Michael Sheng-ti Gau National Taiwan Ocean University, No. 1, Peining Road, Keelung City, 20224, Taiwan.
Corresponding Author: mikegau97@msn.com
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
The Sino-Philippine Arbitration on the South China Sea Disputes was over on July 12, 2016, with a Merits Award in Philippine favor. Beijing rejected this arbitration and abstained from submitting written and oral arguments. Taiwan actively engaged in the debate with the Philippines since July 7, 2015. Not deemed as representative of China, Taiwan was considered capable of clarifying the meaning of the U-Shaped Line it first published in 1947 when seated in Nanjing, representing China then. The biggest maritime feature in the Spratly Islands, i.e. Taiping Island (Itu Aba), has been occupied by troops from mainland China since 1946 and then from Taiwan since 1956. The legal status of Taiping Island was the key to success of Philippine Submissions. The factual information from Taiwan became vital. This paper examines Taiwan's role in this arbitration and the degree to which it could actually speak for China at such legal proceedings.
Keywords : South China Sea Arbitration, UNCLOS, Annex VII-Tribunal, Taiping Island, U-Shaped Line, Article 121 of UNCLOS
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_09
2019년 3월 15일 금요일
Taiwanese Position in the South China Sea Dispute: Before and After the Permanent Court of Arbitration Award
Yen-Chiang Chang Shandong University School of Law, Jinan, Shandong Province, P.R. China.
Corresponding Author: ycchang@sdu.edu.cn
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
This note aims to explore the Taiwanese position before and after the Permanent Court of Arbitration Award regarding the South China Sea dispute. The findings suggest that the new Taiwanese Authority, led by Tsai Ing-Wen, has taken a slightly different approach toward the South China Sea, compared to Ma Ying-Jeou's administration. The new Taiwanese Authority makes no comment on the eleven-dash line claim, which, in turn, implies that its approach is closer to that of the American orientation. It is suggested that the South China Sea Peace Initiative, proposed by Ma Ying-Jeou's administration, should be followed by Tsai's administration. In addition, the recognition of the 1992 Consensus by Tsai's administration will encourage mainland China to consider Taiwan as one of the key players in future South China Sea negotiations.
Keywords : South China Sea Disputes, Taiwanese Position, Permanent Court of Arbitration Award
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_08
Corresponding Author: ycchang@sdu.edu.cn
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
This note aims to explore the Taiwanese position before and after the Permanent Court of Arbitration Award regarding the South China Sea dispute. The findings suggest that the new Taiwanese Authority, led by Tsai Ing-Wen, has taken a slightly different approach toward the South China Sea, compared to Ma Ying-Jeou's administration. The new Taiwanese Authority makes no comment on the eleven-dash line claim, which, in turn, implies that its approach is closer to that of the American orientation. It is suggested that the South China Sea Peace Initiative, proposed by Ma Ying-Jeou's administration, should be followed by Tsai's administration. In addition, the recognition of the 1992 Consensus by Tsai's administration will encourage mainland China to consider Taiwan as one of the key players in future South China Sea negotiations.
Keywords : South China Sea Disputes, Taiwanese Position, Permanent Court of Arbitration Award
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_08
Problematic Expansion on Jurisdiction: Some Observation on the South China Sea Arbitration
Xiaoyi Zhang #3 Maguanying Jiayuan, China Institute for Marine Affairs (CIMA), State Oceanic Administration, Fengtai District, Beijing 100161 P.R. China.
Corresponding Author: zhangxiaoyi@cima.gov.cn
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Following its jurisdictional decision in October 2015, the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the UNCLOS issued its final award on July 12, 2016 in the South China Sea Arbitration case. It found overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines. This article comments on two of the flaws regarding the issue of jurisdiction arising from both preliminary and final awards of the case. It firstly calls into question the inconsistent standard adopted in identifying jurisdictional obstacles, and finds a pro-jurisdictional bias in the Tribunal's awards. It further analyses the fallacious approach of fragmenting the maritime delimitation disputes, and suggests the legal conundrum of status and entitlement of maritime features related to Sino-Philippine sea boundary delimitation should not constitute a separate dispute subject to legal proceedings. By purposefully downplaying jurisdictional obstacles and exercising powers on false disputes, the tribunal raises doubts to its legitimacy.
