THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN RESOLVING AEGEAN DISPUTE

The articles states that the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Aegean has been the main contentious issue between Greece and Turkey for the past 50 years. It has been unsuccessfully brought before the International Court of Justice, has been repeatedly discussed in the Security Council and has given rise to at least one delimitation agreement. The key problem is Greece would like to resolve the Aegean Sea dispute by the International Court of Justice but if Turkey accepts Greek offer, which is to refer the Aegean Sea dispute before the International Court of Justice, it may not only impair the Turkish sovereignty over her territorial sea and continental shelf but also endanger the Turkish mainland security because of the Greek re-militarized operations. The purpose of this article is to study the practice of resolving maritime disputes by the international judicial bodies. Turkey is one of the 16 countries which have not signed or ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. International law offers various means which Greece and Turkey can employ in order to deal with the Aegean Sea dispute. The parties can establish an international boundary via delimitation, agree on a moratorium of petroleum operations or enter into a Joint Development Agreement. However, reality often imposes obstacles which law cannot surmount. All options require good faith and a mutual spirit of compromise between the concerned parties. Without an agreement, unilateral acts or claims have no legal value. The International Court of Justice has settled a number of maritime disputes in the course of its work. Despite its decisions on some cases were made not in favor of the disputing parties the role of the UN International Court of Justice in resolving interstate disputes and maintaining international law and order is quite significant. The procedure in the UN International Court of Justice is quite effective and allows it to perform the tasks set by the world community based on international legal instruments governing interstate relations in the field of international maritime law.

The Poseidon Project

For several centuries, freedom of the seas was the dominant framework for managing the oceans and their use. That doctrine recognized the ocean as a space open to all, which people from all nations could use and exploit. In recent decades, however, that doctrine has eroded in multiple ways and for a variety of reasons. During the world wars of the 20th century, combatants imposed unprecedented restrictions on maritime commerce, leaving international rules in tatters. National governments have steadily expanded their reach into the oceans. More recently, environmental concerns have led to new international restrictions on high seas pollution and fishing. Today’s most dangerous maritime disputes—including China’s push for control of the South China Sea—are occurring against the backdrop of major changes in the way the world treats the oceans. Tracing the roots of the law of the sea and the background to current maritime disputes, this book chronicles how national governments interact with activists, merchants, and fragile international organizations in the struggle to build effective ocean rules.

Drawing Lines at Sea: Australia’s Five Decades of Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Boundaries in the ocean are man-made constructs of importance to everything from oil and gas production, to fisheries and environmental protection. How do states delineate such ownership and rights? These are the core questions examined in this article, which studies Australia’s maritime boundary agreements, starting with Indonesia in 1971 and ending with Timor-Leste in 2019. In addition to depicting and documenting the main drivers and impediments to these agreements whenever Australia has had to negotiate with a third country, it examines Australia’s approach to boundary-making at sea more generally. Drawing on international law and political science, this article shows why we need understand the interplay between security politics, legal considerations and domestic interests in order to understand what motivates states to settle their maritime disputes.

PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ON MARITIME DISPUTE: CASE BETWEEN KENYA AND SOMALIA

The research analysed the maritime dispute between Kenya and Somalia under the international law perspective. Both states have been experiencing maritime disputes over maritime boundaries of more than 100,000 sq km of seabed in the waters of the Indian Ocean. They began to clash after Somalia accusing Kenya of illegally granting exploration rights to resources in the waters to multinational companies, Total and Eni. As Kenya declared, the waters of the East African Coast are one of the hottest oil exploration prospects in the world, and the contested area has hydrocarbon reserves. The research method is normative legal research. Accordingly, the nature of the research was descriptive-qualitative with data collection techniques by conducting a literature study. The research shows that maritime boundary dispute has worsened diplomatic relations between Kenya and Somalia. Prior to bringing the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the two states agreed to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations. However, the case was still unsettled. Therefore, Somalia decided to bring the case before the Court.

Securing Unity and Reverence: Chinese ontological security across its maritime and frontier disputes

<p>This thesis draws on the Constructivist school of International Relations, applying the theory of ontological security to explain diverging patterns of behaviour by China across its maritime and frontier territorial disputes. Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, these patterns have seen China consistently interact with states adjacent to its frontiers to settle disputes peacefully, with occasional instances of conflict. Conversely, in its maritime disputes, though varying in its levels of aggression and cooperation, China has resolutely refused to settle with disputant states. In examining these varying behaviours, it is argued that differences derive from the differing ability of China to secure its national identity between the two types of dispute. Analysing the examples of the Sino-Indian dispute and border war, the Burmese border agreement, and the ongoing South China Sea disputes, periods of conflict and settlement in these disputes are compared to changing manifestations of Chinese national identity. What results is an illustration of frontier border settlement contributing to the security of China’s identity as a unified, pluralistic nation state. The absence of national minority populations in relation to maritime disputes alternatively sees continued interaction in these disputes as securing China’s identity as the superior ‘Central Kingdom’ relative to peripheral South East Asian states, while offering little incentive for settlement. Both types of dispute can be viewed as contributing to the biographical narrative of China’s ‘Century of Humiliation’. This thesis presents a significant departure from existing studies of China’s disputes, predominantly undertaken from a Realist perspective. Additionally, it expands on existing Constructivist literature by demonstrating how national identity can result in a range of behaviours across a range of differing disputes, further validating the emerging ontological security approach within International Relations scholarship.</p>

