No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Introduction: The South China Sea: An International Law Perspective
Abstract
This piece offers the Guest Editors' Introduction to this Special Issue of The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law - dedicated to the South China Sea. It outlines the history of the 2015 Brussels Conference at which the papers in the Special Issue were first presented, notes the key presentations and introduces the authors. Four subject matters are addressed: fisheries, navigation, the regime of islands, and international dispute settlement.
... Претензии КНР подтверждались картой с изображением пунктирной U-образной линии (U-line), охватывающей значительную часть Южно-Китайского моря; авторы статьи отмечают непонятную природу U-line, необоснованность позиции КНР и эффективный протест региональных государств [25]. В 2017 г. под редакцией Э. Франка и М. Бенатара выходит специальный номер "The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law" «Южно-Китайское море: перспектива международного права» [26], где отмечается необходимость использования судебных и арбитражных процедур при разрешении ситуации в Южно-Китайском море [36]. Дж. ...
A review of scientific articles published over the past 15 years in leading foreign scientific journals on international law demonstrates the gradual improvement of legal means for the settlement of maritime disputes between the states. Aim . Identification of the features for application of the law of the sea norms targeted on the resolution of maritime disputes that develop in the modern international system. Tasks . Development of the classification of maritime disputes, analysis of the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities competent to resolve maritime disputes, characterization of the provisions of international agreements and customs of the law of the sea in the resolution of maritime disputes by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (PCA). Methods . Discourse analysis of the most authoritative publications on the issue of resolving maritime disputes, a formal legal analysis of the norms and customs of maritime law, as well as a comparative legal study of judicial and arbitration practice in resolving interstate maritime disputes. Law enforcement practice on maritime disputes allows to characterize the subject of modern interstate maritime disputes; critically assess the fairness of decisions of international courts; to analyze the problems of enforceability of judicial and arbitral awards in the framework of the procedures for the settlement of maritime disputes provided for in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Results . Reasonable decisions of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague are usually implemented by the states parties to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Protection of the marine environment as well as prompt release of ships and crews from arrest have become a modern legal reality due to the effectiveness of the legal mechanism for resolving interstate maritime disputes. Territorial maritime disputes cause significant difficulties at all stages of their resolution, which is due to their political nature and the efforts of states to protect their national interests. Conclusion . The resolution of maritime territorial disputes requires more flexibility from the parties, an international agreement between the parties to the dispute on the procedure for its consideration, as well as the use of conciliation procedures to work out a compromise solution to the dispute.
This paper analyzes the legal consequences of non-participation in arbitral proceedings under Annex VII to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). Two recent examples of non-participation are analyzed and compared with each other: first, the case of the Arctic Sunrise, and second, the South China Sea case. The first case was instituted by the Netherlands against Russia. The second case was instituted by the Philippines against China. In both cases, the respondent State did not take part in any way in the arbitral proceedings. There are some striking similarities between the two cases. For example, in both cases, the respondent State made extensive reservations to jurisdiction, but the applicant State formulated its submissions in such a way that these reservations turned out not to be a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the tribunal. There are also some differences between the two cases: unlike Russia, China developed a quite sophisticated and relatively consistent legal argumentation, but it did so outside the arbitral process, in the media, at conferences, and in scholarly articles.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.