Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Navigating Through Narrow Jurisdictional Straits: The Philippines – PRC South China Sea Dispute and UNCLOS

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

AbstractIn January 2013 the Philippines invoked the dispute settlement system under UNCLOS in order to resolve its long-standing dispute with the People’s Republic of China over the South China Sea and more specifically concerning Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands. The arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII UNCLOS, without the PRC taking part in the proceedings as of yet, faces a challenging task in deciding whether or not it has jurisdiction over the case submitted by the Philippines. This article therefore examines the dispute settlement system of UNCLOS with regard to the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the pending Philippines – PRC South China Sea dispute. While at first glance UNCLOS appears to provide for a comprehensive system of compulsory jurisdiction, a number of exceptions, either applicable ipso facto or by virtue of unilateral declarations made at the time of signature or ratification of UNCLOS, leave only a thin layer of jurisdictional grounds, if any at all, for the arbitral tribunal to deal with and eventually decide the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and the PRC. This implies that the arbitral tribunal is facing intriguing legal questions in this highly political procedure, the relevance of which extends far beyond the case at hand.

Affiliations: 1: Harvard; 2: Cape Town

10.1163/15718034-12341266
/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341266
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341266
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341266
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341266
2013-01-01
2017-11-19

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation