Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:17:53.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-Evaluating the Role of International Law in Territorial and Maritime Disputes in East Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2013

Hitoshi NASU  and
Donald R. ROTHWELL
Hitoshi NASU
Affiliation:
Australian National University, AustraliaNasuH@law.anu.edu.au; RothwellD@law.anu.edu.au
Donald R. ROTHWELL
Affiliation:
Australian National University, AustraliaNasuH@law.anu.edu.au; RothwellD@law.anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently increased tensions across East Asia over territorial and maritime disputes show glimpses of brinkmanship. However, the past experiences of Western colonization and Japan's imperialism within the region add complexity to those disputes challenging our understanding of legal debates surrounding territorial and maritime disputes. This article examines the extent to which the relevant rules of international law are capable of providing “justice” by accommodating the unique historical contexts in the region in settling highly politically sensitive territorial and maritime claims. It finds that the existing rules of international law are more than capable of accommodating the peculiar historical contexts of East Asia in the resolution of territorial and maritime disputes, whilst acknowledging that certain ambiguities in the law are contributing to some of the current tensions that have arisen over these disputes.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 55 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Senior Lecturer and the Convener of LL.M. International Security Law, ANU College of Law, Australian National University.

**

Professor and Head of School, ANU College of Law, Australian National University. This research was supported under Australian Research Council's Discovery Project funding scheme (Project Number: DP130103683).

References

1. For the purpose of this article, East Asia is defined broadly to include Northeast and Southeast Asia.

2. KIM, Kee-seok, “Lee Myung Bak's Stunt over Disputed Islands” (19 August 2012)Google Scholar

3. DRYSDALE, Peter, “Japan's Territorial Troubles” (20 August 2012)Google Scholar

4. HEMMINGS, John, “Kuril Islands Dispute: Russo-Japanese Relations at Their Lowest Ebb Since the Cold War” (15 March 2011)Google Scholar

5. BAVIERA, Aileen S.P., “South China Sea Disputes: Why ASEAN Must Unite” (26 July 2012)Google Scholar

6. LEE, Seokwoo, “Intertemporal Law, Recent Judgments and Territorial Disputes in Asia” in Seoung Yong HONG and John M. VAN DYKE, eds.,Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 119 at 121Google Scholar

7. Treaty of Peace with Japan, 8 September 1951, 136 U.N.T.S. 45 (entered into force 28 April 1952) [1951 Peace Treaty].

8. John M. VAN DYKE, “Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary” (2007) 38 Ocean Development & International Law 157 at 165−167Google Scholar

9. “Outline of Takeshima Issue”, online: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan <http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html>.

10. The Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, supra note 8.

11. LEE, Seokwoo, “Territorial Disputes in East Asia, the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, and the Legacy of U.S. Security Interests in East Asia” in Seokwoo LEE and Hee Eun LEE, eds.,Dokdo: Historical Appraisal and International Justice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011), 41 at 58−60Google Scholar

12. van Dyke, supra note 8 at 184Google Scholar

13. See Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea and Yemen), Decision of 9 October 1998, [2006] XXII Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 209 at 251−3, paras. 158−65. The Arbitral Tribunal also observed that disposed islands “did not become res nullius—that is to say, open to acquisitive prescription—by any state”: ibid., at 253, para. 165.

14. PAK, Chi Young, The Korean Straits (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998) at 126Google Scholar

15. SU, Steven Wei, “The Territorial Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update” (2007) 36 Ocean Development & International Law 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. “The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands” (November 2012), online: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan <http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/position_paper_en.html>.

17. Treaty of Shimonoseki, 17 April 1895, 181 CTS 21 (entered into force 8 May 1895), art. 2(b) and (c).

18. FITZMAURICE, G.G., “The Juridical Clauses of the Peace Treaties” (1948-II) 73 Recueil des Cours 260 at 280−282Google Scholar

19. Guoxing, JI, “Sino-Japanese Jurisdictional Delimitation in East China Sea: Approaches to Dispute Settlement” in Hong and van Dyke, supra note 6, 77 at 78Google Scholar

20. “Diaoyu Dao, an Inherent Territory of China”, Section V, online: The Government of the People's Republic of China <http://english.gov.cn/official/2012-09/25/content_2232763_5.htm>.

21. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), “Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Baselines: Submissions to the Commission: Submission by the People's Republic of China” (14 December 2012), online: CLCS: <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_chn_63_2012.htm>.

22. Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations New York, SC/12/372 (28 December 2012), online <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/chn63_12/jpn_re_chn_28_12_2012.pdf>.

23. Treaty of Commerce, Navigation and Delimitation between Japan and Russia, 26 January 1855, 112 C.T.S. 467.

24. HASEGAWA, Tsuyoshi, The Northern Territories Dispute and Russo-Japanese Relations, Vol. 1 Between War and Peace, 1697−1985 (Berkeley: University of California, 1998) at 75−78Google Scholar

25. 1951 Peace Treaty, supra note 7, art. 2(c).

26. LEE, Seokwoo, “The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan and the Territorial Disputes in East Asia” (2002) 11 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 63 at 107−122Google Scholar

O'CONNELL, D.P., “Legal Aspects of the Peace Treaty with Japan” (1952) 29 British Year Book of International Law 423 at 426−427Google Scholar

27. Lee, supra note 11 at 49−50Google Scholar

28. SHEN, Jianming, “China's Sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands: A Historical Perspective” (2002) Chinese Journal of International Law 94Google Scholar

SHEN, Jianming, “International Law Rules and Historical Evidence Supporting China's Title to the South China Sea Islands” (1997) 21 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 1Google Scholar

29. HONG, Nong, UNCLOS and Ocean Dispute Settlement: Law and Politics in the South China Sea (London: Routledge, 2012) at 17−18Google Scholar

SEVERINO, Rodolfo C., “ASEAN and the South China Sea” (2010) 6 Security Challenges 37 at 39Google Scholar

30. 1951 Peace Treaty, supra note 7, art. 2(f).

31. Keyuan, ZOU, Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues and Prospects (London: Routledge, 2005) at 147−148Google Scholar

32. VALENCIA, Mark J., China and the South China Sea Disputes, Adelphi Paper No 298 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1995) at 13Google Scholar

33. Kwon, PARK Hee, The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia: A Challenge for Cooperation (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000) at 92Google Scholar

34. Hong, supra note 29 at 18Google Scholar

Park, supra note 33 at 92−93Google Scholar

Valencia, supra note 32 at 8Google Scholar

35. Hong, supra note 29 at 19Google Scholar

Park, supra note 33 at 93Google Scholar

Valencia, supra note 32 at 8Google Scholar

Severino, supra note 29 at 41Google Scholar

36. Hong, supra note 29 at 20Google Scholar

Park, supra note 33 at 93Google Scholar

Valencia, supra note 32 at 8Google Scholar

Severino, supra note 29 at 41Google Scholar

37. ELIAS, T.O., “The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law” (1980) 74 American Journal of International Law 285CrossRefGoogle Scholar

JENNINGS, R.Y., The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1963) 28−31Google Scholar

G. SCHWARZENBERGER, International Law: International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, 3rd edn (London: Stevens & Sons, 1957), Vol. 1 at 21−24Google Scholar

38. Island of Palmas Case (The Netherlands v. USA), Decision of 4 April 1928, [1928] II Reports of International Arbitral Awards 831 at 845.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. JESSUP, Philip C., “The Palmas Island Arbitration” (1928) 22 American Journal of International Law 735 at 739−740CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Zuxing, ZHANG, “A Deconstruction of the Notion of Acquisitive Prescription and Its Implications for the Diaoyu Islands Dispute” (2012) 2 Asian Journal of International Law 323 at 326Google Scholar

43. UN Charter, art. 2(4).

44. Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equitorial Guinea intervening), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 301 at 405 [Cameroon v. Nigeria].

