Search: UNCLOS

...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...

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....

...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,...

...of international climate law, reflexivity appears in two interlinked ways. First, through the cross-fertilization among international courts. International climate opinions listen, cite, incorporate and reinforce each other. For example, in interpreting the UNCLOS, the ICJ ascribed great weight to ITLOS’ finding that greenhouse gas emissions constitute “pollution of the marine environment” (ICJ Opinion, paras. 336–354). With respect to the adverse effects of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights, the ICJ took extensive account of the views and reports of United Nations human rights bodies and expert organizations (paras...

...Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As a party to UNCLOS, Canada is strictly limited by Article 311 of the Convention in the extent to which it can attempt to alter the effect of UNCLOS by bilateral treaties. Any attempt to do so would have no effect on the navigation rights of Russia, the EU member-states, or any other state. Moreover, any such bilateral agreement would likely be viewed by the other coastal state members of the Arctic Council as inconsistent with the spirit of the 2008 Ilulissat...

...attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Part two will explore how the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) and the laws of naval warfare (LoNW) will (or more possibly should) treat submarine data cables for the purposes of targeting in military operations. Wilful or Negligent Damage by Vessels While Article 2 of the 1884 Paris Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables (Paris Convention), and Article 113 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) create an obligation for a state to criminalise wilful or...

...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...

...therefore unlikely that there will be one legal definition that fits all USVs. How USVs are classified under the law of the sea impacts on where, when and how they are used in armed conflicts. Only warships have belligerent rights in naval warfare, according to which only warships can use armed force. Warships are defined in Article 29 UNCLOS as:  a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the...

...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...