Introduction

The adoption of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 was a milestone in the development of the law of the sea, and in international law-making in general. As the ‘constitution for the oceans’, the Convention has been praised as a monumental achievement, as much ... read more as it continues to be the subject of contemporary debates. Many present-day exigencies are dramatically different in nature and scope than those on the table of the drafters back in the seventies. The oceans are under stress from cumulative pressures of an unprecedented nature and scale: ranging from the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, to the widespread loss of biodiversity, pollution and ecosystem degradation. These changing circumstances and interests pose challenges for the law of the sea and ocean governance to respond, adapt, and mediate demand for normative change. This thesis builds on the premise that the conclusion of a treaty is only the beginning of an ongoing ‘law-building process’, and that the formal shape of an instrument does not guarantee either its continued ‘stability’ or its susceptibility to change. It centres around the research question how - that is, through which mechanisms already present in international law - UNCLOS can respond to demand for change arising from its contemporary context. The approach adopted in this study to analyse ‘change’ in the law of the sea builds on three inseparable pillars: the context from which demand for change emerges, the mechanisms for change available within the international legal system, and how these mediate change in practice. show less

This comes at a time when the stand-off over the Scarborough Shoal has matured to the status of an international dispute. It involves rivaling claims on points of law or fact between the People’s Republic China (PRC) and the Republic of the Philippines (RP). PRC calls the shoal as Huangyan island while RP refers to it as Bajo de Masinloc or Panatag Shoal as advanced and published in their respective governmental positions, albeit their claims for de facto sovereignty and territory. Employing mainly descriptive, historical, documentary and content analyses techniques, this dwells on (a) the character of Scarborough Shoal in the perspective of international law, (b) the conflicting claims of the PRC and RP with their respective governmental positions, (c) the mechanisms for settlement of an international dispute as provided for by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and (d) whether or not the Philippines can avail of the said remedies and how can the Scarborough Shoal be settled employing international law, rules and principles. The UNCLOS provides for a mechanism in Part XV, for settlement of disputes, ranging from the pacific modes of dispute settlement to resort to compulsory mechanisms entailing binding decisions. It is also provided that sans a choice of procedure, only Arbitration under Annex VII, the Hamburg Tribunal, is available, and this, the Philippines followed when it submitted its notification and statement of claims. Based on the international jurisprudence on related issues, there are rarely a winner and a loser. However, having studied the current situation principally in the light of the UNCLOS III, which favors the position of the Philippines, one is forced to recognize that oceans and their basic rules - droit de la mer- existed before UNCLOS. Certainly, the final settlement of the issues hereinbefore presented will go beyond the confines of UNCLOS.Keywords: Social Sciences, International disputes, Law of the Sea, descriptive design,Philippine-China Relations, UNCLOS, Philippines, Southeast Asia

Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the protection and preservation of the marine environment contains provisions that are worded in a general manner. As “the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole”, these provisions need to be interpreted in harmony with the wider corpus of international law. However, when marine environmental disputes are brought before the UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies, their jurisdiction is limited to disputes arising under UNCLOS. The tribunals, therefore, have to navigate between deciding disputes in a hollistic manner and remaining within their jurisdictional limits. This article discusses the techniques used by UNCLOS tribunals to resort to other sources of international law when settling marine environmental disputes. It will then assess whether, in doing so, the tribunals have remained within their jurisdictional parameters and the wider implications of this practice.

The Legal Vortex in the Strait of Hormuz

Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the legal regime governing the novel ‘continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles’ or ‘the outer continental shelf’. As Article 76 contains a complex interface between law and science, its interpretation and application raises intricate issues, with which no international court or tribunal had dealt with substantively before 2012. The UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies were the first international tribunals to provide answers to long-standing questions surrounding the meaning and application of several important, but ambiguous or controversial, legal terms employed under Article 76. As such, the decisions rendered by the UNCLOS tribunals have been seen as playing an important role in elucidating the legal regime of the outer continental shelf. This article queries this assessment by critically examining whether and to what extent the relevant pronouncements made by UNCLOS tribunals have contributed to clarifying and developing the law governing the outer continental shelf regime under UNCLOS.

