Search

The article presents the "Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines," as of September 2016. Topics include a lawsuit filed by Philippines against China under the e United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; and significance of the arbitration in terms of the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea.

Recent decisions under the UNCLOS dispute settlement regime, such as Chagos Archipelago, Arctic Sunrise and South China Sea, have had cause to consider the parameters of jurisdiction that exists under Part XV of UNCLOS. A determination of jurisdiction for any court or tribunal constituted under UNCLOS must have regard to alternative means of dispute settlement available, whether the dispute is one relating to the interpretation or application of UNCLOS and whether any exceptions to jurisdiction apply. This paper will consider these three dimensions in light of recent decisions and reflect on ways that the scope of jurisdiction is being expanded or restricted to resolve the disputes at issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the evidences used by the Tribunal for the South China Sea Arbitration to conclude that Philippines' Submissions 3-4 and 6-7 reflect disputes. The Jurisdictional Award uses certain notes verbales sent by the Philippines and China in April 2011 for this purpose. However, the plain wording of these notes verbales negates the existence of disputes concerning the legal status of nine maritime features identified by those four Submissions. The Tribunal overlooks the agreement reached in these notes verbales that some geological features in the Kalayaan Islands Group may generate Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf, which serve to defeat Philippines' Submissions 5, 8, and 9 as well as the Philippines' theory that China invokes historical rights to justify its law enforcement activities in the entire region within the U-Shaped Line. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented which discusses various topics within the issue, including jurisdiction and admissibility in the South China Sea arbitration against China initiated by Philippines, measures taken by the Chinese government regarding the arbitration.

This brief papercomments on the clinical isolation and one-sided tendencies in the Philippines' oral arguments in the South China Sea arbitration, with illustrations fromits arguments on (1) negotiation as the agreed exclusive choice for dispute settlement, (2) sovereignty matters, (3) the optional exception of delimitation-related disputes; (4) the optional exception of military activities disputes; and (5) environmental claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper intends to have a look at fisheries in the South China Sea in order to find out whether this particular issue is a problem solver or rather a problem creator in this region characterized by tense inter-State relationships at present. In this part of the world's ocean, dominated by maritime features such as the Paracels and the Spratleys, i.e. shallow areas, sometimes drying only at low tide, and sometimes at high tide as well, fish is a plentiful resource relied upon by many fishermen of the surrounding countries as a source of income. If we take Europe as an example, fisheries seem to have the dual capability to either trigger disputes between States, resulting sometimes in outright fish wars, or to provide a means of furthering integration between States, such as has been accomplished by the European Common Fisheries Policy. In the South China Sea a similar duality can be witnessed. At times, fishermen have dramatically influenced the relations between certain States to the point of suddenly straining diplomatic relations totally disproportionately to the event which had triggered a particular incident. But fisheries are also used as a vehicle for trying to further co-operation on both bilateral and regional levels. Indeed, very often fisheries are seen as a more “neutral” area able to stimulate co-operation more easily than, for instance, co-operation in the military field or on sovereignty-related issues. This paper will conclude by determining whether Article 123 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea adds any legal obligation to the riparian States of a semi-enclosed sea in this respect. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article elaborates how the establishment of the Arctic Council, a cooperative environmental governance regime tasked to protect the Arctic environment and promote sustainable regional development, provides valuable lessons for the South China Sea. Topics include reasons for the lack of cooperative environmental governance in the South China Sea, the cooperative environmental governance experience of the Arctic Council and the design of the cooperative environmental governance regime.

The article focuses on judicial opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal in "South China Sea Arbitration" initiated by Philippines against China, as of June 2016. It states that the arbitration was made under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and mentions that the Tribunal erred in finding that the claims made by the Philippines contains disputes between China and the Philippines over application of the UNCLOS.

A reprint of the document "Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of Philippines," which appeared on the Website of the Foreign MInistry of China on July 12, 2016, is presented. Topics discussed include events leading to the awarding to the arbitration, and the reasons for the non-acceptance and non-recognition by China.

This critical Study analyzes in detail the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of 29 October 2015 and the award of 12 July 2016 in the South China Sea Arbitration. After briefly introducing the project and the Study and describing the background to and course of the South China Sea Arbitration and the position of the Chinese Government, the Study moves to address one by one the following matters: jurisdiction; admissibility; historic rights; the status of China's Nansha Qundao and Zhongsha Qundao; the legality of China's activities in the South China Sea; due process and evidence. The Study closes with the conclusion that the Tribunal's many errors deprive its awards of validity and threaten to undermine the international rule of law. Included as annexes are five useful official documents of the Chinese government on jurisdiction, the two awards, China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, and China's adherence to the position of settling through negotiation the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Editorial Comment attempts to identify the violations of rule of law principles in the jurisdictional decisions in the South China Sea arbitration. These include the questionable composition of the tribunal with four EU citizens, and the tribunal's failure to take notice of publicly available positions of China, to give effect to those taken notice of, to complete the required analysis, and to respect the consistency requirement. The comment will highlight the consequences from these issues as well as the validity and force of the awards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Philippine Law of the Sea action against China, as of June 2016. It states that China has been blamed for reportedly advancing claims in the South China Sea (SCS), and mentions that the U.S. has acknowledges about the supposed ineffectiveness of Chinese foreign policy concerning SCS claims. It notes that e Philippine government sued C hina under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was supported by the U.S.

This article reviews the disputed claims submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) by coastal States and the corresponding actions taken by the Commission to deal with these disputes. Although the Commission has set up its modalities of handling the submission of related disputes, and despite that its decisions have successfully balanced the interests of the States concerned, it might not be capable of handling disputes of a more complicated nature. An example of a complicated dispute is the submissions involving the region of the South China Sea which contain land territory sovereignty disputes, maritime boundary delimitation disputes, as well as disputes in regards to the interpretation and application of the UNCLOS. Compared with most other submissions, the disputes associated with the South China Sea are obviously more complex. We, therefore, conclude that it is more appropriate for the Commission to not consider or qualify these submissions, rather than to defer their consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U-shaped line in the South China Sea has been recently challenged in the international community and this challenge reached its climax when the Philippines presented China with a Notification and Statement of Claim under Article 287 and Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (LOSConvention) on 22 January 2013. In its Statement of Claim, the Philippines requests the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal to adjudge and declare that China's maritime claims based on the U-shaped line are contrary to the LOS Convention and invalid. Against this background, this article will analyze the issues concerning the related submissions of the Philippines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opposing American and Chinese views on navigational rights of warships in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) reached a climax in 2009 with a number of incidents. Developments in 2010 indicate that the general climate between the two States in the South China Sea has not improved. By focusing on navigational rights of warships in the EEZ as well as in the territorial sea, the present contribution highlights some salient features of the relevant ocean policies of both States, some of which seem hard to square with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. After having noted that these opposing positions of China and the United States concerning navigational rights of warships are hard to reconcile at present, the article looks for possible solutions as to the future. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]