45. CASTELLINO, Joshua and ALLEN, Steve, Title to Territory in International Law: A Temporal Analysis (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003) at 3Google Scholar

46. Cameroon v. Nigeria, supra note 44 at 500−2.

47. Robert JENNINGS and Arthur WATTS, Oppenheim's International Law, 9th edn (London: Longman, 1996), Parts 2 to 4 at 699Google Scholar

48. KORMAN, Sharon, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) at 94−131Google Scholar

49. US v. Hayward, 2 Gallison 485 (1815). The full text is available online: <https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0026.f.cas/0026.f.cas.0240.2.pdf>.

50. Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), [1975] I.C.J. Rep. 12.

51. Ibid., at 38−9, para. 79.

52. LINDLEY, M.F., The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1926) at 10−20Google Scholar

WESTLAKE, John, Collected Papers on Public International Law (ed. L. OPPENHEIM). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914) at 143−145Google Scholar

Jennings and Watts, supra note 47 at 687Google Scholar

53. SHAW, Malcolm, Title to Territory in Africa: International Legal Issues (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) at 32−37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), [1933] P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 53 at 45−6.

55. SIMSARIAN, James, “The Acquisition of Legal Title to Terra Nullius” (1938) 53 Political Science Quarterly 111−128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. James CRAWFORD, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 8th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 218Google Scholar

Malcolm N. SHAW, International Law, 6th edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 508−509Google Scholar

57. Lee, supra note 6 at 125Google Scholar

58. Doing so would require consideration of the existence of and role of regional customary law in any such analysis, as discussed in Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru) (Judgment), [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266 at 276.

59. Kevin Y.L. TAN, “The Role of History in International Territorial Dispute Settlement: The Pedra Branca Case (Singapore v. Malaysia)” in Jin-Hyun PAIK, Seokwoo LEE, and Kevin Y.L. TAN, eds., Asian Approaches to International Law and the Legacy of Colonialism: The Law of the Sea, Territorial Disputes and International Dispute Settlement (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 64 at 76−78Google Scholar

LAUTERPACHT, Sir Hersch, The Development of International Law by the International Court (London: Stevens & Sons, 1958) at 240−242Google Scholar

60. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 625 [Ligitan/Sipadan].

61. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore), [2008] I.C.J. Rep. 12 [Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh].

62. Island of Palmas, supra note 38 at 846.

63. Elias, supra note 37 at 288Google Scholar

Jennings, supra note 37 at 30−31Google Scholar

64. Cameroon v. Nigeria, supra note 44 at 353−5; Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 554 at 587 para. 63.

65. See e.g. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), [2012] I.C.J. Rep. at para. 84; Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, supra note 61, at paras. 274−6; Ligitan/Sipadan, supra note 60 at 685, para. 148; Gulf of Fonseca, supra note 59 at 570−9, paras. 356−68; Island of Palmas, supra note 38 at 868.

66. In the context of territorial disputes over islands, see e.g. Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), [2007] I.C.J. Rep. 659 at 706−7, para. 154; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. 1045 at 1105, para. 97; Gulf of Fonseca, supra note 59 at 564−5; The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France v. United Kingdom), [1953] I.C.J. Rep. 47 at 53

67. Lee, supra note 6 at 135Google Scholar

68. LINDERFALK, Ulf, “The Application of International Legal Norms over Time: The Second Branch of Intertemporal Law” (2011) 58 Netherlands International Law Review 147 at 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea and Yemen), Decision of 9 October 1998, [2006] XXII Reports of International Arbitral Awards 211 at 311, para. 446.

70. Ibid., at 311, para. 449.

71. Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 116 at 130.

72. JOHNSON, D.H.N., “Consolidation as a Root of Title in International Law” (1955) Cambridge Law Journal 214Google Scholar

73. GOLDIE, L.F.E., “The Critical Date” (1963) 12 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1251 at 1264−1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

FITZMAURICE, Sir Gerald, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951−4: Points of Substantive Law Part II” (1955−56) 32 British Year Book of International Law 20 at 20−44Google Scholar

74. In the oral submission by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in Minquiers and Ecrehos (France v. United Kingdom), [1953] I.C.J. Pleadings, Vol. 2 at 69.

