Search: UNCLOS
17 Nov Weekend Roundup: November 10 – 16, 2012
...but needs input from institutional law. Catherine Brölmann’s post also discussed the combination of contractual and institutional elements in constitutive treaties. Geir and Catherine’s posts led Duncan Hollis to reflect on how treaty law can lead to “secondary fragmentation” – fragmentation in the “rules on rules”. Christian Tams argued that this “fragmentation” indicates the limits of general treaty law which often only provides residual rules or no rules at all. In our regular posts, Julian Ku questioned whether Argentina’s claim under the UNCLOS against the seizure of its naval training...05 Feb Events and Announcements: 5 February 2023
...audio/visual submissions) here. The deadline for submissions is 15 February 2023. Calls for Applications ITLOS – Nippon Foundation Capacity Building and Training Programme 2023-2024: The ITLOS-Nippon Foundation Capacity-Building and Training Programme on Dispute Settlement under UNCLOS, July 2023 – March 2024, to be held at ITLOS (Hamburg, Germany), is welcoming applications until 31 March 2023. For more information see the flyer and website. The French call is listed below. Programme TIDM– Nippon Foundation de renforcement des capacités et de formation 2023-2024: Les personnes intéressées au Programme TIDM-Nippon Foundation de renforcement des capacités et de formation...26 Jan Weekend Roundup: January 19-25, 2013
This week on Opinio Juris, Duncan was thrilled that the Supreme Court had finally reached a decision on whether to grant certiorari in Bond v United States, a case that requires revisiting Missouri v Holland. Julian though questioned whether Bond v United States will matter, although he gave his own two cents on the treaty power and federalism later. Julian clearly got more excited about the Philippines’ move towards UNCLOS arbitration in the South China Sea dispute with China, which he labelled a game-changer. In further posts on this arbitration,...02 Jul Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Outside . . . Goldsmith and Rabkin on the Law of the Sea
...folks at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg — including Chinese and Russian judges! —, who (again, in theory) might “use a legal dispute to score points against American ‘unilateralism’ and ‘arrogance’ for a global audience keen to humble the United States” and find American anti-terrorism operations on the high seas inconsistent with UNCLOS. Sounds pretty unlikely to me, in the same way that the ICC was never going to haul US servicemembers into the dock, at least not anytime soon. Remember, ITLOS is a...01 Mar Sea Shepherd, Piracy, and the “High Seas”
My previous posts (see here for the most recent) have explained why Judge Kozinski’s opinion in the Sea Shepherd case wrongly considers a political end to be a private end. In this post I want to highlight what is ironic — though not technically incorrect — about Judge Kozinski’s conclusion that Sea Shepherd committed an act of piracy on “the high seas.” That is an essential element of piracy; UNCLOS art. 101, for example, defines piracy as “any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed...