| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
106560
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137770
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
102577
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses how the CLCS can curb the situations prohibited by Article 137(1) of UNCLOS, i.e. encroachment upon the Area. The CLCS is mandated by Article 76 to consider the submitted information that coastal States intend to use in establishing limits of outer continental shelves. When the inconsistency of the Submission with Article 76 is mishandled by the CLCS, encroachment may materialize. Being critical of the CLCS's decisions as to when to disqualify a controversial Submission, the scope of disputes under the CLCS Rules of Procedure has been unreasonably narrowed by practice and rendered inconsistent with Article 76(1). Consequently, encroachment is not discouraged. The author argues that a proper interpretation and application of Article 76(1) by the CLCS, while taking Article 121 as context, may prevent such an encroachment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
110908
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The mandate and working procedure of the Commission on the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) are defined primarily by Article 76(8) and Annex II of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The nature of the work of this body is a mixture of technological, scientific and legal elements. The question arises in practice as to what legal effect, if any, the CLCS's recommendations will have on points of law that concern the interpretation and application of the UNCLOS. Article 76(8) and other instruments related to the CLCS's work leave certain issues undefined, such that disputes between States in the delineation of the outer limits of a continental shelf may result in limits which lack both finality and binding force. It is suggested that to avoid that situation, general acceptance by other States concerned is necessary, and that the CLCS may consider referring a legally disputed point for another competent body to determine, before it proceeds with the making of recommendations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
187406
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The lack of transparency in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf constitutes a major issue for both submitting and third states. In this respect, a careful reader of the reports of UNCLOS Meeting of the States Parties would not fail to discern the constant calls for transparency in the work of this body. While much has already been said on the transparency/confidentiality issues in the work of the Commission, new issues have emerged, such as the question of transparency in the internal relationship between the Commission and its subcommission. Prompted by this observation, this article discusses the process of implementing Article 76 of UNCLOS through the prism of transparency, opacity, and confidentiality, with a particular focus on the instances of disagreements between the subcommission and the Commission in plenary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|