75. Island of Palmas, supra note 38 at 866.

76. Eastern Greenland, supra note 54.

77. Minquiers and Ecrehos, supra note 66 at 59−60.

78. Argentine-Chile Frontier Case, Decision of 9 December 1966, [2006] XVI Reports of International Arbitral Awards 109 at 167.

79. See e.g. Nicaragua v. Colombia, supra note 65 at para. 71; Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, supra note 61 at paras. 33−4; Ligitan/Sipadan, supra note 60 at para. 135.

80. Crawford, supra note 56 at 219Google Scholar

Jennings and Watts, supra note 47 at 711Google Scholar

81. van Dyke, supra note 8 at 158, 164Google Scholar

82. RAMOS-MROSOVSKY, Carlos, “International Law's Unhelpful Rule in the Senkaku Islands” (2008) 29 University of Pennsylvania International Law Journal 903 at 906Google Scholar

83. See e.g. Chamizal Case (Mexico v. United States of America), Decision of 15 June 1911, [2006] XI Reports of International Arbitral Awards 309 at 329.

84. MACGIBBON, I.C., “Some Observations on the Part of Protest in International Law” (1953) 30 British Year Book of International Law 293 at 309−310Google Scholar

JOHNSON, D.H.N., “Acquisitive Prescription in International Law” (1950) 27 British Year Book of International Law 332 at 353−354Google Scholar

85. MCWHINNEY, Edward, The International Court of Justice and the Western Tradition of International Law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987) at 1−19Google Scholar

SIEHR, Kurt G., “The Beautiful One Has Come—To Return: The Return of the Bust of Nefertiti from Berlin to Cairo” in John Henry MERRYMAN, ed., Imperialism, Art and Restitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 114 at 125Google Scholar

86. ANGHIE, Anthony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) at 111−112Google Scholar

87. GATHII, James Thuo, “Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)” (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 581CrossRefGoogle Scholar

SHAW, Malcolm N., “Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)” (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 964CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DAKAS, Dakas C.J., “Dokdo, Colonialism, and International Law: Lessons from the Decision of the ICJ in the Land and Maritime Dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria” in Lee and Lee, eds., supra note 11 at 91Google Scholar

88. Dakas, supra note 87 at 119−121Google Scholar

89. Naoko, SHIMAZU, “The Japanese Attempt to Secure Racial Equality in 1919” (1989) 1 Japan Forum 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Lee, supra note 6 at 126Google Scholar

91. GHAI, Yash, “Human Rights and Governance: The Asia Debate” (2000) 1 Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 9−52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

JACOBSEN, Michael and BRUUN, Oleeds., Human Rights and Asian Values: Contesting National Identities and Cultural Representations in Asia (Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

BAUER, Joanne R. and BELL, Daniel A.eds., The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar

FREEMAN, Michael, “Human Rights: Asia and the West” in James T.H. TANG, ed., Human Rights and International Relations in the Asia-Pacific Region (London and New York: Pinter, 1995) at 13−24Google Scholar

92. Hitoshi NASU, “Introduction: Regional Integration and Human Rights Monitoring Institution” in Hitoshi NASU and Ben SAUL, eds.,Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region: Towards Institution Building (London: Routledge, 2011), 1 at 3−6Google Scholar

93. Anghie, supra note 86 at 112Google Scholar

94. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 29 April 1958, 516 U.N.T.S. 206 (entered into force 10 September 1964); Convention on the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 11 (entered into force 30 September 1962); Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 559 U.N.T.S. 285 (entered into force 20 March 1966); Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958, 499 U.N.T.S. 311 (entered into force 10 June 1964).

95. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [LOSC].