Ocean data determining the state of the ocean are required for various purposes. The data are needed to understand the ocean and its interrelation, for instance, with the climate as well as to provide information and benefits for numerous sectors, such as for the coastal protection or pollution control. In order to meet the multiple needs for ocean information, a global and sustained system for ocean observation activities is necessary. Steps towards such a global system have been taken within the last decades, especially by setting up the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). However, the existing international structures and systems have been lacking governmental support and are held to be insufficient. In this context, the questions are raised whether states are already required by international law to observe and monitor the ocean and to cooperate in doing so and whether states are even obliged to contribute to international ocean observing programmes. Although to some extent, states’ obligations can be found in international conventions, such as in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they cannot meet all the various needs for ocean data. Specific and substantive obligations in international law meeting the multiple needs for ocean data are, however, required. If such obligations were included in the UNCLOS, issues relating to Marine Scientific Research would have to be kept in mind. Another option of creating specific commitments could be seen in a new agreement relating to the GOOS.

With the signing of the recent agreement with Russia concerning the maritime boundary in the Barents Sea, it can finally be said that all the maritime delimitation lines with which Norway is concerned have been equitably resolved in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This paper reviews the events, difficulties, survey procedures and solutions that have led to the completion of the Norwegian maritime boundary definitions. The various UNCLOS concepts of baselines and maritime domains (Territorial Waters, the Contiguous Zone, and the Exclusive Economic Zone) are explained, and reference is made to important national and international decrees and judgments that have been made over the years. Particular attention is drawn to the impact and importance of geodetic considerations on maritime boundary definitions. Practical consequences have arisen through not taking these geodetic impacts into account, especially since the advent of satellite navigation systems has enabled much improved positioning accuracy out of sight of land, while enormous natural resources have been identified and are being extracted from national maritime domains. The article gives an account of the solutions to these geodetic difficulties that have been negotiated with neighbouring nations. Keywords: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, base- line, territorial sea, contiguous zone, Exclusive Economic Zone = EEZ, maritime boundaries, geodetic datum, Norway, Jan Mayen, Svalbard, Bouvet Island. Citation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 3, 1/2012 p. 108–129. ISSN 1891-6252

The Arctic region, with its unique and fragile ecosystem, faces significant challenges in environmental protection due to climate change, increasing human activities, and geopolitical tensions. This paper examines the international legal framework governing Arctic environmental protection, focusing on the roles and limitations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). While UNCLOS provides a foundational legal framework for ocean governance, its applicability in addressing Arctic environmental concerns should be acknowledged, as should the complementary role of the BBNJ Agreement. However, the lack of provisions specific to Arctic environmental issues creates a gap between the effectiveness of international law and the urgent need for a comprehensive legal regime tailored to the Arctic context. Furthermore, the supplementary role of the BBNJ Agreement to UNCLOS remains limited. By highlighting key challenges in the implementation of international law, including disputes over Article 234 of UNCLOS, this study underscores the urgent need for a more robust and cohesive international legal approach to ensure the sustainable future of the Arctic environment, and concludes with appropriate recommendations.

Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a system for compulsory and binding dispute resolution. Article 288(2) of UNCLOS allows the dispute resolution system of Part XV to be used by the parties to another international agreement in accordance with the terms of that other agreement, as long as that agreement is related to the purposes of UNCLOS. This article examines the treaty practice under Article 288(2) to assess how those other agreements (which are mostly regional fisheries management organization agreements) provide for access to Part XV. The article examines these agreements within the following analytical framework: (1) Are these agreements related to the purposes of UNCLOS? (2) What jurisdiction, ratione materiae, do the agreements confer on the court or tribunal? (3) How do the agreements provide for submission? (4) How do the agreements deal with applicable law issues? (5) How do the agreements deal with the availability of provisional measures?

The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into force on November 18, 1994 to provide the legal framework for maritime boundary delimitation. Understanding the geomatics aspects of UNCLOS is vital for coastal nations to claim the ownership of the natural resources within the limits of their Continental Shelf. This paper discusses some of the geomatics aspects of UNCLOS, namely the geodetic and uncertainty issues. A case study for Egypt's outer limits is also presented.

