Scrutinising the Maritime Zones Around Australia’s Sub-Antarctic Islands

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-65
Author(s):  
Karina Galliford

Abstract In 2016, the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal was the first tribunal or court to interpret Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Tribunal’s interpretation raises international law questions regarding the validity of claimed exclusive economic zones (eezs) and continental shelf maritime areas around many islands including Australia’s sub-Antarctic Islands. Owing to their geographical remoteness, harsh climates, lack of resources, as well as never been ‘home’ to any group of people in a settled way, questions have been raised as to the validity of Australia’s claimed maritime zones with respect to Article 121(3) in both pre- and post-South China Sea Arbitral Award commentary. The article assesses the validity of Australia’s claim by applying the Tribunal’s interpretation of Article 121(3) to the physical and historical facts of the Islands while raising alternate interpretations offered by prior and subsequent commentary. Three examples of possible State practice are reviewed for evidence of other interpretations that may have been agreed to by parties to the Convention. The findings are that Heard and Macquarie Islands are likely classified as islands entitled to an eez and continental shelf whereas McDonald Island is more likely to be an Article 121 ‘rock’.

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop

The Tribunal's conclusion that Itu Aba and other features in the South China Sea are rocks that are incapable of generating exclusive economic zones came as a surprise to some scholars and government officials who have never interpreted Article 121(3) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the strict way adopted in this case. In the absence of any previous judicial interpretation of the article, a range of interpretations of Article 121(3) have been seen in the academic literature, and in state practice. Although much of the decision is extremely well argued, I must disagree with the Tribunal's approach to Article 121(3).


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen Tien Vinh

In the context of the long, complex disputes in Bien Dong (South China Sea) and the emergence of the use of force risks therefor, a long term solution based on a system of approaches and measures on deferent diplomatic, economic, and legal levels must be available. On the legal level, the Article analyzes the main contents of the Arbitration Award in the Philippines v. China Case regarding the status of islands and other features and the China's unreasonable claim on the nine-dash line and its actions in the South China Sea. Since then, the Article suggests the comments on the effects and consequences of the Award in light of the general perception that this Award is an important victory of international law in general and of the Law of the Sea in particular, this also is the victory of the countries, including Vietnam against China's unjustified unilateral claims and acts in the South China Sea. Keywords: South China sea; the arbitration award on South China sea, legal status of islands, the nine-dash line. References: [1] PCA Case Nº 2013-19, The South China Sea Arbitration, Award of 12 July 2016,https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086. [2] Nikos Papadakis, The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands, Sijthoff - Leyden, 1977. [3] Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Geneva 29 April 1958, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 516, p. 205.[4] Convention on the Continental Shelf, Geneva, 29 April 1958, United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 499, p. 311.[5] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay 10 December 1982.[6] Van Dyke, M. Jon and Bennett, Dale (1993), Islands and the Delimitation of Ocean Space in the South China Sea, 10 Ocean Yearbook.[7] Jonathan I. Charney (1999), Rocks That Cannot Sustain Human Habitation, American Journal of International Law, 93 A.J.I.L. 863.[8] Continental Shelf Area between Jan Mayen and Iceland (Jan Mayen Continental Shelf), Report and Recommendations to the Government of Iceland and Norway of the Conciliation Commission of 19-20 May 1981 in 62 International Law Reports (1981), p. 108.[9] D.W. Bowett (1979), The Legal Regime of Islands in International Law; E.D. Brown (1978), Rockall and the Limits of National Jurisdiction of the UK: Part 1, Marine Policy Vol. 2, p. 181 at pp. 206-207; J.M. Van Dyke & R.A. Brooks (1983), Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on the Ownership of the Oceans’ Resources, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 12, , Nos. 3-4, p. 265; R. Kolb (1994), The Interpretation of Article 121, Paragraph 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Rocks Which Cannot Sustain Human Habitation or Economic Life of Their Own, French Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 40, 1994, p. 899; D. Anderson (2002), Islands and Rocks in the Modern Law of the Sea, in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. VI, pp. 307-21; J.L. Jesus, Rocks (2003), New-born Islands, Sea Level Rise, and Maritime Space, in J. Frowein, et al., eds., Negotiating for Peace, p. 579.[10] North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Para 57.[11] Tunisia Libya Case, Para. 128.[12] Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, (U.S. v. Canada), I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 222.[13] PCA Case Nº 2013-19, The South China Sea Arbitration, Award of 12 July 2016. Truy cập tại đường link:https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086.[14] Note Verbal No. CML/8/2011 (14 April 2011) from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN Secretary-General with regard to the joint submission made by Malaysia and Viet Nam to the Commssion on the Limites of Continental Shefl, Annex I, Doc. A23; Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying's Remarks on Relevant Issue about Taiping Dao, 06/03/2016: www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510665401/t1369189.shtml.[15] Daniel Schaerffer, The Legacy of the Nine -Dashed Line: Past, Present and Future in International Workshop Paracel and Spratly Archipelagos History Truth, Danang, 19-21/4/2014: http://pdu.edu.vn/a/index.php?dept=20&disd=&tid=4921.[16] Note Verbal No. CML/17/2009 (7 May 2009) from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN Secretary-General with regard to the joint submission made by Malaysia and Viet Nam to the Commssion on the Limites of Continental Shefl: https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissionsfiles/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf.[17] Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) Outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines: Submissions to the Commission: Joint submission by Malaysia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[18] http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissiosfiles/submission_mysvnm_33_2009.htm.      


