Search: UNCLOS

Last month, the Obama Administration informed the Senate of its treaty priorities via a letter from the State Department (you can access it here). The letter lists 17 treaties for which the Administration seeks Senate advice and consent “at this time,” including (as predicted here and here) CTBT, CEDAW, and UNCLOS. It also lists 12 treaties “on which the Administration does not seek Senate action at this time,” including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the Convention on Biological Diversity...

...collaboration of the Coordinating State”. In the marine seabed (the “Area”, as per UNCLOS), the “coordinating state” shall not “undertake or authorize activities directed at State vessels and aircraft in the Area without the consent of the flag State”. Coordination, however, does not seem to be enough to satisfy the demands of Latin American states. In 2007, in Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, Peru claimed ownership over the treasures inside the wreckage of the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, a Spanish galleon that sunk in 1804...

...(UNCLOS)). This core obligation under both treaty law (see also the 1974 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention), the 1979 Search and Rescue Convention (SAR Convention) and the 1989 International Convention on Salvage) and customary law applies in any maritime zone and in relation to any activity there performed. While implementing this duty states can either perform directly the search and rescue (SAR) operations, namely through their own SAR services, or ask a vessel, which is located in the proximity of the endangered persons, be it...

...defined by UNCLOS; and (b) they become capable of supporting human habitation and economic life. See e.g. http://amti.csis.org/the-legal-challenge-of-chinas-island-building/ Per UNCLOS Art. 121(1), an island is a, "...naturally formed...area...which is above water at high tide..." Unless the island is a rock that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life, it has the same territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ and continental shelf as any other land bordering the ocean. See UNCLOS Art. 121(2), (3). The Philippines is contesting precisely this issue - the status of the Spratlies as islands - before the...

...dispute with Chile. This may or may not be a good strategy for Peru. It does puncture one misconception about UNCLOS. Just because a state does not sign the treaty, doesn’t mean it can’t delimit territorial seas and continental shelves by agreement with its neighbors. It might make it easier to settle borders, but UNCLOS is not necessary to do so. This doesn’t mean the U.S. Senate shouldn’t ratify UNCLOS. But it shouldn’t do so thinking that UNCLOS is the only way to settle U.S. claims in the Arctic, etc....

...by journalists how Russia will react to the Tribunal’s ruling. Russia ratified the convention based on which this Tribunal acts with a number of reservations, which prevented it from entering these particular proceedings, Ivanov said. “The issue will be handled not politically but legally, based on Russian law rather than someone’s political wishes,” he added. Russia will probably stick to its legal position, which is contained in its note verbale to the Netherlands, arguing that this matter lies beyond the jurisdiction of UNCLOS dispute settlement since it is an exercise...

...the sea may indeed have been different (in a number of undesirable ways), but she also adds that if one examines other relevant historical factors – such as “new discoveries, techno-optimism, and fears of resource scarcity” – UNCLOS “might resemble what it did become in many respects” (p. 244). Her contribution thus implores us to go beyond settled and instrumentalised understandings of contingent moments in the history of UNCLOS, to recognise instead the constitutional contingency of UNCLOS that is “desirable in our time” (p. 245): namely, one that rejects the...

...the entirety of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, having articulated its position through a series of White Papers and its Law of the Sea adopted in 2012. The Philippines remains the only country whose claims are compliant with the UNCLOS. It has, through a series of legislations, ensured that its baselines have been brought in conformity with the legal stipulations in the Convention. This includes areas such as the Scarborough shoal, which also double as its traditional fishing grounds and have been adjudicated as such by the Permanent Court of...

Wim Muller "I would have appointed a Chinese national and a Philippines national..." I was thinking the same thing, but then I took another look at Annex VII to UNCLOS (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex7.htm). Article 3(e) provides, inter alia, that "[t]he members so appointed shall be of different nationalities and may not be in the service of, ordinarily resident in the territory of, or nationals of, any of the parties to the dispute." (emphasis added) Appointing a Chinese and Philppine national was therefore never an option....

...abiding by the rules for freedom of navigation set forth in UNCLOS, while disagreeing dramatically on what each side is allowed to do. From the U.S. perspective, its navy should be allowed to enter the 12 nm territorial seas around China’s “islands” as long as they abide by the rules of innocent passage. But the Chinese will say that freedom of navigation doesn’t permit this activity. Most states agree with the U.S. definition of freedom of navigation. But some states (including neighboring South China Sea coastal states) do agree with...

...alone - not to get recognized by the UN. We certainly don't plan to ignore international law. Rather, we will try to carve out as much freedom as we can get within international law. This probably means being outside EEZs (> 200nm from any land). This means UNCLOS 60 doesn't apply, nor does UNCLOS 89 (we aren't claiming sovereignty, we are just a ship with a flag). Since the flagging nation is unlikely to protect us, it behooves any seastead to avoid doing things which will piss off existing countries....

that arbitral tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction. This is just semantics in my view. What if China phrases it as something like: Arbitration is an option when mutually agreed to. Absent mutual agreement, the primary means for resolving disputes under UNCLOS is through negotiations (Article 279), exchange of views (Article 283), and conciliation procedures (Article 284). The right to opt-out of UNCLOS provided maritime boundary arbitration at any time is guaranteed by Article 298. Many nations have explicitly exercised that right include Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark,...