联合国海洋法委员会仲裁庭的司法裁决对仲裁程序的影响——以南海争端为例

IF 0.5 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy Pub Date : 2022-12-16 DOI:10.1163/24519391-07020004
M. Seta
{"title":"联合国海洋法委员会仲裁庭的司法裁决对仲裁程序的影响——以南海争端为例","authors":"M. Seta","doi":"10.1163/24519391-07020004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nAsia-Pacific States have recourse to the dispute settlement system provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) and rely on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (clcs) to delineate the extended continental shelf. unclos tribunals are responsible for delimitating maritime zones, and the clcs for delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf. However, the work of the clcs has been suspended at times, owing to other States’ objections. This article investigates the 2019 Malaysian submission to the clcs by reviewing the precedents and existing literature. This submission has become a contentious issue, because of diplomatic note verbales submitted by, among others, China. This article argues that the clcs should handle the Malaysian submission on the premise that the Malaysia–China dispute over the so-called “nine-dash line” can be regarded as resolved, based on a 2016 Arbitral Tribunal decision under Annex vii.","PeriodicalId":29867,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of the Judicial Decision of unclos Tribunals on the clcs Procedure: The Case of the South China Sea Dispute\",\"authors\":\"M. Seta\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24519391-07020004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nAsia-Pacific States have recourse to the dispute settlement system provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) and rely on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (clcs) to delineate the extended continental shelf. unclos tribunals are responsible for delimitating maritime zones, and the clcs for delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf. However, the work of the clcs has been suspended at times, owing to other States’ objections. This article investigates the 2019 Malaysian submission to the clcs by reviewing the precedents and existing literature. This submission has become a contentious issue, because of diplomatic note verbales submitted by, among others, China. This article argues that the clcs should handle the Malaysian submission on the premise that the Malaysia–China dispute over the so-called “nine-dash line” can be regarded as resolved, based on a 2016 Arbitral Tribunal decision under Annex vii.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24519391-07020004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24519391-07020004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

亚太国家可以求助于《联合国海洋法公约》规定的争端解决制度,并依靠大陆架界限委员会划定扩展的大陆架。联合国海洋法委员会法庭负责划定海洋区域,大陆架委员会负责划定大陆架外部界限。然而,由于其他国家的反对,委员会的工作有时被暂停。本文通过回顾先例和现有文献,调查了2019年马来西亚提交给clcs的案件。由于中国等国提交的外交普通照会,该划界案已成为一个有争议的问题。本文认为,根据2016年仲裁庭根据附件七作出的裁决,中马关于所谓“九段线”的争端可以被视为已解决,中马仲裁委员会应在这样的前提下处理马来西亚的划界案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Effect of the Judicial Decision of unclos Tribunals on the clcs Procedure: The Case of the South China Sea Dispute
Asia-Pacific States have recourse to the dispute settlement system provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) and rely on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (clcs) to delineate the extended continental shelf. unclos tribunals are responsible for delimitating maritime zones, and the clcs for delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf. However, the work of the clcs has been suspended at times, owing to other States’ objections. This article investigates the 2019 Malaysian submission to the clcs by reviewing the precedents and existing literature. This submission has become a contentious issue, because of diplomatic note verbales submitted by, among others, China. This article argues that the clcs should handle the Malaysian submission on the premise that the Malaysia–China dispute over the so-called “nine-dash line” can be regarded as resolved, based on a 2016 Arbitral Tribunal decision under Annex vii.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Strengthening Capacity in Ocean Governance A Quest for Meaning: Interpretation of Article 73(3) of the Law of the Sea Convention by Indonesian Supreme Court A New wto Protocol on Fisheries Subsidies: Potential Implications for the South China Sea Disputes Energy Storage Governance in the Asia-Pacific through the Law of the Sea Convention: Exploring Bottlenecks and Enablers of Regulating Offshore Wind Combined with Energy Storage China and the United States in the South Pacific Ocean: Will Strategic Competition or Practical Cooperation Drive the Future Development
×
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