Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Wcześniej: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Acta Iuris Stetinensis

ISSN: 2083-4373    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/ais.2017.20-07
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS

Lista wydań / 4/2017 (20)
Significance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration judgment of 12 July 2016 in the South China Sea Case no 2013–19 to selected issues of international law of the sea

Autorzy: Karol Karski

Paweł Mielniczek
Słowa kluczowe: the international law of the Sea the Permanent Court of Arbitration ‘military activities’
Rok wydania:2017
Liczba stron:17 (107-123)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:
Liczba pobrań ?: 95

Abstrakt

South China Sea Arbitration case No 2013–19 was an arbitration case brought by the Philippines against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As China did not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines, what significance can bear this PCA ’s judgment? The 501 pages-long award on such an important matter as adjudicated thereof contains a lot of new insights on international law of the Sea and related fields. In this case note, we highlight some of the most interesting legal issues addressed by the Court. First, we outline international legal norms applicable to each question. Then, we present how the Court interpreted them and applied to given circumstances of the case. After presenting final holdings on each of selected issues, we refer to opinions of legal scholars and jurists to indicate, how reasoning adopted by the Court may affect application of international law in similar cases.
Pobierz plik

Plik artykułu

Bibliografia

1.Antunes N, Acquiescence, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2006).
2.Cheng D., South China Sea After the Tribunal Ruling: Where Do We Go From Here? (Heritage Foundation, 20 July 2016), http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2016/7/south-china-sea-after-the-tribunal-ruling.
3.Davenport T, Why the South China Sea Arbitration Case Matters (Even if China Ignores It) (The Diplomat, 8 July 2016), http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/why-the-southchina-sea-arbitration-case-matters-even-if-china-ignores-it/.
4.Guilfoyle D, Philippines v China: first thoughts on the Award in the South China Seas Case (EJIL: Talk! 12 July 2016), http://www.ejiltalk.org/philippines-v-china-firstthoughts-on-the-award-in-the-south-china-seas-case/.
5.Ku J., Possible U.S. Responses to the South China Sea Arbitration Award: The Aggressive FONOPs Option (Lawfare, 13 July 2016), https://www.lawfareblog.com/possible-us-responses-south-china-sea-arbitration-award-aggressive-fonops-option.
6.Ku J., Short, Quick Take on the Philippines’ Sweeping Victory in the South China Sea Arbitration (Lawfare 12 July 2016), https://www.lawfareblog.com/short-quick-takephilippines-sweeping-victory-south-china-sea-arbitration.
7.Oxman B., The South China Sea Arbitration Award, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper 2016, No. 16–41.
8.Paine J., Environmental Aspects of the South China Sea Award (EJIL: Talk!, July 21, 2016), http://www.ejiltalk.org/environmental-aspects-of-the-south-china-sea-award/#more-14453.
9.Scoville R, The South China Sea Arbitration: Implications for the Senkaku Islands (Lawfare, 18 July 2016), https://www.lawfareblog.com/south-china-sea-arbitrationimplications-senkaku-islands.
10.Scoville R., The South China Sea Arbitration: Implications for the Senkaku Islands (Lawfare, 18 July 2016), https://www.lawfareblog.com/south-china-sea-arbitrationimplications-senkaku-islands.
11.Talmon S., The South China Sea Arbitration and the Finality of ‘Final’ Awards, “Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2017, Vol. 8(2).
12.Talmon S., The South China Sea Arbitration: Observations on the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, “Chinese Journal of International Law” 2016, Vol. 15(2) .
13.Wang J., Legitimacy, Jurisdiction and Merits in the South China Sea Arbitration: Chinese Perspectives and International Law, “Journal of Chinese Political Science” 2017, Vol. 22(2).
14.Whomersley C., The South China Sea: The Award of the Tribunal in the Case Brought by Philippines against China—A Critique, “Chinese Journal of International Law” 2016, Vol. 15(2).