This chapter discusses the difficulties which affect coastal States that front upon the Arctic Ocean. It begins with an overview of the process that is formulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for delimiting the outer continental shelf (OCS), supplemented with a brief description of the activities that have been undertaken by the five Arctic coastal States in developing their outer limits. Finally, the chapter reviews the four categories of complications that affect the development of those limits in the region. The complications are (1) scientific and technical; (2) timing; (3) political; and (4) international. The technical and semantic ambiguities that are inherent to Article 76 of UNCLOS are compounded by numerous anticipated complications that coastal States will need to address not only during the delimitation of the OCS in the Arctic region, but also in the aftermath of that activity. Keywords: Arctic Ocean; outer continental shelf (OCS); UNCLOS

Korea International Law Review has published a number of influential articles regarding the law of the sea from 1993 (when the 1st volume was published) to 2018 (when the 49th was published). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entered into force in 1994 and since then many articles dealing with the law of the sea have been contributed to Korea International Law Review. Specially, one article of the late Professor Choon-ho PARK (a former judge of the ITLOS) and several timely articles written by Professor Charn-kyu KIM have sought a better understanding of the law of the sea. For example, Professor KIM rejects comparing the 1998 Fisheries Agreement between Korea and Japan with the 1965 Agreement. He interprets the 1998 Agreement in the context of the UNCLOS. For him, the UNCLOS is a comprehensive tool for understanding the law of the sea better. Moreover, Korea International Law Review provides a good opportunity for publications for young international law scholars. They have carefully analysed new cases of international courts and tribunals dealing with controversial issues about the law of the sea. Their researches have demonstrated the development and operation of the UNCLOS regime. For instance, they had dealt with the matter of the continental shelf beyond 200 NM with a study on the Bay of Bengal case of the ITLOS and had addressed some problems arising out of the nine-dash line before an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII to the UNCLOS made its final decision concerning the South China Sea dispute on 12 July 2016. It means that, since the publication of its first volume, Korea International Law Review has successfully encouraged young scholars to research on the key issues of international law.

Disputed maritime areas are often sources of valuable natural resources, but they are also often sources of conflict. It is thus important for investors investing in such areas to know the array of investment protection mechanisms available to them. This article examines four such mechanisms (dispute settlement under international investment agreements (IIAs), dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), dispute settlement under contracts, and political risk insurance) in the context of three scenarios of disputed maritime areas (unregulated areas, joint development areas, and provisionally delimited areas). It concludes that dispute settlement under IIAs and UNCLOS face significant obstacles not only on jurisdiction and admissibility, but also on the merits. As a result, the most practical solution for investors is to rely on dispute settlement under contracts or political risk insurance to protect their investments.

Climate litigation has reached the international level with several requests for advisory opinions from international courts and tribunals, and human rights treaty bodies addressing climate change‐related human rights violations. The Paris Agreement will likely be relevant in many of these and other cases to come, whether directly in disputes about its application or interpretation, or indirectly in informing the interpretation of other international agreements, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It could also inform the due diligence standard contained in customary international environmental law. This article first examines normative elements of the Paris Agreement that may become relevant in the interpretation of other international norms. It then identifies some potential entry points of legal influence of these elements in the interpretation and application of other international law, especially the ECHR and UNCLOS. The article argues that the legal influence of the Agreement goes above and beyond the ‘legal fold’ in which it was adopted and can inform the interpretation of other international treaties and norms. ‘Paris‐aligned’ interpretation, taking into account the diligence standards contained in the Agreement, could impact on the contemporary understanding of international law more generally. Such interpretation might be necessary to avoid undermining the relevance of the Agreement. Importantly, it suggests that Paris‐aligned interpretation of other international treaties can provide a positive feedback loop towards effective implementation of, and compliance with, the Paris Agreement. Eventually, such Paris alignment may enhance legal consistency between diverse parts of international law and break down fragmented silos.

Could international law contribute to interstate maritime conflicts? A close tracing of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) policies in the South China Sea suggests so. China’s early interactions with the emerging maritime legal order in the 1970s expanded the scope of its interests from disputed island territories to comprehensive jurisdiction over vast swathes of maritime space. Ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1996 prompted Beijing to develop new bureaucratic and enforcement capabilities designed to realize sweeping claims inspired by, though not limited to, UNCLOS entitlements. When these capabilities came to fruition in the mid-2000s, they enabled a sustained, increasingly coercive push for control over the PRC’s maritime periphery, which has continued to the present. Four representative cases of China’s new and ongoing patterns of behaviour demonstrate in specific detail how China’s interactions with the legal regime have contributed to its confrontational on-water behaviour. In short, the PRC’s campaign to control vast swathes of East Asian maritime space was rooted in the party-state’s internalization of concepts of maritime rights through the UNCLOS process, coupled with a rejection of its corresponding limitations.