96. ROTHWELL, Donald R. and STEPHENS, Tim, The International Law of the Sea (Oxford: Hart, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ELFERINK, Alex G. Oudeed., Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005)Google Scholar

R.R. CHURCHILL and A.V. LOWE, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edn (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999)Google Scholar

97. ROTHWELL, Donald R., The Polar Regions and the Development of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) at 51−63Google Scholar

98. Jin-Hyun PAIK, “UNCLOS and Boundary Delimitation in East Asia” in Dalchoong KIM et al., eds.,UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and East Asia (Seoul: Institute for East and West Studies, Yonsei University, 1996) at 183−203Google Scholar

99. LOSC, supra note 95, art. 3.

100. Ibid., art. 33.

101. This is an issue the ICJ has recently addressed in an East Asian context in Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, supra note 61.

102. LOSC, supra note 95, arts. 57, 76.

103. Ibid., art. 77(1).

104. Rothwell and Stephens, supra note 96 at Chapter 5Google Scholar

105. LOSC, supra note 95, art. 56(1).

106. Kwon, PARK Hee, The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000) at 37−43Google Scholar

107. SUAREZ, Suzette V., The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Legal Aspects of Their Establishment (Berlin: Springer, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

108. ROTHWELL, Donald R., “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Its Establishment and Subsequent Practices”, presented at international seminar The Thirtieth Anniversary of the UNCLOS from the Perspective of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf as its Organ, Ocean Policy Research Foundation, Tokyo, Japan, 11 July 2012Google Scholar

109. Sang-Myon RHEE and James MACAULAY, “Ocean Boundary Issues in East Asia: The Need for Practical Solutions” in Douglas M. JOHNSTON and Phillip M. SAUNDERS, eds.,Ocean Boundary Making: Regional Issues and Developments (London: Croom Helm, 1988), 74 at 86Google Scholar

110. See “Submissions to the Commission: Joint Submission by Malaysia and the Social Republic of Viet Nam” (6 May 2009), online: CLCS <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mysvnm_33_2009.htm>.

111. See “Submissions to the Commission: Submission by the Social Republic of Viet Nam” (7 May 2009), online: CLCS <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_vnm_37_2009.htm>.

112. See “Submissions to the Commission: Submission by the People's Republic of China” (14 December 2012), online: CLCS <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_chn_63_2012.htm>.

113. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS/40/Rev.1) (17 April 2008), Rule 46, and Annex I, online: CLCS <http://www.un.org./Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_documents.htm#RulesofProcedure>.

114. See e.g. LOSC, supra note 95, arts. 2, 33, 56, 76.

115. To that end the LOSC makes direct reference to a “land-locked State” which is a “State which has no sea-coast”: LOSC, supra note 95, art. 124(1)(a).

116. A distinction needs to be drawn between a state which is a geographic archipelago, such as Japan, and an “archipelagic State” for the purposes of Part IV of the LOSC, which is entitled to draw archipelagic baselines from which maritime claims can be asserted; see discussion in Rothwell and Stephens, supra note 96 at Chapter 8.

117. LOSC, supra note 95, art. 13(1) defines a low-tide elevation as “a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide”.

118. This is highlighted by the case of the island state of Nauru which comprises a single land mass of 21 km2 but which generates maritime zones consistent with the LOSC of 430,000 km2: Nauru Country Study Guide (Washington: International Business Publications, 2011), Vol. 1 at 49.

119. LOSC, supra note 95, art. 121(3).

120. SYMMONS, Clive R., “Ireland and the Rockall Dispute: An Analysis of Recent Developments” (Spring 1998) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 78−93Google Scholar

121. The Japanese submission was the subject of Note Verbales from the PRC (CML/2/2009: 6 February 2009) and Republic of Korea (MUN/046/09: 27 February 2009), online: CLCS <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htm>.

