Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:21:39.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Remarks by Joanna Mossop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2019

Joanna Mossop*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law.

Extract

The Tribunal's conclusion that Itu Aba and other features in the South China Sea are rocks that are incapable of generating exclusive economic zones came as a surprise to some scholars and government officials who have never interpreted Article 121(3) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the strict way adopted in this case. In the absence of any previous judicial interpretation of the article, a range of interpretations of Article 121(3) have been seen in the academic literature, and in state practice. Although much of the decision is extremely well argued, I must disagree with the Tribunal's approach to Article 121(3).

Type
The Regime of Islands in the Aftermath of the South China Sea Arbitration
Copyright
Copyright © by The American Society of International Law 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), Award, para. 552 (Perm. Ct. Arb. July 12, 2016).

2 Id., para. 550.

3 Id., para. 533.

4 UNCLOS, Article 76(8).

5 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangl. v. Myan.), Judgment, para. 407, 51 ILM 844 (2012).

6 Communications from China (Feb. 6, 2009) and the Republic of Korea (Feb. 27, 2009), available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htm.