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

The Philippine Claim Against China

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

Award on Jurisdiction

China was excluded by its Declaration of 2006 from application of UNCLOS compulsory procedures in “all categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b), and (c) of Article 298,” notably “any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory.” The implications of sovereignty over land territory considered in relation to maritime rights make it extremely difficult to make distinctions isolating the latter from the parent concept of “sovereignty.” The Tribunal, when assuming jurisdiction over the Philippine claim made an admirable effort to do so, and the reader may evaluate its success. China, on the other hand, did not merely “fail to appear” or “fail to present its case,” but chose instead to rely on its exclusionary Declaration of 2006 in publicly denying the competence of an Annex VII Tribunal to assume jurisdiction. Nor was China invited to withdraw its 2006 Declaration or to enter into a special agreement to submit a dispute excluded by its Declaration, as contemplated by paragraph 2 of Article 298. In the author’s view, China’s Declaration of 2006 deprived the Convention’s procedures of the essential element of a State’s consent to jurisdiction.

Affiliations: 1: Sri Lanka mcwpinto@gmail.com

10.1163/22134484-00402002
/content/journals/10.1163/22134484-00402002
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134484-00402002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/22134484-00402002
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22134484-00402002
2016-12-06
2018-06-18

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 Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation