| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148524
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 29 October 2015 issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. The Tribunal rejected China’s objection that the disputes presented by the Philippines concerned, in essence, the extent of China’s territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea and were thus outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal found, inter alia, that the Philippines’ submissions reflected disputes between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, that there was no other State indispensable to the proceedings, and that the Philippines had met the requirement under Article 283 of the Convention that the parties exchange views regarding the settlement of their disputes. This paper examines the Tribunal’s findings with regard to each and every of the Philippines’ 15 final submissions and demonstrates that some of its findings on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Philippines’ claims are seriously flawed and based on procedural irregularities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
121887
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the civil wars in Libya and Syria, the rebel opposition groups were recognized by some as "the (sole) legitimate representative of the people" of these States. This paper, using the situation in Syria as a case study, examines what it means to recognize a group as "the legitimate representative of a people", while the State's government is still in place. It shows that with regard to recognition statements wording is all important, and that the Syrian Opposition Council has been recognized in at least six different capacities of varying legal significance. The paper sets out the difference between the "legal" and the "political" act of recognition and finds that recognition as "the legitimate representative of a people" is a purely political act. Although four normative criteria for the status of "legitimate representative of a people" can be identified, what is lacking are clear standards for their application. The paper outlines the consequences of political recognition and examines its legality in terms of international law and its suitability as a political tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
170429
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States’ recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan has been widely considered a flagrant breach of international law. This illegal act gives reason to examine the relationship between the United States under President Trump and international law more generally. Unlike its predecessors, the Trump administration has not just violated international law whenever U.S. economic, political, or strategic interests demanded it to do so, it has rather challenged international law and its institutions as such, and has actively undermined them. The attitude of the Trump administration towards international law and its institutions is marked by an unparalleled contempt or disdain. This article delivers a powerful “J’accuse” against this international law nihilism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|