The Vicissitudes of Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Klein
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
China Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

The South China Sea Arbitration raises important questions about the potential operation of the dispute settlement system enshrined in Part xv of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc). This article explores the scope and different limitations that we are seeing in the interpretation of the losc dispute settlement regime with a particular focus on the South China Sea Arbitration. This examination questions the contours of the losc Part xv dispute settlement regime and its utility in resolving disputes relating to the South China Sea.

TheSouth China Sea Award: How Should We Read the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas GUILFOYLE
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
China Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThe conventional wisdom has been that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] Part XV dispute settlement system is narrowly restricted and this reflects the drafters’ intent. Thus, tribunals should cautiously interpret Part XV, giving broad effect to its jurisdictional limitations. The unanimous award inSouth China Seadeals this approach a blow. Indeed, it assumes a fundamentally different orientation to interpreting UNCLOS: one which implicitly takes the foremost principle of Part XV as being its compulsory and comprehensive character. This approach is rooted in a very different understanding of UNCLOS as a “package deal” and the consensus it reflects. Indeed, I argue that any interpretation of ambiguous provisions of UNLCOS is necessarily coloured by one’s view of the struggles involved in its negotiation. Further evidence of this difference of approach inSouth China Seais found, in particular, in its treatment of the regime of islands.

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.

Timor Sea dispute poses stability risk to East Timor

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
East Timor ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Economic Diversification ◽  
Content Type ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Timor Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention

Significance In the article, Ramos-Horta argues that Australia unfairly negotiated the Timor Sea maritime border. East Timor launched compulsory conciliation proceedings against Australia under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) earlier this month. Impacts Canberra's standoff with Dili will hinder its ability to pressure Beijing on the legality of South China Sea boundaries. The choice of offshore floating LNG facilities versus onshore investment will prove politically contentious in other jurisdictions. Much-needed economic diversification is unlikely to occur before vital revenues from the Bayu-Undan field drop off.

Maritime Archaeology and Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Disputed South China Sea

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Perez-Alvaro ◽  
Craig Forrest
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
South China ◽  
Maritime Archaeology ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Underwater Cultural Heritage ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
United Nations Convention

Abstract:China’s broad geopolitical strategy and positioning for global influence includes its averred legal position in relation to its sovereignty and jurisdiction in the South China Sea. A response to this legal position was the Philippines’ initiation of arbitral proceedings constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Despite the non-participation of China in these proceedings, the arbitral decision of 2016 clarified a number of legal provisions pertinent to the ongoing territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea. This decision impacted directly on China’s assertion of sovereign and jurisdictional historical title or rights, which, in part, relies on evidence obtained from underwater cultural heritage and the associated maritime archaeology. This article critically evaluates China’s maritime archaeology program and its policy with respect to underwater cultural heritage in light of the 2016 arbitral decision and the underlying international law of the sea. While recognizing that China’s policy is not inconsistent with its broader heritage policy, and its national approach to the protection of underwater cultural heritage, this article argues that this cannot be used to support China’s South China Sea claims and is not only misplaced, such as to pose a risk to the archaeological record, but also inconstant with international developments in the form of the 2001 United Nations Convention of the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.

Maritime Confidence-building Measures for Navigation in the South China Sea

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-297
Author(s):  
James Kraska
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
China Sea ◽  
Multilateral Agreements ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
United Nations Convention

This article considers the development and efficacy of maritime confidence-building measures (cbms) to ensure safe and secure navigation in the region, and to reduce tension and prevent conflict. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc) and the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (colreg) are multilateral agreements that set forth legally binding obligations of all states. The 2014 Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (cues) provides greater fidelity for duties of safe interaction at sea, but it is nonbinding. The two major powers signed in 2014 and 2015 a legally nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding (mou) on the Rules of Behaviour for Safety of Air and Maritime Encounters. This article concludes that the nonbinding instruments are unlikely to enhance navigational safety or security, and in some respects, may even undermine it.

scholarly journals South China Sea Arbitration and its Application to Dokdo

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seokwoo LEE ◽  
Leonardo BERNARD
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
China Sea ◽  
The World ◽  
United Nations Convention

AbstractOn 12 July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal formed under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its decision on the proceeding brought by the Philippines against China relating to certain activities in the South China Sea. The Tribunal’s decision was hotly anticipated as it dealt with various important issues relating to law of the sea and the interpretation of the Convention. It dealt with issues including the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the legal status of maritime features, historic rights, and duty to preserve the marine environment. Although it remains to be seen whether states will follow the Tribunal’s precedent, questions arose on whether such precedent can be applied to other unresolved issues in other parts of the world. This paper looks at the application of the precedent established by the South China Sea arbitration to the situation involving Dokdo between Korea and Japan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document