In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: UNCLOS

20 Aug

is Denmark, and not the Faroe Islands, that is a signatory to UNCLOS. Similarly, the EU (or the European Communities) is not a state but it is a signatory to UNCLOS for certain competences that EU members have transferred to it. Oddly enough, Denmark has transferred its competence for these matters to the EU, but not for the Faroes. Confused? I certainly am. In any event, the result is that a non-state subnational entity is seeking arbitration against a non-state supranational entity before an international arbitral tribunal created under the...
20.08.13 | |

29 Oct

...claims, the Tribunal shoves the ball back onto China’s court. Will China continue to claim it is not bound by the Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction, when the Tribunal has now found it has jurisdiction? China would more clearly be in violation of UNCLOS now than it was before, because UNCLOS Article 288(4) makes it clear that “[i]n the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.” My guess is China will pretend...
29.10.15 | |

14 Jun

[Dr. James Kraska, Commander, U.S. Navy, is the Howard S. Levie Chair of Operational Law at the U.S. Naval War College] . Thanks for the opportunity to talk a bit about the major national security and strategic interests of the United States in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is also a pleasure to exchange thoughts on the subject, and I respect Jeremy Rabkin’s work on sovereignty and international law—although I expect we have some difference of view on the law of the sea. I...
14.06.12 | |

25 Jan

[I know that what this blog needs is yet another post on the China-Philippines UNCLOS Arbitration! We aim to please!] Steve Groves of Heritage asks in the comments to my prior post: What happens if China simply refuses to show up at the arbitration? Can an arbitral tribunal even be formed to rule on jurisdiction? This is something that I’ve wondered too, and then I realized Annex VII of UNCLOS appears to settle this issue as well. The key provision is Article 3 of Annex VII. Under Art. 3(b), the...
25.01.13 | |

30 Mar

Just in time for the odd Sunday filing deadline, the government of the Philippines announced that it had submitted its memorial in its arbitration with China under UNCLOS. Ignoring a possible backlash from China, the Philippine government transmitted the document, called a “memorial” in international arbitration parlance, on Sunday to the Netherlands-based Permanent Court of Arbitration where a five-member tribunal operating under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will hear Manila’s complaint. “Today, the Philippines submitted its memorial to the arbitral tribunal that is hearing the...
30.03.14 | |

01 Jun

Rather than deride opponents as the “black helicopter” crowd, the proponents of US ratification of UNCLOS should take seriously the upcoming hearings as a chance to weigh the complex policy choices presented by UNCLOS. Prof. Craig Allen of the University of Washington offers this very sensible and persuasive take at (of all places) Fox News: The decision to ratify a treaty presents a policy choice. Few choices in life, public policy or foreign relations are wholly favorable or unfavorable. As former Secretary Condoleezza Rice reminded us, we must not let...
01.06.12 | |

08 Dec

I’ve been so distracted with my own projects and with China’s ADIZ that I forgot to note that Russia has been in violation of its obligations under UNCLOS since at least December 2. But that’s OK, it seems that everyone else has forgotten this fact as well. December 2 was the date set by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for compliance with its order that Russia “immediately release the vessel Arctic Sunrise and all persons who have been detained, upon the posting of a bond or...
08.12.13 | |

21 Jun

...There is a reason proponents called it a “Constitution for the Oceans.” Having committed to a “constitution,” it is not so easy to walk away from it. Regarding ITLOS and “prompt release,” I agree with Professor Allen that the wording of Article 113(1) of the amended rules of the tribunal supports a narrow reading of the “prompt release” jurisdiction in Art. 292 of UNCLOS. But the language of 292 itself supports a narrow reading. That did not prevent the tribunal’s majority from opening the door to what it called an...
21.06.12 | |

23 May

So says the WSJ’s account of today’s hearing on US ratification of UNCLOS. I still haven’t found the 193 minutes I would need to watch today’s UNCLOS hearing, but it seems like there is still some Republican opposition (remember it only takes 34 votes to block the treaty). Wednesday’s hearing demonstrated the continued skepticism among Republicans toward the treaty. Sen. Robert Corker (R., Tenn.) said he hadn’t made a decision on ratification, but questioned how the Obama administration, which has been critical of the oil industry, could cite oil exploration...
23.05.12 | |

14 Jun

I wanted to thank Professors Allen, Kraska, and Noyes for their contributions to our discussion on US ratification of UNCLOS. I’ve learned a great deal from their posts and I hope our readers have as well. I wanted to remind our readers, however, that we will hear from two leading scholars tomorrow — Jeremy Rabkin and Steven Groves — who will offer reasons why the U.S. should not ratify UNCLOS. Indeed, Steve was busy today testifying in the afternoon session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on the Law...
14.06.12 | |

17 Sep

After months (or even years) of threats, Ukraine finally filed an arbitration claim against Russia under Annex VII of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. According to this statement from the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign of Affairs, the claim will focus on Russia’s actions in the maritime zones bordering Crimea. Since the Russian Federation’s illegal acts of aggression in Crimea, Russia has usurped and interfered with Ukraine’s maritime rights in these zones. Ukraine seeks to end the Russian Federation’s violations of UNCLOS and vindicate Ukraine’s rights in...
17.09.16 | |

11 Feb

One of the most frustrating things about China’s response to the Philippines arbitration has been the brevity of its legal discussion and analysis. In particular, I’ve long thought that China had a pretty good argument that the Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the dispute since, in many ways, territorial disputes are at the heart of the Philippines’ case. But neither the government nor Chinese scholars have offered much flesh to this argument. The closest statement I’ve seen was Judge Xue Hanqin’s impromptu remarks at the...
11.02.14 | |