Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:45:40.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Rocks” or “Islands”? Sailing Towards Legal Clarity in the Turbulent South China Sea

Part of: South China Sea Arbitration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nilufer Oral
Nilufer Oral*
Affiliation:
Istanbul Bilgi University Law, the International Law Commission
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Arbitral Award handed down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on 12 July 2016 in In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of Chinais undoubtedly one of the most anticipated decisions in recent memory.

Type
Symposium on the South China Sea Arbitration
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 279 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

References

1 The South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Award (July 12, 2016) [here in after Final Award]. For an overview of the award see Lucy Reed & Kenneth Wong, Marine Entitlements in the South China Sea: The Arbitration Between the Philippines and China, 110 AJIL (forthcoming 2016).

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 3.

3 For example, a small island could generate up to a 431, 014 km2 maritime area, whereas a “rock” with only a territorial sea would be limited to 1,550 km2. See Clive Schofield, The Trouble with Islands: The Definition and Role of Islands and Rocks in Maritime Boundary Delimitation,in Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea 19, 21 (Seoung-Yong Hong & Jon M. Van Dyke eds.,2009).

4 Jon M.Van Dyke & Robert A.Brooks, Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on the Ownership of the Oceans’ Resources, 12 Ocean Dev.&Int’l L. 265, 271 (1983).

5 Compare Jonathan Charney, Rocks that Cannot Sustain Human Habitation, 93 AJIL 863, 870-871 n. 34(1999) (supporting the view that a permanent population was not necessary for a feature to be an “island” under Article 121) with Van Dyke & Brooks, supra note 4, at 286 (arguing the opposite).

6 Compare Charney, supra note 5,at 173 (taking the position that support through external sources would not preclude a feature from being an island) with Van Dyke & Brooks,supra note 4, at 287 (arguing the opposite).

7 See Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 280

8 SeeJonathan Charney, Central East Asian Maritime Boundaries and the Law of the Sea, 89 AJIL 724, 732 (1995).

9 See Final Award, supra note 1, at paras. 305-306.

10 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), Merits, 2012 ICJ REP. 624 para. 37 (Nov. 19) (On the status of Quitasue).

11 See Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 481.

12 Seeid. at para. 496.

13 Id.at paras. 496 and 497.

14 Id.at para. 487.

15 Id. at para. 489.

16 Id. at para. 520.

17 Id. at para. 505.

18 Id.at paras.498-503.

19 Id. at paras. 512 and 517.

20 Id. at para. 624.

21 Guifang (Julia) Xue, How Much Can a Rock Get?, 6 China Oceans L.Rev. 1 (2011); Yann-Huei Song, Okinotoroshima: A ‘Rock or an ‘Island? Recent Maritime Boundary Controversy between Japan and Taiwan/China, in Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea 145 (Seoung-Yong Hong and Jon M. Van Dyke eds.,2009).