Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS
A Safety Net of Peaceful Dispute Settlement Options
In: Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and PolicySearch for other papers by Christine Sim in
Current site
Google Scholar
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?
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 3005 | 807 | 83 |
| Full Text Views | 236 | 35 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 365 | 102 | 3 |
Maritime Boundary Disputes and Article 298 of UNCLOS
A Safety Net of Peaceful Dispute Settlement Options
In: Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and PolicySearch for other papers by Christine Sim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
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?
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 3005 | 807 | 83 |
| Full Text Views | 236 | 35 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 365 | 102 | 3 |