Keywords : UNCLOS, Annex VII, Arbitral Tribunal, Jurisdiction, South China Sea, Maritime Delimitation
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_07
Corresponding Author: zhangxiaoyi@cima.gov.cn
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Following its jurisdictional decision in October 2015, the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the UNCLOS issued its final award on July 12, 2016 in the South China Sea Arbitration case. It found overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines. This article comments on two of the flaws regarding the issue of jurisdiction arising from both preliminary and final awards of the case. It firstly calls into question the inconsistent standard adopted in identifying jurisdictional obstacles, and finds a pro-jurisdictional bias in the Tribunal's awards. It further analyses the fallacious approach of fragmenting the maritime delimitation disputes, and suggests the legal conundrum of status and entitlement of maritime features related to Sino-Philippine sea boundary delimitation should not constitute a separate dispute subject to legal proceedings. By purposefully downplaying jurisdictional obstacles and exercising powers on false disputes, the tribunal raises doubts to its legitimacy.
Keywords : UNCLOS, Annex VII, Arbitral Tribunal, Jurisdiction, South China Sea, Maritime Delimitation
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_07
The 2014 Enabling Law of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission and the UN Paris Principles: A Critical Evaluation
Jonathan Liljeblad Swinburne University of Technology Law School, H25 P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122 Australia.
Corresponding Author: jonathan.liljeblad@gmail.com
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
In March 2014 the Myanmar Hluttaw, or Parliament, enacted the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission Law, which provided a statutory basis for a national human rights body in Myanmar. The Myanmar government declared to the United Nations Human Rights Council that the Enabling Law was compliant with the United Nations Paris Principles that set international standards for national human rights institutions. Despite the claims of the Myanmar government, however, critics charge the Enabling Law is insufficient, with detractors claiming the law leaves the MNHRC with anaemic powers incapable of advancing human rights. This paper responds to such issues by conducting an independent evaluation of the MNHRC Enabling Law under the Paris Principles. In doing so, the analysis treats the Enabling Law as a case study demonstrating how the Paris Principles can be exercised by third parties as the UN-supported international standards for national human rights institutions.
Keywords : Myanmar, Enabling Law, MNHRC, Paris Principles, OHCHR, NHRIs, ICC Sub-committee
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_06
Corresponding Author: jonathan.liljeblad@gmail.com
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
In March 2014 the Myanmar Hluttaw, or Parliament, enacted the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission Law, which provided a statutory basis for a national human rights body in Myanmar. The Myanmar government declared to the United Nations Human Rights Council that the Enabling Law was compliant with the United Nations Paris Principles that set international standards for national human rights institutions. Despite the claims of the Myanmar government, however, critics charge the Enabling Law is insufficient, with detractors claiming the law leaves the MNHRC with anaemic powers incapable of advancing human rights. This paper responds to such issues by conducting an independent evaluation of the MNHRC Enabling Law under the Paris Principles. In doing so, the analysis treats the Enabling Law as a case study demonstrating how the Paris Principles can be exercised by third parties as the UN-supported international standards for national human rights institutions.
Keywords : Myanmar, Enabling Law, MNHRC, Paris Principles, OHCHR, NHRIs, ICC Sub-committee
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_06
Active Debris Removal: Potential Legal Barriers and Possible Ways Forward
Jinyuan Su School of Law, Xi'an Jiaotong University, 28 Xianning West Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710049, P.R. China.
Corresponding Author: jinyuan.su@hotmail.com
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
The space environment is unique. Natural decay of debris therein is much slower than pollutants in other environments, so that removal is difficult and expensive. Despites the voluntary implementation of mitigation guidelines, the amount of debris has surged in the last two decades due to increase and diversification of space actors, and the continuing militarization of space. Active Debris Removal has thus become a promising responsive scenario. This article examines key legal barriers to the implementation of removal, such as the lack of legal definition of space debris, ambiguities surrounding the jurisdiction and control over space debris, liability for possible damages caused in removal, and implications for space arms control. It further proposes that more comprehensive registration of space objects, an international catalogue of space debris and an international fund for removal should be promoted. Also, international cooperation should be enhanced to cope with space debris, while space arms control should be strengthened.
