Disputes on Sovereignty over the Islands in the Light of International Judicial Decisions (original) (raw)
Related papers
East Sea region's a hot spot, where place to contain multiple sovereignty disputes between countries in the Southeast Asian region. To establish the sovereignty of the East Sea in the current period, the study's authors focused on the following major contents: (i) Differences between the sea and island sovereignty in the system of international legal; (ii) International legal regulations on the establishment of sovereignty over the islands; (iii) Based on international law rejects these false views concerning China's sovereignty issues for the island waters, the islands belong to Vietnam; (iv) Apply international legal regulations to assert the sovereignty of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Islands belong to Vietnam.
For long, customary law has held firm control over maritime issues of international importance, but the advent of UNCLOS III raises the question as to the extent to which customary law can keep a reserved domain. It is proposed to examine two narrow issues revolving around the principle that 'the land dominates the sea' (Principle of Domination). The basic submission is that this principle is a general principle of international law, developed by way of customary law and judicial decisions. As part of customary law, it always parallels the system established under the UNCLOS, and interplays with the latter in, among others, mixed disputes, namely, disputes that involve the interpretation or application of a mix of substantive rules of the law of the sea and other branches of public international law. The conclusion is that, within the law of the sea, the Principle of Domination means not a complete transposition of coastal sovereignty to the adjacent areas of sea. Its impact is thus much weakened by another general principle of the law of the sea, namely, the freedom of the high seas. But the existence of the principle in customary law can restrict the scope of applicability of the UNCLOS, and consequently, the jurisdiction of such tribunals as referred to in Article 287 UNCLOS. This article suggests, however, that mixed disputes may still be decided by those tribunals in a certain way.
Protracted maritime boundary disputes and maritime laws
Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 2019
This paper concentrates on the protracted maritime boundary dispute with concern maritime laws. Maritime boundary dispute is a much-talked issue in the international legal arena. The countries are now becoming very much concerned with their maritime boundary for exploring and exploiting both its mineral and its food resources. But maritime boundary disputes are the barrier to use marine resources for coastal countries. So, the defined maritime boundary is necessary for every coastal state to use their maritime zones. The disputes also destroy the political harmony in international relation. Hence, the rapid settlement of maritime boundary dispute is of key importance for a peaceful coexistence of coastal states. Unfortunately, most of the disputes are delayed to be settled. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the prime international instrument which deals with the procedures of maritime boundary delimitation. This paper attempts to discuss the protracted maritime boundary disputes and maritime laws. Many of the concepts discussed in this paper can serve as guidelines for other countries that share coastlines.
Analysing the Settlement of Maritime Sovereignty’s Dispute Cases Based on Unclos 1982
Interdisciplinary Social Studies
This paper was written to describe maritime sovereignty disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS). UNCLOS' 1982 role was enormous in resolving the South China Sea dispute, Indonesia's Malaysian dispute, and the Natuna islands dispute. The theoretical framework used in this paper to analyze case studies is the international regime and the theory of compliance with maritime dispute resolution. The results of this paper show that the jurisdiction of UNCLOS 1982 offers several paths in dispute resolution and prevents the occurrence of perpetual sea disputes.
The Peculiarities of Exercising State Jurisdiction at the High Seas
The high seas are not only one of the major areas of the world's ocean, but also a source of many lucrative resources, which may be used by all states, whether coastal or landlocked , under the freedom of the high seas which is a general principle of international law. However, the principle is not unconditional as the activities of states at the high seas are subject to the regulations prescribed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Equality of states operating at the high seas leads to the exclusivity of the flag state jurisdiction and the principle of non-interdiction of its vessels. Nevertheless, UNCLOS foresees exceptions to the jurisdiction of flag states. The article analyses, inter alia, the preconditions of exercising flag state jurisdiction, the possibilities and peculiarities of non-state actor interference particularly regarding cases of piracy and pre-emptive self-defence.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This essay examines recent decisions of international courts and tribunals—specifically, the 2009 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea case between Romania and Ukraine—and draws implications for the territorial and maritime boundary disputes in East and Southeast Asia. Main Findings The judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Black Sea case is a landmark jurisprudential contribution to the development of the law of maritime delimitation. In this case, the ICJ explicitly provided a three-stage delimitation method—which, although not novel, is a clarification and clear articulation not seen in previous cases. The peaceful settlement of disputes over territory and over unresolved maritime boundaries is fundamental for the prevention of interstate conflict. Disputed territorial sovereignty and contested maritime boundaries impair maritime security, hamper effective interstate cooperation, compromise sustainable use of scarce natural resources, and hinder the flow of goods and resources. International adjudication offers one important way to resolve long-standing and apparently intractable disputes, especially concerning sovereignty over territory. However, this mode of dispute settlement is only one of the options open to states and is not necessarily ideal, as the vast majority of boundary agreements have resulted from diplomatic negotiations. Policy Implications States have an obligation under international law to cooperate, negotiate in good faith, and settle their disputes peacefully. The claimant states should be willing to submit their territorial and maritime disputes to any of the various dispute resolution mechanisms available under international law. The parties must be willing to negotiate on the basis of international law and in particular the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Maritime delimitation can only proceed after the sovereignty issues are resolved; these disputes must, therefore, be addressed first. However, states can set aside the issue of sovereignty and consider joint development of the resources as an option; or cooperate on other issues such as marine environmental protection, marine scientific research, and counterterrorism, without prejudice to their respective claims. The resolution of the disputes should consider the political dynamics and cultural sensitivities of the region and allow a greater role for intraregional mechanisms.
EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Conference Paper No. 11/2018, 2018 ESIL Annual Conference, Manchester "International Law and Universality" Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
This paper deals with the possible disappearance of some island States as a result of one of the negative effects of climate change, i.e., the sea level rise. In this sense, this phenomenon of ‘disappearing island States’ implies serious legal challenges to the Law of the Sea, the International Law and their alleged universality. Among others, the impact of the sea level rise on the maritime boundaries of the disappearing island States in addition to the feasibility of the proposed options to physically preserve the territory of the disappearing States are considered. From a Public International Law perspective, concerns as the possible disappearance of the constitutive statehood prerequisites (mainly, population and territory, which would progressively become uninhabitable), the need to avoid the statelessness of the disappearing island States’ nationals, or the hypothetical relocation of those ‘climate change refugees’ are analysed, too. Moreover, this contribution addresses the different strategies proposed in order to preserve the international legal personality of those States, namely: the acquisition of territory from other State, the federation with other States, the creation of governments in exile or the self-governing alternatives. In this sense, the studied alternatives seem unlikely to keep recognized over long time. Finally, consideration is given to the influence of this phenomenon in the universality of International Law, taking into account the principles and aims included in the Law of the Sea Convention (and its Preamble). The challenge of this phenomenon to the universality of International Law is based on the tough paradox according to which the smallest contributors to climate change (Small Island States) will be the most affected by climate change -even disappearing- and meanwhile their losses could eventually benefit some of the biggest contributors to climate change.