The Timor Sea Conciliation under Article 298 and Annex V of UNCLOS: A Critique

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-325
Author(s):  
Xuexia Liao
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Timor Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Comprehensive Manner ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

Abstract This paper studies the first compulsory conciliation proceeding under Article 298 and Annex V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It assesses the competence and conciliation proceedings in a comprehensive manner, with a view to understanding how conciliation may contribute to settling maritime boundary disputes. This paper reviews the conciliation commission’s interpretation of Article 281, Article 298(1)(a)(i) and other relevant provisions of Annex V to UNCLOS, and discusses the question of whether a pre-existing treaty between the parties can preclude resort to compulsory conciliation under Article 298(1)(a)(i), a question largely left unanswered by the commission. Furthermore, this paper examines the conciliation proceedings and the outcomes in the light of the law of maritime delimitation.

Rethinking the Concept of Historic Rights in International Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-165
Author(s):  
Ying Wang
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Abstract Historic rights have been acknowledged by international legislation including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, although many issues concerning the concept still remain uncertain. This article will mainly discuss the legal connotation and juridical functions of the concept of ‘historic rights’ for maritime entitlements and maritime boundary delimitation, and attempt to clarify some legal ambiguity and explain the function of the legal regime through analysis of legal documents and identification of typical difficulties in the application of the concept of ‘historic rights’.

Maritime Dispute

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Abhimanyu George Jain
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On January 27, 2014, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered its judgment in a dispute between Peru and Chile concerning the maritime boundary between them. The Court held that a partial maritime boundary already existed between the parties, and it proceeded to analyze both its nature and its extent on the basis of agreements between the parties, their practice, and other evidence. For the remainder of the boundary extending up to 200 nautical miles, the Court applied the rule of equitable delimitation found in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

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.

How to Amend UNCLOS and Why It Has Never Been Done

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-83
Author(s):  
Chris Whomersley
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
International Maritime Organisation ◽  
Consensus Procedure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Labour Organisation

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains detailed provisions concerning its amendment, but these have never been used and this article explores why this is so. States have instead maintained the Convention as a “living instrument” by adopting updated rules in other organisations, especially the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. States have also used the consensus procedure at Meetings of the States Parties to modify procedural provisions in UNCLOS, and have adopted two Implementation Agreements relating to UNCLOS. In addition, port State jurisdiction has developed considerably since the adoption of UNCLOS, and of course other international organisations have been active in related fields.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document