course of the Reagan administration — more aggressive than that of their predecessors. The article considers the American policy regarding Law of the Sea negotiations in the first months of Reagan's presidency, during the Tenth Session of the III UNCLOS.


1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-178 ◽  
Author(s):  

In 1982 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that succeeded in resolving the most fundamental questions of the law of the sea in accordance with three basic principles: 1.The rules of the law of the sea must fairly balance the respective interests of all states, notably the competing coastal and maritime interests, in a manner that is generally acceptable.2.Multilateral negotiations on the basis of consensus replace unilateral claims of right as the principal means for determining that balance.3.Compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms should be adopted to interpret, apply, and enforce the balance.


1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 808-816 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Watters

The Convention on the Law of the Sea, the culminating document of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, received favorable votes from 130 States in April 1982. The United States voted against approval. Articles 149 and 303, which address archaeological and historical objects found in various ocean zones, are compromise measures with ambiguous texts that are subject to interpretation. Archaeologists generally, not simply underwater archaeologists, should be concerned with these provisions because they could set an unfortunate precedent for future international negotiations involving cultural resources, and because they may apply to inundated prehistoric sites as well as to shipwrecks.


2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 295-373

295State immunity — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Articles 30, 31 and 32 — Rules applicable to warships — Non-compliance by warships with laws and regulations of coastal State — United States vessel entering restricted area of Philippine waters — Responsibility of flag State for damage caused by warship — Immunities of warships — Philippines–United States of America Visiting Forces Agreement, 1998 — Whether any waiver of immunity — Role of executiveSea — Treaties — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Convention not ratified by United States — Customary international law — Coastal State rights — Marine environment — Whether relevant provisions of treaty codifying customary international law — Whether United States responsible for environmental damage — Whether United States immune from suitJurisdiction — United States vessel entering restricted area of Philippine waters — Whether act jure imperii — Environmental damage — Whether United States having immunity — Whether Philippines barred from exercising jurisdiction over United States respondents — Article XVI of Philippines Constitution, 1987Environment — Marine environment — Right to a healthful ecology — Intergenerational responsibility — Writ of Kalikasan — The law of the Philippines


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document