Legal Research Quarterly

Legal Research Quarterly

The South China Sea Arbitration Award and Its Confrontation with the Maximalist Approach of Coastal States to the meaning of “Rock Islands”; a critical attitude

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Rezvan Bagherzadeh 1
seyed reza jalili 2
Majid Saeedi 2
1 Assistant professor of law,Department of Law, Faculty of literature and humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
2 Master of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science , University of Tehran
10.48308/jlr.2023.226768.2162
Abstract
Under The Article 121(3) of Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Therefore, the article implies that rock islands are divided into two categories including those enjoying exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and those not. The ambiguity of the article beside the great variety of geographical formations resulted in diverse interpretations of the text concerning the type of rock islands. The South China Sea Arbitration Award (2016) which decided on the Philippines-China dispute is a thorough example among international legal hearings of interpreting rocks, mentions in the 3rd paragraph of the article 121 of UNCLOS. This article clarifying key terms in the legal regime of island in Law of the Sea including islands, rock islands, reefs, low-tides elevations, and Artificial islands, interprets the article 121(3) and customary rules on it, and then, influential elements in distinction of rock islands on the basis of capacity of human habitation or economic life of their own from the perspective of the arbitration tribunal.
Keywords
Rock Islands
Exclusive Economic Zone
Continental Shelf
The South China Sea Arbitration
Maximalist Approach of Coastal States
Subjects

  1. Books

    1. Churchill, Robin Rolf et al., The Law of the Sea, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998.
    2. O’connell, D. P., The International Law of the Sea, Vol. 2, Stevens & Sons Limited, 1982.
    3. Shaw, M. International Law of the Seas with a View to Iranian Issues, Translated and edited by: Ebrahim-Gol, A., and Hassan Khosroshahi, Tehran: Khorsandi Publications, 2015. (in Persian)
    4. Son, L et al., International Law of the Seas, Translated by: Habibi Majandeh, M., 4th edition, Tehran: Jangal Publishing, 2017. (in Persian)
    5. Tanaka, Yushifumi, The International Law of the Sea, 3rd Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
    6. Ziaei Bigdeli, M. Public International Law, 56th edition, Tehran: Ganj-e- Danesh Publications, 2017. (in Persian)

