Maritime claims and competition for resources often disregard conservation and sustainability, undermining cooperation on environmental protection. The South China Sea presents a case where the rule of law is failing to protect the marine environment. Overlapping maritime claims and open confrontation for control over areas of the SCS culminated in the PCA South China Sea Arbitration. The requirement to cooperate under UNCLOS is at fundamental odds with the competition for natural resources. Even UNCLOS’s due regard mechanism which ensures a balance of rights and interests among coastal and non-coastal States in their uses of EEZs presumes peaceful co-existence and willingness to cooperate. A binding ASEAN Code of Conduct is a possible avenue to enforce a moratorium over the claims and drive urgent cooperation based on Chapter XII to reverse the fast-deteriorating marine environment. The rule of law is relevant to conservation cooperation in the South China Sea.

The rapid development of mega-constellations raises difficult issues of international law, including liability for collisions involving satellites. Establishing ‘causation’ – that the actions of one satellite operator caused a specific collision with another space object and resulted in damage – could be a challenge, especially in the context of knock-on collisions where debris from an initial collision later collides with one or more spacecraft, including satellites. A further challenge is determining, in the absence of binding international rules on the design and operation of satellites, what is ‘reasonable’ behaviour and therefore what constitutes ‘negligence’. This chapter also addresses the interference to astronomy that is increasingly resulting from light and radio spectrum pollution from satellites. A full interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty leads to the conclusion that states are already required to take certain steps, including conducting an environmental impact assessment, before licensing mega-constellations, because of the obligation of ‘due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty’.

The term ‘coastal State’ is not defined under UNCLOS despite being one of the most frequently used terms. In the EEZ, UNCLOS confers upon coastal States both exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction over natural resources and jurisdiction in relation to artificial islands, installations and structure, marine scientific research and environmental protection. However, the scope of these rights and obligations is not always clearly set out in the relevant provisions, requiring further clarification and elaboration. Moreover, due to the new scope of power given to coastal States in the EEZ, the question has arisen as to how coastal States’ rights and obligations in this new maritime zone, as well as coastal States’ rights and obligations in the territorial sea and the high seas, interact with historic claims arising prior to the entry into force of UNCLOS. This chapter analyses the decisions rendered by UNCLOS tribunals addressing the abovementioned issues and assesses the extent to which they have contributed to clarifying relevant rules relating to coastal States’ rights and obligations under the law of the sea.

Chapter 3 examines the general rules of international law that apply in disputed maritime areas. First, it focuses on the possibility of whether a conflict arising in disputed maritime areas can come to threaten international peace and security. Coastal States have approached the UN Security Council on a number of occasions, seeking declarations from it to the effect that as a result of unilateral conduct in disputed areas, a situation had arisen which met the threshold of that international peace and security was put in jeopardy. Further, other relevant general rules under international law, some of which by their nature are related to the treaty obligation of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) LOSC not to hamper or jeopardise (e.g. not aggravating or extending a dispute and the prohibition on abuse of rights), and their status (e.g. are they customary international law rules?) as well as their applicability to disputed maritime areas are explored. The chapter also discusses the possibility of engaging international responsibility, if certain unilateral activities that have been undertaken in disputed areas resulted in a breach of international law.