The July 2016 Arbitral Award, Interpretation of Article 121(3) of the UNCLOS, and Selecting Examples of Inconsistent State Practices

IF 1.3 3区社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Ocean Development and International Law Pub Date : 2018-06-20 DOI:10.1080/00908320.2018.1479355

Yan Song

引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article discusses the insufficient consideration of the role of state practice in the interpretation and implementation of Article 121(3) of the UNCLOS by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Case. The article argues that the Tribunal's view on the “threshold” established and its conclusion that there was no evidence that an agreement existed based upon state practice on the interpretation of Article 121(3) are open to question.

查看原文本刊更多论文

2016年7月的仲裁裁决，《联合国海洋法公约》第121条第3款的解释，以及国家间不一致做法的案例选择

摘要:本文讨论南海仲裁案仲裁庭在解释和执行《联合国海洋法公约》第121条第3款时对国家实践的作用考虑不足。该条争辩说，法庭对所确定的“阈值”的看法及其根据第121(3)条的解释没有证据表明存在基于国家实践的协议的结论值得商榷。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ocean Development and International Law Multiple-

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Ocean Development and International Law is devoted to all aspects of international and comparative law and policy concerning the management of ocean use and activities. It focuses on the international aspects of ocean regulation, ocean affairs, and all forms of ocean utilization. The journal publishes high quality works of scholarship in such related disciplines as international law of the sea, comparative domestic ocean law, political science, marine economics, geography, shipping, the marine sciences, and ocean engineering and other sea-oriented technologies. Discussions of policy alternatives and factors relevant to policy are emphasized, as are contributions of a theoretical and methodological nature.