| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
101598
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty ending World War II in the Pacific does not include any language regarding sovereignty over Dokdo, the islets situated in the East Sea/Sea of Japan between Korea and Japan. Earlier drafts had addressed this issue, but language on Dokdo was omitted because of the urgency of completing the Peace Treaty and the outbreak of the Korean War. Earlier documents issued by the Allied Powers had separated Dokdo from Japan's main islands, Korea has strong historical evidence to support its claim to the islets and it has exercised effective occupation over them since the early 1950s. Japan agreed to a Normalization Treaty with Korea in 1965 without insisting on any language referring to Dokdo. Although Japan continues to protest Korea's occupation of Dokdo, its claim is not strengthened by absence of any reference to these islets in the text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
101595
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." If any of the geographical features situated in the Pacific Ocean are considered "rocks" that fail the tests of habitation or economic viability, they will not be entitled to their own 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. However, the paragraph and the tests contained in the article give rise to various questions of interpretation, which have become one of the main sources of maritime disputes between the countries concerned. This article examines the interpretation and possible application of Article 121 to five selected insular features that are situated in the Northern, Eastern and Western Pacific Ocean, namely Baker Island, Howland Island, Clipperton Island, Douglas Reef (Okinotorishima) and Marcus Island (Minamitorishima).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
101602
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Southeast Asia is a region rooted in cultural, ethnic, geographic and developmental diversity but generally viewed as a united bloc. Under the steady expansion of globalization and the drastic competition from neighbouring regions, regionalization in Southeast Asia is confronting new challenges and entering a new era. To deal with this, national leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member States decided in 2008 to adopt a new agreement, the ASEAN Charter, to aim for deeper integration in the future. What are the differences in ASEAN's position in the international community after adopting the ASEAN Charter? This article plans to analyse ASEAN's developmental challenges and the legal contents of the ASEAN Charter, as well as to compare some of the European Union's experiences in order to assess ASEAN's new status under international law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
101601
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The primary purpose of this article is to propose general conditions for establishing a nuclear weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the Korean Peninsula from the viewpoint of international law. North Korea's nuclear weapons development has created the most negative environment for the peace and security of Northeast Asia since the early 1990s. In spite of painstaking negotiations to denuclearize North Korea, the parties concerned have not found any fundamental solution yet. This interim failure is due to the uncompromising positions of the two sides as well as the inherently paradoxical structure of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which legalizes the development of nuclear weapons by the recognized nuclear powers. The most reasonable solution is to completely and fairly denuclearize the whole Korean Peninsula under an NWFZ. This paper scrutinizes legal, political and technical problems for realizing the plan for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
101600
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper gives an overview of the activities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2009. It provides information on the 19th Meeting of States Parties (2009), organizational developments, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and cases before it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
101597
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At international conferences, whether quorum is relevant to a decision-making process of consensus is a very practical question that always confuses diplomats and legal advisors. There is no definitive answer yet available. Different views and practices do exist. This article, by clarifying the meaning of the concepts of consensus and quorum in the procedure law of international conferences, suggests that, in principle, a consensus decision shall be made with the necessary quorum present; exceptions may be made in special cases accompanied by necessary safeguards and procedures. This suggestion, which has fully taken account of various existing practices, could serve as a possible solution for practitioners in the future
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
101596
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that compared with adjudicative immunity, which has developed to be restrictive instead of absolute, the enforcement immunity of foreign States still tends to be interpreted as it has long been interpreted in States practice. By discussing domestic legislations, the court practices of major players in this area and rules provided in regional multilateral conventions concerning the linkage requirement in enforcement immunity, as well as the fact that the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property also endorses the linkage requirement, a conclusion is drawn that the linkage requirement is not only an established rule of customary law but also has gained universal acceptance at least in opinio juris as evidenced by the adoption of the UN Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
101599
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This note first summarizes the Kosovo Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 22 July 2010 and then makes observations regarding several issues involved in the proceedings: the reformulation of the question presented by the United Nations General Assembly, the interpretation of Security Council resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework, self-determination and remedial secession and the unlawful use of force by the NATO in 1999.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|