Keywords : Active Debris Removal, Debris Mitigation, Registration, Dual-Use
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_05
Corresponding Author: jinyuan.su@hotmail.com
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
The space environment is unique. Natural decay of debris therein is much slower than pollutants in other environments, so that removal is difficult and expensive. Despites the voluntary implementation of mitigation guidelines, the amount of debris has surged in the last two decades due to increase and diversification of space actors, and the continuing militarization of space. Active Debris Removal has thus become a promising responsive scenario. This article examines key legal barriers to the implementation of removal, such as the lack of legal definition of space debris, ambiguities surrounding the jurisdiction and control over space debris, liability for possible damages caused in removal, and implications for space arms control. It further proposes that more comprehensive registration of space objects, an international catalogue of space debris and an international fund for removal should be promoted. Also, international cooperation should be enhanced to cope with space debris, while space arms control should be strengthened.
Keywords : Active Debris Removal, Debris Mitigation, Registration, Dual-Use
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_05
MNCs under International Climate Change Regime: Recognizing Atmospheric Absorptive Capacity as the Common Heritage of Mankind
Tsung-Sheng LiaoDepartment of Law, National Chung Cheng University, #168, University Rd., Min-Hsiung Township, Chiayi County, Taiwan 62102.
Corresponding Author: lawtsl@ccu.edu.tw
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Global warming is a result of human influence. However, little has been done to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a 'safe' level. An important factor for such dismal state of affairs is that the international community has emphasized far too much on the State-centric approach to combating climate change. The international legal regime does not directly control major emitters or MNCs. This article recognizes the atmosphere as a part of the global commons and the atmospheric absorptive capacity as the common heritage of mankind. Therefore, the international community can pave the way to link global climate change regime and MNCs. Those common interests of the international community can be protected when MNCs turn their production processes green, by redirecting their investment into green technology, and try to alter the negative status quo.
Keywords : MNCs, Climate Change Regime, Atmospheric Absorptive Capacity, Common Heritage of Mankind
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_04
Corresponding Author: lawtsl@ccu.edu.tw
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Global warming is a result of human influence. However, little has been done to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a 'safe' level. An important factor for such dismal state of affairs is that the international community has emphasized far too much on the State-centric approach to combating climate change. The international legal regime does not directly control major emitters or MNCs. This article recognizes the atmosphere as a part of the global commons and the atmospheric absorptive capacity as the common heritage of mankind. Therefore, the international community can pave the way to link global climate change regime and MNCs. Those common interests of the international community can be protected when MNCs turn their production processes green, by redirecting their investment into green technology, and try to alter the negative status quo.
Keywords : MNCs, Climate Change Regime, Atmospheric Absorptive Capacity, Common Heritage of Mankind
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_04
Sovereignty and National Civil Procedure: An Analysis of State Practice in Japan
Keisuke Takeshita Hitotsubashi University School of Law, 2-1, Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8601 Japan.
Corresponding Author: kei.takeshita@r.hit-u.ac.jp
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Advanced telecommunication technologies enable us to employ new methods for judicial acts in the national civil procedure, such as facilitating evidence through a video-link system. However, before implementing these methods in the national proceedings for cases with foreign elements, it is necessary to elucidate the relationship between sovereignty and judicial acts of courts, including the validation of these new methods. This is because judicial acts by courts are considered to fall within the purview of the exercise of sovereignty from a Japanese perspective. From the analysis on Japanese state practices to date, it is recognized that Japan has strictly abided by the principle of territoriality under public international law. Nevertheless, reconsidering the meaning of sovereignty, Japan can adopt a more liberal and tolerant policy. In particular, Japan can become more tolerant of other countries' judicial acts, which may be conducive to the better delivery of justice in transnational civil and commercial dispute settlements.
Keywords : Sovereignty, Civil Procedure, State Practice, Japan, Service of Process
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_03
Corresponding Author: kei.takeshita@r.hit-u.ac.jp
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Advanced telecommunication technologies enable us to employ new methods for judicial acts in the national civil procedure, such as facilitating evidence through a video-link system. However, before implementing these methods in the national proceedings for cases with foreign elements, it is necessary to elucidate the relationship between sovereignty and judicial acts of courts, including the validation of these new methods. This is because judicial acts by courts are considered to fall within the purview of the exercise of sovereignty from a Japanese perspective. From the analysis on Japanese state practices to date, it is recognized that Japan has strictly abided by the principle of territoriality under public international law. Nevertheless, reconsidering the meaning of sovereignty, Japan can adopt a more liberal and tolerant policy. In particular, Japan can become more tolerant of other countries' judicial acts, which may be conducive to the better delivery of justice in transnational civil and commercial dispute settlements.
Keywords : Sovereignty, Civil Procedure, State Practice, Japan, Service of Process
The Full Text is available at: http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v9n2_03
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)