Securing Unity and Reverence: Chinese ontological security across its maritime and frontier disputes

<p>This thesis draws on the Constructivist school of International Relations, applying the theory of ontological security to explain diverging patterns of behaviour by China across its maritime and frontier territorial disputes. Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, these patterns have seen China consistently interact with states adjacent to its frontiers to settle disputes peacefully, with occasional instances of conflict. Conversely, in its maritime disputes, though varying in its levels of aggression and cooperation, China has resolutely refused to settle with disputant states. In examining these varying behaviours, it is argued that differences derive from the differing ability of China to secure its national identity between the two types of dispute. Analysing the examples of the Sino-Indian dispute and border war, the Burmese border agreement, and the ongoing South China Sea disputes, periods of conflict and settlement in these disputes are compared to changing manifestations of Chinese national identity. What results is an illustration of frontier border settlement contributing to the security of China’s identity as a unified, pluralistic nation state. The absence of national minority populations in relation to maritime disputes alternatively sees continued interaction in these disputes as securing China’s identity as the superior ‘Central Kingdom’ relative to peripheral South East Asian states, while offering little incentive for settlement. Both types of dispute can be viewed as contributing to the biographical narrative of China’s ‘Century of Humiliation’. This thesis presents a significant departure from existing studies of China’s disputes, predominantly undertaken from a Realist perspective. Additionally, it expands on existing Constructivist literature by demonstrating how national identity can result in a range of behaviours across a range of differing disputes, further validating the emerging ontological security approach within International Relations scholarship.</p>

South China Sea

Malaysia’s partial submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on its extended continental shelf beyond 200 nm limit made in December 2019 sparked a new legal battle of diplomatic notes on the South China Sea (scs) from claimant States (Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines and Viet Nam) and non-claimant States (Australia, Germany, France, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States). It has greater volume and significance compared to the first exchange of notes in 2009 – 2011. This article examines the impact of diplomatic notes among claimants on the prospect for the peaceful settlement of the maritime disputes in the scs.

Foundations of Turkish Claims in the Eastern Mediterranean

The Eastern Mediterranean is becoming a new region of interstate confrontation and clash of national interests. This is largely due to the discovery of oil and gas reserves, the development of which is becoming possible with the existing technology. The Republic of Turkey has a special position regarding this maritime region. The paper analyzes those bases - historical, political and legal - that determine Turkeys current policy with regard to maritime delimitation and the settlement of maritime disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean. Particularly, it is shown that Turkeys policy in the region continues to be based on the approaches that were announced by Turkey during the I-III UN Conferences on the Law of the Sea (1958, 1960, 1973-1982 respectively), which have remained unchanged up to now. This position, as regards both the outer limits of the territorial sea, the legal regime of islands and the delimitation of the continental shelf, continues to define the essence of the controversy between Turkey and other countries of the region, including Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. At the same time, it is shown that there is a set of circumstances that significantly limit the prospects of solving these interstate contradictions within the framework of international judicial instances, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The conclusion is made that, for both Turkey and Greece, the most acceptable option would be to work out a model of settlement, which would not imply the obligation of its immediate implementation. Particular attention is paid to the ideological and practical framing of Turkish claims within the framework of the Blue Homeland doctrine, developed by a number of retired Turkish officers. It shows how Ankara uses the ideas of pan-Turkism and neo-Ottomanism to justify its claims to vast maritime spaces. The distinctive feature of this doctrine most likely is its anti-American, anti-NATO and anti-European orientation. There is a paradoxical situation when certain ideas enshrined in this concept directly correlate with the interests of the Russian Federation.

Momentum will build in Vietnamese-US relations

Significance Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was in Hanoi last month. In the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance document released by the White House in March, Vietnam was identified as one of Washington’s leading partners in the Indo-Pacific. Impacts Stronger Vietnamese-US relations may embolden Hanoi to initiate international legal proceedings over its maritime disputes with Beijing. Vietnam will urge the United States to do more to highlight the environmental impact of dam-building on the Mekong by upriver countries. Hanoi’s burgeoning ties with US adversary Moscow could have a negative impact on its relations with Washington.