| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148527
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
148526
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
148525
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China has been blamed – and rightly so – for advancing overbroad claims in the South China Sea (SCS), and for unilaterally attempting to enforce those claims through threats and aggressive actions. The United States has properly responded to China’s assertions by exercising its maritime rights through freedom of navigation operations, by assisting States whose claims are threatened by China’s conduct, and by working to create and strengthen alliances to deter China from continuing its policy of using strength to implement its claims to sovereignty and historical rights through unilateral actions. Such measures are essential to convince China to return to its long-held and sound policy of avoiding sovereignty disputes and supporting cooperative development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
148528
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On 22 January 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines presented a note verbale to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Philippines, stating that the Philippines submitted a Notification and Statement of Claim in order to initiate compulsory arbitration proceedings under Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”) with respect to the dispute with China over “maritime jurisdiction” in the South China Sea. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese Government rejected and returned the Philippines’ note verbale together with the attached Notification and Statement of Claim. The Chinese Government has subsequently reiterated that it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration thus initiated by the Philippines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
148522
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Tribunal in the case brought by the Philippines against China in relation to the South China Sea has recently given its decision on whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the claims. Although it only found unequivocally that it has jurisdiction over three of the fifteen claims, this paper explains why in a number of respects the argumentation used by the Tribunal is weak. In particular it questions whether the Tribunal was right to proceed when issues of maritime delimitation and disputes over territorial sovereignty are outside its jurisdiction. The paper also criticizes the manner in which the Tribunal reached the conclusion that there was no undertaking to solve any disputes in the South China Sea through other means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
148523
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China claims “historic rights” over the islands and other maritime features in the South China Sea. The Philippines contests these claims on the ground that they are incompatible with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. It initiated arbitration under Annex VII of the (UNCLOS) for a declaratory judgment to that effect. China rejected the arbitral procedure in part because of its 2006 Declaration which excludes all such disputes from the compulsory dispute settlement procedure of the Convention. This paper examines the recent award of the Arbitral Tribunal accepting jurisdiction over the some of the submissions made by the Philippines. It finds that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has very little to offer to decide on issues of sovereignty and associated issues of overlapping maritime entitlements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
148530
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
148529
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since 22 January 2013 when the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration with respect to certain issues in the South China Sea (Arbitration), China has maintained its solemn position that it would neither accept nor participate in the Arbitration, having stated that the tribunal constituted at the unilateral request of the Philippines (Arbitral Tribunal or Tribunal) manifestly has no jurisdiction. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese Government released 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 (Position Paper), which elaborated on these positions. The Chinese Society of International Law strongly supports the positions of the Chinese Government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|