Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS

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? http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy Brill

Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS

Download PDF
42 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/maritime-boundary-disputes-and-article-298-of-unclos-gwHKV0TXQI

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
2451-9367
eISSN
2451-9391
DOI
10.1163/24519391-00302005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

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?

Journal

Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy – Brill

Published: Nov 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.