| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
188224
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In August 2021, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders issued the Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level Rise (PIF Declaration), declaring their intention that their maritime zones, and rights and entitlements flowing from those zones, would be maintained notwithstanding the effects of sea-level rise. This article offers a commentary on the PIF Declaration in the context of scholarly debate on sea-level rise implications for baselines and maritime zones, and in light of its historical lineage. The PIF Declaration’s significance lies in giving prominence to a package of state practice, comprising the establishment of maritime zones using fixed methods, their notification to the international community, and their maintenance over time. The article examines evidence of such practice among PIF members, and considers how such practice advances the PIF Declaration’s claim that the preservation of maritime zones may be achieved through the interpretation and application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
159409
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the conclusion in the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Case that straight baselines may not be used to enclose off-shore archipelagos unless they meet the criteria set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the Law of the Sea Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
137398
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea contains provisions governing the maritime claims of states, including special provisions for archipelagic states. To date, 20 states have utilized these provisions by enacting archipelagic baselines, within which these states claim sovereign waters subject to the navigational rights of other states. This article systematically examines the degree to which the archipelagic claims of these states have complied with the requirements in the Law of the Sea Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
124568
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea's March 2012 Judgment in the Bay of Bengal Case is a landmark decision in multiple ways. It represents the first maritime boundary to be delimitated by the Tribunal. It is the first adjudication of a maritime boundary in Asia, and it is also the first judicial delimitation of a maritime boundary for parts of the extended continental shelf located seaward of the 200-nautical-mile limit from baselines. While the Tribunal's ruling largely resolves the maritime dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar, it also raises a number of questions and concerns that are highlighted in this article, including the Tribunal's approach to delimitation both within and beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit, the treatment of islands, the interplay between law of the sea institutions and the creation of a so-called grey area where continental shelf jurisdiction falls to one state and water column jurisdiction to the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|