The Equitable Distribution of Marine Resources by Agreement of States—The Case of the South China Sea

Volker Roeben
{"title":"The Equitable Distribution of Marine Resources by Agreement of States—The Case of the South China Sea","authors":"Volker Roeben","doi":"10.1163/23525207-00000004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The socially just distribution of maritime spaces and their resources among States is a key concern of the 1982 un Convention on the Law of the Sea. This concern underlies the general apportionment of those spaces to coastal States as well as the concrete delimitation of any overlapping claims. The Convention prescribes that such delimitation be equitable. Much attention so far has been given to the judicial performance of such maritime boundary delimitation. This paper focuses on the alternative of delimitation by negotiated agreement of States. It conceives of delimitation as institutionalized oceans governance. This governance seeks to achieve the indeterminate objective of equitable delimitation by combining two broad approaches with machinery for their concretization. For one, the Convention adopts a geographical approach, implemented through the concept of maritime zones extending seawards of the land. Yet the Convention also countenances a non-geographical approach based on historic titles grounded in customary law. For concretising these broad approaches into principles, rules, and decisions, the Convention institutionalizes comprehensive judicial decision-making. Courts and tribunals have indeed developed an acquis judiciaire favouring delimitation by means of the equidistance/relevant circumstances method that is binding on States. However, the Convention gives preference to the equally institutionalized negotiated delimitation of marine entitlements, by means of the agreement of the coastal States concerned. These States therefore retain a considerable margin of appreciation for negotiated delimitation, drawing on state practice to identify the principles appropriate for the individual instance. The paper first develops this governance framework and then exemplifies its workings in the case of the South China Sea, marked by several, ongoing maritime delimitation disputes to be resolved by negotiated settlement.","PeriodicalId":31142,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of Global Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":"36-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/23525207-00000004","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Chinese Journal of Global Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/23525207-00000004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The socially just distribution of maritime spaces and their resources among States is a key concern of the 1982 un Convention on the Law of the Sea. This concern underlies the general apportionment of those spaces to coastal States as well as the concrete delimitation of any overlapping claims. The Convention prescribes that such delimitation be equitable. Much attention so far has been given to the judicial performance of such maritime boundary delimitation. This paper focuses on the alternative of delimitation by negotiated agreement of States. It conceives of delimitation as institutionalized oceans governance. This governance seeks to achieve the indeterminate objective of equitable delimitation by combining two broad approaches with machinery for their concretization. For one, the Convention adopts a geographical approach, implemented through the concept of maritime zones extending seawards of the land. Yet the Convention also countenances a non-geographical approach based on historic titles grounded in customary law. For concretising these broad approaches into principles, rules, and decisions, the Convention institutionalizes comprehensive judicial decision-making. Courts and tribunals have indeed developed an acquis judiciaire favouring delimitation by means of the equidistance/relevant circumstances method that is binding on States. However, the Convention gives preference to the equally institutionalized negotiated delimitation of marine entitlements, by means of the agreement of the coastal States concerned. These States therefore retain a considerable margin of appreciation for negotiated delimitation, drawing on state practice to identify the principles appropriate for the individual instance. The paper first develops this governance framework and then exemplifies its workings in the case of the South China Sea, marked by several, ongoing maritime delimitation disputes to be resolved by negotiated settlement.
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
国家协议的海洋资源公平分配——以南海为例
海洋空间及其资源在各国之间的社会公平分配是1982年《联合国海洋法公约》关注的一个关键问题。这一关切是将这些空间一般分配给沿海国以及对任何重叠要求作出具体划界的基础。《公约》规定这种划界应是公平的。迄今为止,这种海洋划界的司法履行受到了很多关注。本文着重讨论由各国谈判达成的协定进行划界的备选办法。它认为划界是制度化的海洋治理。这种治理力求通过结合两种广泛的方法及其具体化机制来实现公平划界的不确定目标。首先,《公约》采取了地理方法,通过海洋区域的概念将陆地的海岸线延伸开来来执行。然而,《公约》也支持以习惯法为基础的历史所有权为基础的非地理方法。为了将这些广泛的方法具体化为原则、规则和决定,《公约》使全面的司法决策制度化。法院和法庭确实发展了一种司法既成法,赞成采用对各国具有约束力的等距/有关情况法进行划界。但是,《公约》优先考虑通过有关沿海国的协议,以同样制度化的谈判方式划定海洋权利。因此,这些国家对谈判定界保留了相当大的理解余地,根据国家惯例确定适合个别情况的原则。本文首先发展了这一治理框架,然后举例说明了其在南中国海问题上的作用,以几个正在进行的、需要通过谈判解决的海洋划界争端为标志。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Contemporary China and the “Harmonious” World Order in the Age of Globalization A Review of the Academic Debate about United Nations Security Council Reform Assessing the EU Framework Regulation for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investment—What Is the Effect on Chinese Investors? Mapping on Transnational Crime Routes in the New Silk Road: a Case Study of the Greater Mekong Sub-region China’s Military and the Belt and Road Initiative: a View from the Outside
×
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