Search: UNCLOS

...the rules governing the international trading system. Greater agreement over the scope and application of a normative regime would suggest fewer disputes, and fewer underlying disputes could explain the paucity of dispute settlement cases before ITLOS. Or, perhaps the reason is structural. UNCLOS Art. 287 gives state parties three choices for resolving their ocean law disputes – (1) ITLOS; (2) the ICJ; or (3) various types of arbitral tribunals constituted in accordance with UNCLOS Annexes VII or VIII. Thus, unlike the WTO’s compulsory panel/appellate body system, ITLOS faces real competition...

...climate change, things are clearer. States parties have negotiated two annexes attached to the UNFCCC. Nations that are not included in these annexes are recognized as developing countries. Some other international treaties have employed the “developed/developing” division without offering definitions. UNCLOS and ICESCR serve as examples in this regard. Nevertheless, the United Nations (UN) has furnished references for related terms found in UNCLOS, such as “developing landlocked States” (Article 69.3) and “least developed States” (Article 161.1.d). This reminds us to look at the approaches adopted by international organizations to define...

...of posts focused on the role that international law may or may not have in resolving China’s various maritime disputes (e.g., 1, 2). Others were concerned with the debacle over Russia’s detention of the crew of the Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise (see, e.g., 1, 2, 3), whether US actions regarding UNCLOS are a precedent for Russia and China balking at UNCLOS dispute settlement, and various other UNCLOS related topics (such as this). And there is the issue of China’s aircraft identification zone (1, 2). The end of the year brought new...

...a different view, emphasising the potential legal stability of the status of an ‘island’ notwithstanding sea-level rise effects. Antigua and Barbuda have stated that ‘sea-level rise cannot lead to the requalification of islands as rocks’, implying that the status of an ‘island’ would be undisturbed by the effects of sea-level rise. This position also underpins the view held by members of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Alliance of Small Island States that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) supports ‘maintaining maritime zones established in...

...A history of egoism This negotiation has been shaped by an older debate. The Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea took place against the backdrop of a broader attempt to construct a New International Economic Order. Significant parts of the treaty that was the outcome of that conference – the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – reflected this, in particular Part XI, the seabed regime. Resources mined in seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction were the ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’, and profits...

...My guess is that Chinese thinking is turning in a different direction, especially as its claims date from the pre-UNCLOS period and as its naval power continues to expand. This editorial in the government-approved China Daily might be indicative. As tension heats up in the South China Sea, some bordering countries insist on solving the dispute simply within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but this insistence ignores history and violates inter-temporal law, a doctrine of international law. This seems like a...

As this Voice of America report notes, the Philippine government is determined to forge ahead with its UNCLOS arbitration, even though China is refusing to participate in the arbitration. This seems to be a sensible strategy, at least from a legal point of view, because it is plainly within its legal rights to do so. But would a one-party arbitration be futile? The VOA quotes Prof. Myron Nordquist of UVA on this point: But how would one-party arbitration work, exactly? Professor Myron Nordquist of the Center for Oceans Law and...

Here is the website for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a (very long) video of the hearings on UNCLOS and the written testimony of Secretary of State Clinton, Defense Secretary Panetta, and Gen. Dempsey. I am in grading hell right now, so I haven’t had time to go through the hearing video. It looks, from my quick glance, to be the same exact arguments that have been made over the past 20 years on UNCLOS. (Did Sen. Lugar give that same statement back in 2002? Hard to say)....

...Failures on UNCLOS” on 1 February, at 17:00 GMT / 18:00 CET. This is the inaugural seminar in Volterra Fietta’s seminar series to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The distinguished panel of speakers will be: Malcolm Evans, Professor of public international law at the University of Bristol; Nilüfer Oral, Director of the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore and an elected member of the International Law Commission; Alex G. Oude Elferink, Director of the Netherlands...

not to walk down the arbitration path meant for UNCLOS arbitration involving major powers and for the discussion on UNCLOS ratification in the US. When the Philippines’ government decided to continue with the arbitration anyway, Julian didn’t consider this to be a futile exercise, or at least not any more futile than when China had decided to participate. Kevin didn’t share Julian Assange’s optimism that a successful run in the upcoming Australian elections would lead the US to have to drop charges against him. As our regular readers will remember,...

...the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) being accepted by the UNSC as the legal framework applicable to ocean endeavours, including countering illicit activities at sea. It was emphasised that international disputes should be determined peacefully and in accordance with international law, as was done by India in its maritime boundary dispute with Bangladesh. This reaffirmed the primacy of international law, which was adopted and endorsed by member states of the UNSC. The primacy of international law augments in what India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishanakar said earlier, this month, that...

...migrants who may not fulfil the requirements for regular entry. One of the arguments voiced in the national debate is that UNCLOS was not drafted with migrant vessels in mind, reflecting the concern that SAR duties are being abused by smuggling networks. The Convention does not limit rescue obligations to ‘legal’ or ‘regular navigation’ and does not include any exception from the duty to rescue. Article 98 UNCLOS explicitly states that the duty covers ‘any person’ found at sea in danger of being lost, in other words, regardless of immigration...