Search: UNCLOS

...of law. Do we want to manage this problem through what some would call the extra-legal processes of the UN Security Council? Perhaps we should be looking to restructure the UNCLOS and create a workable legal regime governing piracy. I do agree with you regarding your last comment and suggest that it is already true, at least in part. It seems to me that the war criminals of the world do have very little to fear if they are not captured by their enemy and their actions are not part...

Eugene Kontorovich Sounds unbelievable to me. Russian plutocrats don't have to go so far to find people to kill, or expose themselves to such risk. Someone is probably just trying to raise attention for their cruse businesses. If it were true, it would be illegal, unless it is self-defense; and "pirate hunting" doesn't sound like self-defense. UNCLOS Art. 107 provides only warships can seize pirates; one could extrapolate that that would be true of killing them too. Indeed, what the alleged pirate hunters are doing meets the definition of piracy!...

...Around: How UNCLOS Ratification Will Herald Europe's Precautionary Principle as US Law. This article is intended to educate the American public about the complexity of the UNCLOS, especially its vast environmental component. It is also intended to prompt the American public to demand that Congress convene public hearings to investigate UNCLOS' environmental component. This article describes how US sovereignty and US individual constitutional rights can be subjugated to and overriden, under the right political circumstances, by foreign and international legal norms when US congressional representatives officials within the US Senate...

FIFTH-COLUMN Well well well. Nice work. Prof Ku suggested the US might have chosen to downplay this incident by treating the U.S. naval visit as an “innocent passage” through China’s territorial seas. Thanks God that the US doesn't do this. Otherwise, the US would tacitly recognise China's " “indisputable sovereignty”. FIFTH-COLUMN How come, as the USS Lassen has yesterday sailed through the 12-nautical miles claimed by China, it has violated Chinese law when China’s position is not consistent with the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)...

...and Ohio State Law. There is a nice 2008 profile of him in the UW alum magazine here. The following is a personal note from Professor Song: We both are students of the New Haven School for the legal studies, where I met Professor Myres S. McDougal when attending the annual policy science meeting held at Yale Law School. His book entitled THE NEW INTERNATIONAL LAW OF FISHERIES: UNCLOS 1982 AND BEYOND (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) is one of the most authoritative textbooks for students who are interested in studying...

...has nothing to gain from accession since the most of the Convention reflects customary international law; James Kraska argued that UNCLOS is a force multiplier for American power; and John Noyes defended the Convention’s regimes on fisheries, oil and gas, and seabed minerals, as promoting US interests. On the second day of our debate, introduced here by Julian, Jeremy Rabkin cautioned against accession because of the risk that compulsory arbitration might interpret treaty rules in ways contrary to US interests. Steven Groves partially agreed with the arguments in favor of...

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian Ku discussed how the announcement by two US Senators of their position against ratification of the UNCLOS, has effectively sunk ratification for this year, and argued that the next administration should seek out bilateral agreements to protect commercial exploitation of the seabed on the high seas. Deborah Pearlstein argued why the US, even if it is not at war with Yemen, is at war in Yemen, and discussed the legal consequences thereof. Kevin Jon Heller gave four reasons why the ICC should not get...

...In other posts, Kevin posted a must-see link to a report visualizing international criminal justice and recommended an article by one of his students on the Kapo trials . We also revisited our discussion of Samantar, with Ingrid Wuerth’s guest post on foreign official immunity, and of the Philippines-China UNCLOS arbitration, with a post by Julian who wasn’t convinced by Professor Stefan Talmon’s argument that all of the Philippines’ claims against China fall outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Julian also asked whether we should care about the upcoming hearings by...

...capacity. That claim has been lost, and rightly so. International law must therefore justify itself without inherited innocence. Its classical sources should be treated neither as sacred scripture nor as refuse, but as part of a wider and contested archive. Grotius and Vattel, Oppenheim and Lauterpacht, Lotus, the ICJ Statute, the UN Charter, UNCLOS, the BBNJ Agreement, human rights law, climate law, and responsibility remain part of the discipline’s world. But they do not exhaust it. Bedjaoui, Anand, Elias, Bandung, decolonisation, self-determination, resource sovereignty, common heritage, and later critical accounts...

...alleged crimes in Darfur, troubled by the seemingly politically laden relationship between the Court and the UN Security Council. Julian also called attention to China’s “position paper” released ahead of its December 15th filing deadline in the situation between China and the Philippines before the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal. He also pointed to his more in-depth analysis of why the Philippines arbitration is doomed to fail (spoiler alert: it’s due to a mistake by the Philippines in employing a “lawfare strategy” forcing China before the arbitral tribunal), notwithstanding Vietnam’s support of...

...of others under the pretext of ‘rule of law.’” With regard to the South China Sea issue, China reaffirms in the white paper its commitment to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but states that disputes over territories and maritime rights should be resolved through “respect[ing] historical facts and seek[ing] a peaceful solution through negotiation and consultation”. Interestingly, the document makes no reference to the infamous nine-dash line, though it does state that China has “indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha [Spratly] Islands and their adjacent waters”....

...the legality of the Chinese “nine-dash line”. I think this filing has much more political than legal significance. As a legal matter, I don’t think there is any procedure in the UNCLOS dispute settlement system for third-party interventions, so I think this is really just like sending a letter to the arbitral tribunal. It has no legal significance, and the tribunal has no obligation to consider it. But of course, it has the right to do so if it believes it is relevant to the dispute before it. On the...