The Extent and Legitimacy of the Judicial Function in Unclos Dispute Settlement

Dados Bibliográficos

ID9934162
AutoresDouglas Guilfoyle (0000-0002-4505-9554, University of Canberra), Joanna Mossop (0000-0002-4038-0103, Victoria University of Wellington, autor correspondente)
Ano2024
Volume73
Fascículo3
Páginas641-667
Data de publicação2024-07-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0020-5893 • E-ISSN: 1471-6895
EditoraCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0020589324000198
OpenAlexW4403109562
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas9

This article examines reactions to the South China Sea and Chagos Marine Protection Area arbitrations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular concerns about the potential widening of Part XV jurisdiction and its impact on the dispute resolution system's consent basis. It argues that assessing the impact of such cases involves a characterization of both the function of Part XV and of international judges. Ultimately, it suggests that the best test of whether UNCLOS case law has gone too far is the reaction of States in designing dispute settlement under the new Agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

Business · International law · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Settlement (finance · United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Maritime Law Issues · Law