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 4-7
Author(s):  
David Freestone

As a teacher of international law for more years than I care to admit, I have to declare at the start of my comments that I admire the South China Sea Arbitration Award greatly. It presents an interpretation of the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on islands and rocks in a comprehensive, carefully considered and intellectually satisfying way. As my colleagues will doubtless point out, it does present problems relating to current existing state practice, but it does to my mind capture what the UNCLOS III drafters had in mind when the 1982 Convention text was put together.


Asian Survey ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein Tønnesson

The article looks at three ways in which international law has affected government behavior in the South China Sea. It has exacerbated disputes. It has probably curtailed the use of force. And it has made it difficult to imagine solutions that violate the law of the sea.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 266-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Parlett

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.


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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-242
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Cataldi

This article presents the author’s introductory remarks presented at the international conference The South China Sea: An International Law Perspective (Brussels, 6 March 2015) during a panel dedicated to questions of navigation. It provides a general overview of the competing claims in the South China Sea and highlights relevant rules and principles of the law of the sea that are applicable to the region.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Nur Arissa Izzati ◽  
Chusnul Qotimah Nita Permata ◽  
Miftah Santalia

Conflicts or disputes over maritime boundaries often occur, disputes that cause two or more countries are one of the authorities of their respective countries to conduct negotiations so as not to cause prolonged conflict or dispute. Border disputes between sea, island, and state are included in the affairs of the international court through the role of international law, such as the dispute between Indonesia and Vietnam in the Natuna Sea region which mutually claims sea borders both the continental shelf boundaries and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundaries, disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia in the Malacca Strait, the South China Sea Dispute, and so on. The existence of unilateral claims from each country there are still problems regarding sea borders that cause relations between countries experiencing conflict. Problems that cause disputes between countries are caused because the negotiations between the two parties have not been completed, violations occur by the disputing countries, there are still unclear sea boundaries, and others. The United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 is an international maritime law that applies in the resolution of disputes at sea, but only countries that have ratified UNCLOS can apply this international sea law. In resolving this dispute a country can do with two channels namely litigation and non-litigation, where litigation is used for the last point in this dispute through ITOLS. The purpose of writing this article is to find out how the effectiveness of sea base dispute resolution in Indonesia through litigation and non-litigation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document