This paper explores the rules of international law, as well as relevant state practice, pertaining to maritime cooperation. Its scope therefore includes formal and informal arrangements whereby states have decided to blur, or establish some alternative to, the usual rules pertaining to exclusive jurisdiction at sea.
This paper argues that a better choice is to make active use of the Law of the Sea as a basis for delimiting territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zones and continental shelves, and that this could be possible even without resolving the question of sovereignty to the Spratly Islands.
The proposal outlined in this paper is modest and practical and in view of the current deadlock in the South China Sea.
As a researcher in this field, I expect more protests and counter protests in the future as both parties dig in the South China Sea, trying to accommodate and relate with each other.
In my presentation this afternoon I would like to address recent developments by examining three broad themes.
Otherwise known as the New Philippine Baselines Law, RA 9522 reaffirms the Philippines’ claims to its territorial waters, including its extended continental shelf, economic zones and an area of the contested Spratlys archipelago known as the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG).
This paper suggest that the countries surrounding the SCS would be able to undertake fishing cooperation activities inside the area and would significantly reduce attacks, harassments and arrest of fishing boats.
This paper focuses on Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea in 2009. According to official policy, China promotes ‘peace, cooperation and development’ in the Asia-Pacific under the new doctrine of creating a ‘harmonious world’. China has therefore given priority to the primacy of economic growth and a peaceful international environment.
Before coming to the core of the question, it appears necessary to remind briefly some elements of the past. Because we cannot explain or understand what is happening today in this part of the World if we ignore the legacy of the past and its influence on the present.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the interpretation and possible application of Article 121, in particular its third paragraph, to the five selected disputed islands. Following this introductory section, a brief summary of the development of the “Regime of Islands” at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (hereafter referred to as UNCLOS III)[7]will be given in Section II,...