海洋边界争端与《联合国海洋法公约》第298条

IF 0.5 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
C. Sim
{"title":"海洋边界争端与《联合国海洋法公约》第298条","authors":"C. Sim","doi":"10.1163/24519391-00302005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maritime boundary disputes pose the most dangerous potential for conflict between States. Article 298 of UNCLOS was designed as a safety valve to allow exclusion of sensitive disputes arising out of contested maritime boundaries—but also to provide a safety net for peaceful resolution of all UNCLOS disputes. This paper offers views on four questions which remain unresolved. First, may States exclude obligations of restraint and cooperation under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS from compulsory dispute settlement by an Article 298 declaration? Second, for submission to compulsory conciliation, what criteria should be used to decide if the dispute arose subsequent to the entry into force of UNCLOS? Third, does a court, arbitral tribunal or conciliation commission have jurisdiction to consider ‘mixed disputes’ involving land sovereignty or other rights? Fourth, what is the meaning of “shall, by mutual consent”—when conciliation fails to reach an agreement, are the parties bound to refer their dispute back to compulsory third party dispute settlement under section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS?","PeriodicalId":29867,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS\",\"authors\":\"C. Sim\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24519391-00302005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Maritime boundary disputes pose the most dangerous potential for conflict between States. Article 298 of UNCLOS was designed as a safety valve to allow exclusion of sensitive disputes arising out of contested maritime boundaries—but also to provide a safety net for peaceful resolution of all UNCLOS disputes. This paper offers views on four questions which remain unresolved. First, may States exclude obligations of restraint and cooperation under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS from compulsory dispute settlement by an Article 298 declaration? Second, for submission to compulsory conciliation, what criteria should be used to decide if the dispute arose subsequent to the entry into force of UNCLOS? Third, does a court, arbitral tribunal or conciliation commission have jurisdiction to consider ‘mixed disputes’ involving land sovereignty or other rights? Fourth, what is the meaning of “shall, by mutual consent”—when conciliation fails to reach an agreement, are the parties bound to refer their dispute back to compulsory third party dispute settlement under section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS?\",\"PeriodicalId\":29867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24519391-00302005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24519391-00302005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

海洋边界争端构成了国家间冲突的最危险的可能性。《联合国海洋法公约》第298条被设计为一个安全阀,允许排除有争议的海洋边界引起的敏感争端,但也为和平解决《联合国海上法公约》的所有争端提供了一个安全网。本文就四个尚未解决的问题提出了看法。首先,各国是否可以根据《海洋法公约》第七十四条第(三)款和第八十三条第(3)款的规定,通过第298条的声明,将克制与合作义务排除在强制性争端解决之外?第二,对于提交强制性调解,应使用什么标准来决定争端是否在《海洋法公约》生效后产生?第三,法院、仲裁庭或调解委员会是否有管辖权审议涉及土地主权或其他权利的“混合纠纷”?第四,“经双方同意”的含义是什么?当调解未能达成协议时,各方是否有义务根据《联合国海洋法公约》第十五部分第二节将其争端发回强制性第三方争端解决?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS
Maritime boundary disputes pose the most dangerous potential for conflict between States. Article 298 of UNCLOS was designed as a safety valve to allow exclusion of sensitive disputes arising out of contested maritime boundaries—but also to provide a safety net for peaceful resolution of all UNCLOS disputes. This paper offers views on four questions which remain unresolved. First, may States exclude obligations of restraint and cooperation under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS from compulsory dispute settlement by an Article 298 declaration? Second, for submission to compulsory conciliation, what criteria should be used to decide if the dispute arose subsequent to the entry into force of UNCLOS? Third, does a court, arbitral tribunal or conciliation commission have jurisdiction to consider ‘mixed disputes’ involving land sovereignty or other rights? Fourth, what is the meaning of “shall, by mutual consent”—when conciliation fails to reach an agreement, are the parties bound to refer their dispute back to compulsory third party dispute settlement under section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信