:: Volume 11, Issue 41 (2020) ::
2020, 11(41): 25-37 Back to browse issues page
Status of Rocks in the Law of the Sea with Relying on the South China Sea Arbitration Award
Asma Salari
Department of law, University of Zabol, Iran , salari@uoz.ac.ir
Abstract:   (4715 Views)
Abstract
Islands and rocks are entitled different maritime zones in international law of the sea. Article 121(3) allocated to rocks has articulated briefly and without indicating any definitions or characters of this feature. Paragraph 3 provided two conditions for rocks in order to create exclusive economic zone and continental shelf zone. The South China Sea tribunal has interpreted this paragraph for the first time and answered some questions such as what does rocks mean? And what is the relationship between rocks and islands and what does human habitation and economic life clauses provided? This article has confirmed some findings of the tribunal and rejected others and reached these conclusions: rocks imply rocky islands. The lack of both human habitation and economic life clauses are needed to deprive rocks of generating broad maritime zones. Tribunal Initiatives like establishing the link between habitants of rocks and economic activities, adding natural condition to “of its-self” phrase and imposing qualitative standard on “cannot sustain” are not acceptable based on the text of the article 121 of UNCLOS. The methodology of this research is descriptive-analytical which was done with the help of library source.
Keywords: Rocks, Islands, United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea, the South China Sea Arbitration
Full-Text [PDF 492 kb]   (1717 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research/ Original/ Regular Article | Subject: Chemical Oceanography
Received: 2020/07/1 | Revised: 2020/09/21 | Accepted: 2020/07/1 | ePublished: 2020/07/1
References
1. چگینی، و.، 1390. فرهنگ تشریحی مهندسی سواحل و فیزیک دریا، تهران، موسسه ملی اقیانوس‌شناسی
2. سالاری، ا.، 1392. نظام حقوقی جزایر در حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران، خرسندی
3. سالاری، ا.، 1398. اثر جزایر در تحدید حدود مناطق دریایی از دیدگاه رویۀ قضایی بین‌المللی، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره: 49، ش.4، صفحات 1043-1066
4. صابرنژاد علویان، ع.، نجفی اسفاد، م.، 1398. اصل تناسب در تحدید حدود مناطق دریایی از منظر رویه‌ی قضایی بین‌المللی، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 49، ش. 1، صفحات 159-176
5. صالحی، ج.، 1396.اعمال صلاحيت در حقوق بين‌الملل درياها در تقابل ميان اصل آزادي دريانوردي و حق حفاظت از تأسیسات فراساحلي، نشريه اقيانوس‌شناسي، شماره 32،صفحات 12-1؛
6. صیرفی، س.، 1394. تعیین حد خارجی فلات قاره: بررسی مادة 76 کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 45، ش.1، صفحات 123-148
7. صیرفی، س.، 1397. کاربرد خطوط مبدأ مستقیم در تحدید حدود دریایی؛ با نگاه ویژه به تحدید حدود دریایی بین ایران و کویت، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره: 48، ش.3، صفحات483-505
8. محمودی، ه.، راستگو افخم، ع.، تقابل برنامه آزادی دریانوردی امریکا و ادعاهای حاکمیتی چین در دریای جنوبی چین، مجله مطالعات حقوقی دانشگاه شیراز، دوره 10، ش.1، صفحات 304-273
9. مدني، ض.، 1392. محدوده جغرافيايي رژيم حقوقي تحقيقات علمي دريايي در مناطق دريايي بر اساس كنوانسيون 1982 ملل متحد حقوق درياها. نشريه اقيانوس‌شناسي، شماره 16،صفحات 123-109
10. مسرور، م.، حسن خانی، م.،1397. بازآرایی ژئوپلیتیکی در دریای جنوبی چین، فصلنامه ژئوپلیتیک، سال 14، ش. 2، صفحات 196-168
11. Anderson, D., 2012. Islands and Rocks In the ModeRn law of the sea in nordquist, M.H.,norton Moore, J., (eds), The Law of The Sea ConvenTion, Vol.15, Martinus Nijhoff Publication, Leiden.
12. Charney, j. I., 1999. Rocks that Cannot Sustain Human Habitation. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No.4, 863-878 pp. [DOI:10.2307/2555353]
13. Chinese Society of International Law, 2018. The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, 207-748 pp. [DOI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmy012]
14. Franckx, E., 2017. the Enigma of Article 121, Paragraph 3: The Way Forward?, Maritime issues, 3-31pp.
15. ICJ Rep 2001, Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
16. ICJ Rep, 1993, Case Concerning maritime delimitation in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway)
17. ICJ Rep, 2012, Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia
18. Murphy, S. D., 2017. International Law Related to Islands, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Vol. 386.21-265pp.
19. ITLOS Rep, 2002, the Volga case between Russia and Australia.
20. Klein, N., 2016. Islands and Rocks after the South China Sea Arbitration, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 34, 21-29 pp. [DOI:10.1163/26660229-034-01-900000003]
21. PCA Rep, 2016, Case Concerning the South China dispute between Philippine and China.
22. Song, Y-H., 2018. The July 2016 Arbitral Award, Interpretation of Article 121 (3) of the UNCLOS, and Selecting Examples of Inconsistent State Practices, Ocean Development & International Law, 2018, Vol. 49, NO. 3, 247-261 pp. [DOI:10.1080/00908320.2018.1479355]
23. Gau, M.S.T, 2019. The Interpretation of Article 121 (3) of UNCLOS by the Tribunal for the South China Sea Arbitration: A Critique, Ocean Development & International Law, Volume 50, 2019 - Issue 1
24. Talmon, S., 2017. Regime of islands, in Proelss, A., et. al. (Ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, Hart publication Oxford, United Kingdom, 858-880 PP.
25. Tanaka, Y., 2006. Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation, Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK.
26. Tanaka, Y., 2017. Reflections on the Interpretation and Application of Article 121(3) in the South China Sea Arbitration (Merits), Ocean Development & International Law, Vol.48, No.3,4. [DOI:10.1080/00908320.2017.1349529]

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 11, Issue 41 (2020) Back to browse issues page