Search: UNCLOS
10 Nov Guest Post: The South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Finds that A White Horse Is Not a Horse–A Delimitation Exception Perspective
...jurisdiction of the tribunal. It is merely being asked to interpret UNCLOS which is why it exists in the first place, to interpret UNCLOS. A finding that a feature is not entitled to an EEZ is not, I repeat is not delimitation. Saying it is one and the same is simply being disengenous. If a feature is declared not capabale of appropriation then it becomes part of the seabed........delimitation then becomes irrelevant. Hiding behind the delimitation exception in order to prevent a finding of the features' entitlement (which is not...
16 Jun Norway’s Inconsistent Interpretation of the 1920 Treaty of Paris
...Party to the UNCLOS). Given that according to the UNCLOS the continental shelf is automatically generated and that the snow-crab is one of its resources (according to article 77(4) of the UNCLOS), the Treaty of Paris grants sovereignty to Norway also with respect to Svalbard’s continental shelf, subject to the same conditions expressed in its Articles 2 and 3 which limit Norway’s sovereignty over the archipelago’s natural resources and which apply also to snow-crabs (being one of the natural resources of the archipelago’s continental shelf). Norway instead maintains that Svalbard...
18 Sep Key International Legal Obligations and Principles Relevant to Marine Geoengineering
...(paras. 219-224) Fulfilling one’s Paris and UNFCCC obligations does not automatically satisfy UNCLOS obligations. UNCLOS is an independent source of duties that may thus condition how nations regulate climate change technologies. As stated by Professor Cymie Payne: “[w]hen States become parties to UNCLOS, they agree to protect and preserve the marine environment, and they also make the more specific commitment to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment.” Coherence between UNCLOS, the LC/LP, and the climate regimes is best found in identifying approaches that can protect the marine...
26 Oct Is Immunity for Killing Two Indian Fishermen Justified? Curious Case of “Enrica Lexie”
...the PCA, the PCA addressed the claims and counter-claims of Italy and India respectively. Position of Italy and India on Article 97(1) of UNCLOS In the aftermath of the incident, Italy on 16 Feb 2012 sent a Note Verbale asserting that its marines were only answerable to the Italian Judicial authority under Article 97 of UNCLOS. According to Italy, India violated Article 56 (2),92 and 97 of UNCLOS by the arrest, detention and prosecution of the Italian Marines. Further, Italy in the requested for the provisional measure had indicated that...
06 May The Closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran: Considerations over the Law of the Sea and Law of Naval Warfare
...per the Corfu Channel Case, p. 28-29 and Art. 37 UNCLOS (Lott, 161-162). However, whether the regime of transit passage under article 38 UNCLOS applies to the strait of Hormuz is a contentious issue especially for the current situation, since Iran, Israel and the US are not parties to the UNCLOS. The right of transit passage for straits used for international navigation was first introduced in UNCLOS and its status as a rule of customary international law is contested. The US maintains that the regime of transit passage is part...
14 Jul Reaction to “Can Coastal States Interrupt Foreign Passage in Their Territorial Seas in Response to Non-Compliance with Human Rights Obligations? A Response to the ASCOMARE Legal Opinion”
...the customary status of Article 24 of UNCLOS appears to give too much weight to interpretations dating back to times when the law of the sea was still evolving and not to take sufficiently into account the practice of States since the entry into force of UNCLOS. It thus diverges from established scholarly assessments, which have recognised this provision as reflecting customary international. The Scope of Coastal State Protection The response acknowledges that Article 19(2)(a) is inherently coastal State–centric, in that it requires a threat or use of force against...21 Jun UNCLOS and Dispute Settlement: A Response to Professor Rabkin
[John E. Noyes is the Roger J. Traynor Professor of Law at California Western School of Law.] I do not share Professor Rabkin’s pessimistic view of the prospect of international arbitration of law of the sea disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention. LOS Convention tribunals and the law of the sea experts who serve as judges and arbitrators have helped to resolve disputes peacefully and to reinforce Convention rules. For example, in the merits stage of the M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) case, the International Tribunal...
22 Jul The Enrica Lexie Award – Some Thoughts on “Incidental” Jurisdiction (Part II)
not caused by the movement or manoeuvring of either ship”, meaning that the event was not an “incident of navigation” (Award, para. 652). The tribunal further rejected Italy’s claim under Article 100 of the UNCLOS concerning the obligation to cooperate in matters of piracy, and the derivative claim under Article 300 of the UNCLOS concerning the obligation to exercise rights in good faith (Award, paras. 728, 730). At this point, all of Italy’s arguments against India’s exercise of jurisdiction, based on provisions of the UNCLOS, had been examined and rejected. ...01 Sep Case of the Month: Sarei v. Rio Tinto (by John Knox)
...vote, the UNCLOS claim along with the plaintiffs’ war, humanity, and discrimination claims. How significant a decision is this for international environmental law in U.S. courts? Has the Ninth Circuit found a way to squeeze environmental claims through the door Sosa left ajar? Well, if so, it kept its reasoning to itself. Its analysis, for want of a better word, of whether the UNCLOS meets the Sosa standard is, in its entirety: “As for the UNCLOS claim, the treaty has been ratified by at least 149 nations, which is sufficient...
23 Jun Revisiting International Cooperation on Illicit Trafficking by Sea: Indonesia and the Final Voyage of the M/V Wise Honest (Part I)
...and DPRK (para. 34). This results in the loss of the flag state’s protection (UNCLOS, Article 92(2)) and a right of visit (UNCLOS, Article 110(1)(d)), exercisable by all states in waters beyond the territorial sea (UNCLOS, Article 58(2)). Further enforcement measures would depend on if the boarding state has any applicable laws in place, as well as the currently unresolved extent of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction available when an objecting flag state is absent (e.g. Murdoch 2020 for a recent expansive approach). Once within Indonesia’s territorial sea, Indonesia had the right...