The Development of International Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-152
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang

Abstract The development of international law of the sea by international courts and tribunals is generally acknowledged among international lawyers. In retrospect, the creative jurisprudence of international judicial bodies was incorporated into the mainstream of international law-making process in many cases, while the experience of failure cannot be ignored. In the past decade, the strengthening of marine environmental protection has become a tendency in international adjudication. Accordingly, the content and scope of due diligence obligation has been discovered, consolidated and extended. In light of the evolution of due diligence obligation, the methodology of law-making by international judicial bodies includes: inter alia, interpretation, cross-reference of precedents, analogy, and assertion. However, from the perspective of legitimacy, law-making should not become the normal function of international judicial bodies. Bearing in mind international rule of law and good administration of justice, the lawmaking activities of international courts and tribunals should be curtailed in certain degree.

Author(s):  
Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott

Abstract The conventional understanding of due diligence in international law appears to be that it is a concept that forms part of primary rules. During the preparatory stages in creating the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), the International Law Commission (ILC) focused on due diligence as though it could have formed part of secondary rules. Despite this process, no due diligence provision forms part of the ARSIWA. Yet a number of the final provisions are based on primary rules. This is because the ILC relied on the method of extrapolation in attempts to create secondary rules. Extrapolation is a method of international law-making by which the output of an analytical process is reproduced in a different form following an examination of its content that exists in other forms. In using this method, the ILC attempted to create secondary rules by extrapolating from primary rules. Yet it did not do so with respect to due diligence. However, due diligence can be formulated and applied differently by using this same method. This article analyses the steps of this process to construct a vision of where international legal practice should venture in the future. In learning from and amalgamating the dominant trends in different areas of international and domestic law, this article proposes that due diligence could exist as a secondary rule of general international law. By formulating and applying due diligence as a secondary rule, there is potential to develop the general international law applicable to determining state responsibility for the conduct of non-state actors.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Eder

China aims to become a “leader country” in international law that “guides” the international legal order. Delivering the first comprehensive analysis of case law and Chinese academic debates from 2002 to 2018, this book shows that gradually increased engagement with international adjudication is part of a broad effort to consolidate China’s economic and political gains, and regain great power status. It covers trade, investment, territorial and law of the sea matters – including the South China Sea disputes – and delineates a decades-long process between caution and ambition. Both in debate patterns and in actual engagement, this book finds remarkable similarities in all covered fields of law, merely the timetables differ.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 389-393
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Appel

Sara Mitchell and Andrew Owsiak's examination of the impact of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Article 287 declarations on the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes significantly advances the literature on the relationship between international law/international courts and maritime issues. To their credit, the authors employ a wide range of empirical tests in the article to provide readers with confidence in the empirical results. Nonetheless, there are some important limitations in their approach. Drawing on insights from the causal inference literature, I argue that Mitchell and Owsiak's empirical analyses suffer from two biases that both (1) raise concerns about the causal relationships identified in the article, and (2) suggest some important scope conditions in its empirical findings. I investigate the biases and propose suggestions for legal scholarship to produce more credible results.


2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-238
Author(s):  
Sergei Iu. Marochkin

AbstractIn this article, the author discusses the problem of ensuring equality and non-discrimination in a legal system. Equality and non-discrimination constitute universally recognized standards in the protection of human rights. At the same time, one can hardly assert that the universal community has put an end to discrimination. The author considers the problem as applied to the Russian legal system. The standard is incorporated in the Russian Constitution still remains topical in Russia. Based on his analysis of legislation and judicial practice, the author concludes that the problem reveals itself on the levels of both law-making and law application, the latter including administration of justice. As one of the conclusion, the author raises a question: is legal discrimination inherent in a legal system like other negative phenomena, such as delinquency, incoherencies, lacunas, defects, conflicts of legal norms and breaches of law-making procedural rules?


Author(s):  
Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik

Abstract The article explores the current stagnation in multilateral law-making based on an analysis of recent treaty attempts across various subfields of international law. It further examines why the law of the sea has continued to evolve despite this trend. The article demonstrates that states still regularly seek multilateral treaties to address new challenges. While there is some evidence of general treaty saturation, it is the current inability of traditional great powers to negotiate new binding norms which is the most constraining factor on multilateral law-making. This in turn is related to deeper geopolitical shifts by which traditional great powers, notably the United States and its allies, have seen their relative influence decline. Until the current great power competition ends or settles into a new mode of international co-operation, new multilateral treaties with actual regulatory effect will rarely emerge. The law of the sea has avoided the current trend of stagnation for primarily three reasons (i) a global commitment to the basic tenets of the law of the sea; (ii) a legal framework that affords rights and obligations somewhat evenly disbursed, allowing less powerful states to use their collective leverage to advance multilateral negotiations, despite intermittent great power opposition; and (iii) the avoidance of entrenched multilateral forums where decisions are reached by consensus only.


Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

This chapter briefly discusses the nature of the international legal system. The premise is that the structure of the international legal system is fundamentally different from that of national legal order: contrary to the vertical structure encountered in domestic settings, in international law the structure is horizontal. States enjoy sovereign equality, while both international law-making and international adjudication are based on the consent of the States. There are various theories that have attempted to describe the nature of the international law, including naturalism, positivism, formalism, and realism. Also significant is the existence of a certain hierarchy in the international legal system, in the sense that there are some peremptory norms of international law, such as the prohibition of torture and genocide, to which there is no derogation.


Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

This chapter briefly discusses the nature of the international legal system. The premise is that the structure of the international legal system is fundamentally different from that of national legal order: contrary to the vertical structure encountered in domestic settings, in international law the structure is horizontal. States enjoy sovereign equality, while both international law-making and international adjudication are based on the consent of the States. There are various theories that have attempted to describe the nature of the international law, including naturalism, positivism, formalism, and realism. Significant is also the existence of a certain hierarchy in the international legal system, in the sense that there are some peremptory norms of international law, such as the prohibition of torture and genocide, to which there is no derogation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document