Continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles: Mauritius/Maldives and the forking paths in the jurisprudence

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Journal of International Dispute Settlement Pub Date : 2024-03-23 DOI:10.1093/jnlids/idae009
Xuexia Liao
{"title":"Continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles: Mauritius/Maldives and the forking paths in the jurisprudence","authors":"Xuexia Liao","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The jurisprudence concerning the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) over the past decade converged on distinguishing delineation from delimitation, which justifies the appropriateness of the judiciary to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the absence of the recommendations issued by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Mauritius/Maldives decided by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea departs from the established jurisprudence. By applying a ‘significant uncertainty’ standard that puts the relationship between entitlement and delimitation in the centre, Mauritius/Maldives reasons against exercising jurisdiction over the delimitation beyond 200 nm without affirmative recommendations of the CLCS. Mauritius/Maldives reflects judicial restraint in contrast with a more proactive approach prevailing in previous jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idae009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The jurisprudence concerning the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) over the past decade converged on distinguishing delineation from delimitation, which justifies the appropriateness of the judiciary to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the absence of the recommendations issued by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Mauritius/Maldives decided by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea departs from the established jurisprudence. By applying a ‘significant uncertainty’ standard that puts the relationship between entitlement and delimitation in the centre, Mauritius/Maldives reasons against exercising jurisdiction over the delimitation beyond 200 nm without affirmative recommendations of the CLCS. Mauritius/Maldives reflects judicial restraint in contrast with a more proactive approach prevailing in previous jurisprudence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
200 海里以外大陆架划界:毛里求斯/马尔代夫和判例中的岔路
在过去十年中,关于 200 海里以外大陆架划界的判例趋向于区分划界和划界,这证明在大陆架界限委员会(大陆架委员会)没有提出建议的情况下,司法机构划定 200 海里以外大陆架的界限是适当的。由国际海洋法法庭特别分庭裁决的毛里求斯/马尔代夫案偏离了既定判例。毛里求斯/马尔代夫案采用 "重大不确定性 "标准,将应享权利与划界之间的关系置于中心位置,因此,在没有大陆架委员会肯定性建议的情况下,毛里求斯/马尔代夫案不对 200 海里以外的划界行使管辖权。毛里求斯/马尔代夫案反映了司法克制,与以往判例中盛行的更积极主动的做 法形成对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Unveiling the ‘author’ of international law — The ‘legal effect’ of ICJ’s advisory opinions Continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles: Mauritius/Maldives and the forking paths in the jurisprudence The legitimation of international adjudication Reflecting on the rule of law contestations narratives in the world trading system When the Dragon comes Home to Roost: Chinese Investments in the EU, National Security, and Investor–State Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1