    Articles

    1. Beazley, B. P., “Reefs and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, 6 Int'l J. Estuarine & Coastal L.
    2. Chang, Teh-Kuang, “China 's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands: A Historical and Legal Perspective”, CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L., Vol. 23:399, 1991.
    3. Charney, I., “Rocks that Cannot Sustain Human Habitation”, AJIL, Vol. 93, No. 4, 1999.
    4. Dadandish, & H. Rahnavard, “The Artificial Islands in the Persian Gulf: A Political and Legal Analysis”, Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2013.
    5. Daiss, Tim, “Why The South China Sea Has More Oil Than You Think”, 22 May, 2016.
    6. Faccio, Sondra, “Human Habitation or Economic Life of their Own”: The Definition of Features between History, Technology and the Law”, Liverpool Law Review, Vol. 42, 2021.
    7. Gau, Michael Sheng-ti, “The Interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS by the Tribonal for the South China Sea Arbitration: A critique”, Ocean Devlopment & International Law, Vol. 50:1, 2019.
    8. Kolb, R., “The interpretation of Article 121”, paragraph 3, of the Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea: “rocks which are not suitable for human habitation or own economic life“, Annuarre Francais de Droit International, Vol. 40, 1994. (in French)
    9. Masrour, M. and Mohammad Hassan Khani, “Geopolitical Realignment in the South China Sea”, Geopolitics Quarterly, No.2, 2017. (in Persian)
    10. Mirheidar, D. et al., “Political Geography and International Law of the Seas”, Human Geography Research, Vol 46, No. 2, 2013. (in Persian)
    11. Moore, John Norton, “Navigational Freedom: The Most Critical Common Heritage”, International Law Studies, Vol. 93, 2017, at: https://www.unclosdebate.org/evidence/2291/law-sea-important-achievement- establishing-international-rule-law>2022-09-25.
    12. Oude Elferink, Alex G., “Arguing International Law in the South China Sea Disputes: The Haiyang Shiyou 981 and USS Lassen Incidents and the Philippines v. China Arbitration”, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 31, 2016.
    13. Oude Elferink, Alex G., “Clarifying Article 121 (3) of the Law of the Sea Convention: The Limits Set by the Nature of International Legal Process”, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, 1998.
    14. Peiwu, H. E. Cong, “The History and Reality of the South China Sea Issue”, September 13, 2020; at: http://ca.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/sgxw/202009/t20200913_4615002.htm ; >2022-09-
    15. Roque, L., “China’s Claim to the Spratlys Islands under International Law”, Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, Vol.15, 1997.
    16. Salari, A. “The Effect of Islands in Determining the Limits of Maritime Areas from the Perspective of International Jurisprudence”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol 49, No.4, 2019. (in Persian)
    17. Salari, A. “The Status of the Reef in the International Law of the Seas based on the South China Sea Arbitration Award”, Oceanography Quarterly, 11th year, No.41, 2020. (in Persian)
    18. Seirafi, S. “Scope of Coverage of Mandatory Dispute Resolution Procedures of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Light of Judicial and Arbitration Decisions”, International Legal Journal, 64, 2021. (in Persian)
    19. ------------ “The Use of Direct Lines of Origin in the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries; with a Special View on the Demarcation of Maritime Boundaries between Iran and Kuwait”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, No. 3, 2017. (in Persian)
    20. Song, Y-H., “Chapter 4: Article 121(3) of the Law of the Sea Convention and the Disputed offshore Island in East Asia: A tribute to Judge Choon-Ho Park”, in: Jon Van Dyke, M. et al. (eds.), Governing Ocean Resources; New Challenges and Emerging Regimes: A Tribute to Judge Choon-Ho Park, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013.
    21. Song, Y-H., “Okinotorishima: A “Rock” or an “Island”? Recent Maritime Boundary Controversy between Japan And Taiwan/China”, in: Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea, ed. by Jon M. van Dyke, Brill/Series Publications on Ocean Development; Vol. 65, 2009.
    22. Song, Y-H., “The application of article 121 of the law of the sea convention to the Selected Geographical Features Situated in the Pacific Ocean”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, 2010.
    23. Talmon, Stefan, “The South China Sea Arbitration: Observations on the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, 2016.
    24. Tanaka, Yushifumi, “Reflections on the Interpretation and Application of Article 121(3) in the South China Sea Arbitraition (Merits)”, Ocean Devlopment & International Law, Vol. 48:3-4, 2017.
    25. Van Dyke, Jon M. & Robert A. Brooks, “Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on the Ownership of the Ocean Resources”, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 12:3-4, 1983.
    26. Wood, Capt Aaron S., “Historically Mine: The (Potentially) Legal Basis for China’s Sovereignty Claims to Land in the South China Sea”, Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, Air University Press, March 8, 2021; at: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2528218/historically-mine-the-potentially-legal-basis-for-chinas-sovereignty-claims-to/ >2022-09-25

    Instruments

    1. Conciliation Commission on the Continental Shelf area between Iceland and Jan Mayen: Report and recommendations to the governments of Iceland and Norway, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXVII, 1981.
    2. Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations to the Secretary-General of the United, New york: UN, 2009.
    3. Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the UN, The Law of the Sea; Regime of Islands Legislative History of Part VIII (Article 121) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, New York: United Nations Publication, 1988.

    Cases

    1. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), ICJ Reports, 2001.
    2. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), ICJ Reports, 1993.
    3. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ Reports, 2018.
    4. Norway: Supreme Court Judgment on Law of the Sea Issues’ 11 IJMCL, 1996.
    5. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ Reports, 2012.
    6. The South China Sea Arbitration, PCA Case Nº 2013-19,

    Internet sites

    1. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu
    2. http://ca.china-embassy.gov.cn
    3. https://www.forbes.com
    4. https://www.unclosdebate.org

  • Receive Date 13 June 2022
  • Revise Date 28 September 2022
  • Accept Date 13 March 2023