122. John M. VAN DYKE, “Disputes Over Islands and Maritime Boundaries in East Asia” in Seoung Yong HONG and John M. VAN DYKE, eds.,Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 39 at 51−52Google Scholar

Park, supra note 106 at 99−101Google Scholar

CHARNEY, Jonathan I., “Rocks that Cannot Sustain Human Habitation” (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 863CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Choon-ho PARK, “The South China Sea Disputes: Who Owns the Islands and the Natural Resources” in Choon-ho PARK and Jae Kyu PARK, eds.,The Law of the Sea: Problems from the East Asian Perspective (Honolulu: Law of the Sea Institute, University of Hawaii, 1987)Google Scholar

PAPADAKIS, Nikos, The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1977)Google Scholar

123. Monte Confurco (Seychelles v. France) (Prompt Release), Judgment of 18 December 2000, Declaration of Judge Vukas, [2000] ITLOS Rep. at 122.

124. Volga (Russian Federation v. Australia) (Prompt Release), Judgment of 23 December 2002, Declaration of Vice-President Vukas, [2002] ITLOS Rep. at para. 2.

125. None of the other judges in the Monte Confurco and Volga cases raised similar issues.

126. An example could be Macquarie Island (Australia) which is 1500 km to the south of Tasmania and sits approximately at halfway between Australia and Antarctica in the Southern Ocean. The island is 128 km2 but has no permanent population other than for itinerant scientists of which approximately sixteen over-winter. Nevertheless, Australia has claimed the full set of maritime zones from the island which have not been subject of protest: see Australian Antarctic Division, “Living on Macquarie Island”, online: Australian Government <http://www.antarctica.gov.au>.

127. LOSC, supra note 95, art. 13(1).

128. See Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh where the ICJ made a distinction between Middle Rocks and South Ledge, in which the latter were classified as a low-tide elevation: Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, supra note 61 at paras. 291−9; quoting with approval discussion in Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), [2001] I.C.J. Rep. 40 at paras. 205−6.

129. Guoxing, JI, “Similarities and Differences between the Korean-Japanese Dokdo Disputes and the Sino-Japanese Diaoyudao Disputes” in Lee and Lee, eds., supra note 11, 189 at 205Google Scholar

VALENCIA, Mark J., “The East China Sea Dispute: Context, Claims, Issues, and Possible Solutions” (2007) 31 Asian Perspective 127 at 154Google Scholar

130. This has recently been highlighted by the disagreement between Japan and the PRC and South Korea over the status of Okinotori Shima as to whether it is an Article 121(1) island or an Article 121(3) rock for the purposes of Japan's outer continental shelf claim; see e.g. Republic of Korea: Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Note Verbale MUN/230/11 (11 August 2011), online: CLCS <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htm>.

131. DZUREK, Daniel J., “China Occupies Mischief Reef In Latest Spratly Gambit” (April 1995) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 65−71Google Scholar

132. Rothwell and Stephens, supra note 96 at Chapter 16Google Scholar

133. See e.g. Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration, (1979) 18 I.L.M. 397 at paras. 245−51 (where the Arbitral Tribunal elected to give the Scilly Isles in the southern portion of the English Channel “half-effect”).

134. KAYE, Stuart B., The Torres Strait (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1997) at 93−101Google Scholar

135. LOSC, supra note 95, arts. 74(1), 83(1).

136. See e.g. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), [2009] I.C.J. Rep. 61 at paras. 187−8.

137. Nicaragua v. Colombia, supra note 65 at para. 203.

138. Ibid., at paras. 202, 203.

139. Ibid., at para. 153.

140. Ibid., at para. 211.

141. For example, the PRC has been reportedly applying political and economic pressures against neighbouring countries claiming competing territorial title over islands in the South China Sea: see e.g. International Crisis Group (ICG), “Stirring Up the South China Sea (I)” Asia Report No. 223 (23 April 2012), online: ICG <http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/north-east-asia/223-stirring-up-the-south-china-sea-i.pdf>; International Crisis Group, “Stirring Up the South China Sea (II): Regional Responses” Asia Report No. 229 (24 July 2012), online: ICG <http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/north-east-asia/229-stirring-up-the-south-china-sea-ii-regional-responses>; Carlyle A. THAYER, “China's New Wave of Aggressive Assertiveness in the South China Sea” (30 June 2011), online: Center for Strategic & International Studies <http://csis.org/files/publication/110629_Thayer_South_China_Sea.pdf>.