Search: UNCLOS

...the dispute and that Russia would therefore not participate in the proceedings. Nevertheless, on November 6th, ITLOS held a public hearing at its Hamburg chambers (without Russia) and issued its order on November 22nd. Before reaching its decision, the tribunal had to address several preliminary issues. The first concerned jurisdiction under UNCLOS. A threshold issue in the tribunal’s jurisdiction analysis was a 1997 declaration by Russia when it ratified UNCLOS in which it stated that it would not accept the convention’s compulsory settlement procedures for “disputes concerning law-enforcement activities in...

to see if this is a position that the McCain-Palin ticket will embrace. Assuming that they will not backtrack on Governor Palin’s strong support of UNCLOS (and, given Sen. McCain’s Navy background and the Navy’s support of UNCLOS, I hope he would support it as well), this is further evidence that ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention is gaining momentum. [UPDATE #2: This post over at the Washington Note focuses on John McCain’s flip-flopping on UNCLOS and even includes an image capture of the questionairre he answered for...

considered to be permissive rather than mandatory, so I don't see this as fairly construed to prohibit another state from exercising this authority. The U.S. captured a group of pirates in this region back in 2006 and transferred them to Kenya for trial and I'm unaware of any nation objecting to Kenyan jurisdiction. Eugene Kontorovich While the US has not ratified UNCLOS III, it is a party to the 1956 UNCLOS I, which contains an identical provision, so it is certainly bound. I agree that "may" is permissive in regard...

the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention — lays out a comprehensive set of rules governing ocean issues, including protection of marine environments. All Arctic nations except the U.S. have signed. “If this were a ball game,” one Coast Guard admiral told me, “the U.S. wouldn’t be on the field or even in the stadium.” This seems right to me, and is a compelling reason for joining UNCLOS that may overcome objections in the U.S. Senate. Having said that, if the U.S. does not join UNCLOS, it is of course...

Regarding China's right to the islands within its EEZ, they are not doing anything illegal under UNCLOS. Although the dispute is real, the island building conforms to UNCLOS. China is within the limits of the 200 Nautical Mile EEZ. China-- to be clear-- is abiding by the rules it signed when ratifying UNCLOS-- what the Philippines is doing is applying a narrow reading of only the 12-nautical mile baseline, excluding an entire Chapter of UNCLOS on the EEZ which Article 46 1(b) gives China the right to the "establishment and...

...in lesser-known foreign affairs issues. Still, I value these hearings not simply because they give a sense of what the nominee will be like as Secretary, but also for the signals the hearings send about what topics are on the rise in terms of priority and attention for both the State Department and the SFRC. To that end, I was interested to see what treaties came up during Tuesday’s hearing. Three in particular caught my attention: (1) START extension talks; (2) the CTBT; and (3) UNCLOS. Newly-minted SFRC chair John...

...on is a rock, not an island within the meaning of UNCLOS Art. 121(3), and hence cannot grant China a 12 mile territorial sea even if China did have sovereignty. Since some of these rocks/islands fall within the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone, this is not a sovereignty issue but a UNCLOS issue. I am not sure that the Philippines is right about this, but they certainly have a good case. It is also worth noting that the Chinese statement is conspicuously silent on China’s obligation under UNCLOS to at least...

...China will do now. It seems likely that they will continue to ignore the arbitration and question its propriety. But China can no longer claim that the arbitration cannot proceed without China’s participation. This article from the reliably hawkish state-owned Global Times offers a pretty clear-eyed analysis, correctly noting that UNCLOS itself grants the ITLOS arbitral tribunal the power to determine its own jurisdiction, and that UNCLOS also specifies the procedure for appointing arbitrators. It also notes that China’s position is going to be somewhat more difficult, and that the...

...hard to argue that Israel committed piracy but since neither Israel nor Turkey are members to UNCLOS, maybe it would be useful to look into customary law a little more before closing the debate. Though I would be surprised if the answer was Israel committed piracy. My guess is UNCLOS reflects CIL on this regard... Ali Julian The piracy issue, as put forth in your post, is a diversion and a side show. So I am not going to even write about it. The Israeli propaganda on this case, which...

It’s official. US ratification of UNCLOS is dead (at least for this year). And, perhaps more significantly, the treaty was sunk by two senators, Robert Portman and Kelly Ayotte, both of whom appear to be on Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential short list. Their announcements, in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, brings the number of announced U.S. Senators opposing US ratification to 34. This effectively kills UNCLOS for this Congress. The joint letter by Senators Portman and Ayotte cites most of the same objections set forth ably...

...accelerating global warming, which is a key driver of climate change (2021 IPCC Report,  p. v & 6).  The oceans serve as a “fundamental climate regulator” (2019 IPCC Report,  p. 78). Interfering with this key climate regulator can further degrade the global climate system. Therefore, it is not surprising that ITLOS AO affirmed that the 169 States party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) have “specific obligations to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions and...

and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. The most logical reading of this language here is that the legal issue between Ghana and Argentina: is there immunity for the warship? — is not a UNCLOS question. And nothing in Argentina’s request for provisional measures makes me think that it is should be thought of as a UNCLOS question. As Professor Happold notes: Subsection A of Section 3 of Part II of UNCLOs deals with...