Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:44:05.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The South China Sea Arbitration: Innovations in Marine Environmental Fact-Finding and Due Diligence Obligations

Part of: South China Sea Arbitration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Makane Moïse Mbengue
Makane Moïse Mbengue*
Affiliation:
International Law, Faculty of Law University of Geneva and Sciences Po Paris (School of Law)
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 South China Sea Arbitration is a leading case in a new generation of environmental disputes, namely, environmental disputes that occur in disputed territorial or maritime areas. The dispute between the Philippines and China before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII Tribunal (the Tribunal) dealt in significant part with the Philippines’ allegations of environmental violations by China. The Philippines asserted that China tolerated harmful fishing practices and proceeded with harmful construction activities, and that both caused serious harm to the marine environment of the South China Sea.

Type
Symposium on the South China Sea Arbitration
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 285 - 289
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 Final Award, supra note 1, at paras. 823-825.

3 Id. at para. 957.

4 Id. at para. 961.

5 Id. at para. 941.

6 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber), Case No. 17, Advisory Opinion 43, para. 117 (Feb. 1, 2011).

7 Final Award, supra note 1, at para. 959.

8 Id. at para. 956.

9 Id. at 959.

10 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 ICJ REP. 2010 14, 83, para. 205 (Apr. 20)

11 Final Award, supra note 1, atpara. 990.

12 Id. at para. 910.

13 Pierre Corneille, The CID (2005).

14 Final Award, supra note 1, atparas. 84, 136,and 821.

15 The South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), PCA Case No. 2013-19, Rules of Procedure (Aug. 27, 2013).

16 On the issue of experts in the Whaling case, see Makane Moïse Mbengue, Scientific Fact-Finding at the International Court of Justice: An Appraisal in the Aftermath of the Whaling Case, 29 Leiden J. Int’l L.529(2016).

17 Final Award, supra note 1, atpara. 847.

18 Id.at paras. 849-850.

19 Id.at para. 15.

20 Id.at para. 975.