Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The Impact of the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal’s Interpretation and Application of UNLCOS Article 121(3)|
HSIAO, ANNE H.A.
|Keywords:||South China Sea Dispute;Philippines v. China Arbitration;Regime of Islands;UNCLOS Article 121(3);Rocks|
|Issue Date:||2018-08-28 14:28:04 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract:||The South China Sea (Philippines v. China) Arbitral Tribunal established in 2013 was the first international judiciary that decided to take on the interpretation of UNCLOS Article 121(3) concerning the classification of ＂rock＂ under the concept of Regime of Islands. The Tribunal adopted very strict and nuanced interpretations for a feature's own capacity to ＂sustain human habitation or economic life＂, so as to differentiate between an ＂island＂ entitled to a 200-nautical-mile EEZ and continental shelf and a ＂rock＂ that is not. It then applied them to the Scarborough Shoal and the largest Sprtaly islets, including Taiping Island (Itu Aba), and declared that Scarborough Shoal to be a rock, whereas none of the Spratly features were islands. Some scholars have criticized the Tribunal's interpretation of Article 121(3) and its determination of the legal status Aba. This article began by discussing the significance of Article 121(3) in the South China Sea arbitration. It concludes that despite the Tribunal's painstaking effort in resolving the ambiguities contained in Article 121(3), its effects on how Philippines and China settle their relevant disputes, or its contributions to the South China Sea dispute settlement more broadly as well as to the development of more generally acceptable customary rules in relation to Article 121(3), may be more limited than hoped for in the foreseeable future.|
|Relation:||台灣國際法季刊, Vol.13, No.4 , pp.85-106|
|Appears in Collections:||[國際關係研究中心] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.