China’s U-shaped Line in the South China Sea Revisited

Despite its existence on the Chinese maps for more than six decades, the U-shaped line, as a traditional maritime boundary line of China in the South China Sea, has never received a wide recognition in the world community, much less by the other claimant states in the South China Sea. The U-shaped line is a legal conundrum not only for China but also for the world community, particularly after the map with the U-shaped line, together with China's Notes Verbale with respect to the claims to the outer continental shelves made by Malaysia and Vietnam, were submitted to the UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf in May 2009. This article discusses China's recent practice relating to the U-shaped line as well as the external factors that affect the validity of the line and tries to unravel the legal puzzle posed by the line

The Legal Status of the U-shaped Line in the South China Sea and Its Legal Implications for Sovereignty, Sovereign Rights and Maritime Jurisdiction

The U-shaped line in the South China Sea has been challenged in the international community and such a challenge has reached its climax when the Philippines presented China with a Notification and Statement of Claim under Article 287 and Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) on 22 January 2013. In its Statement of Claim, the Philippines requests the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal to adjudge and declare that China’s maritime claims based on the U-shaped line are contrary to the LOS Convention and invalid. Against this background, this paper will analyze the issues concerning the related submissions of the Philippines

State Practice in Deep Seabed Mining: The Case of the People’s Republic of China

Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international deep seabed area is named “the Area”, which, together with its resources, is the common heritage of mankind.1 No State should claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor should any State or natural or legal person appropriate any part thereof.2 Since deep seabed areas beyond the limit of national jurisdiction have been treated as the common heritage of mankind, all activities there are governed by the international regime created under the UNCLOS. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) was accordingly established on 16 November 1994, upon the entry into force of the UNCLOS. The ISA has its headquarters in Kingston, Jamaica and functions as the representative of the whole of mankind for the management of deep seabed mining. The ISA is an autonomous international organization under the UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the 1994 Agreement),3 and through it States Parties to the UNCLOS can, in accordance with the regime for the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area) established in Part XI and the 1994 Agreement, organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area.4 Deep seabed mining,once described as ‘a remote possibility’,5 has gradually become a more realistic proposition, as can be seen from the increased activities carried out by States concerned. In State practice, China’s activities and contributions to the deep seabed mining regime merits closer examination

La difficile harmonisation des normes locales et de la législation nationale

Les lois locales représentent une partie importante de la production juridique chinoise. A la fin de l’année 2002, plus de 9 000 textes de loi avaient été adoptés par les assemblées populaires locales et leurs comités permanents, et déposés auprès du comité permanent de l’Assemblée populaire nationale (APN). Les régions autonomes avaient également adopté un nombre considérable de textes applicables dans leur juridiction. Il est donc légitime de s’interroger sur le processus de fabrication de ..

Navigation in the South China Sea: Why Still an Issue?

The safety of navigation remains an issue in the sense that navigation through the South China Sea is essential for world seaborne trade and communications, and the lingering territorial and maritime disputes would constitute a threat to the safety of navigation there. In recent years, the term ‘freedom of navigation’ has become a pivotal expression in the rivalry between China and the United States in the South China Sea. This paper starts with addressing the international legal framework concerning navigation, followed by state practice in the South China Sea, including domestic legislation and safety measures. It then discusses the issue of military activities in the exclusive economic zone and their implications for the freedom of navigation. The paper identifies several issues connected to navigation, such as the U-shaped line, law enforcement patrols, and the recent South China Sea Arbitration. A brief conclusion is provided at the end

Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use of Force and Coercive Measures

The Charter of the United Nations designates the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as one of the principal organs of the United Nations, assuming the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. It has the power to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, to make recommendations, and decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. This article addresses a number of issues concerning how the UNSC Resolutions are enforced at sea in accordance with applicable international law and makes special reference to the circumstances in East Asia, particularly the Korean Peninsula