Search

Hybrid dispute settlement mechanism is one of the characteristics of the UNCLOS. It is the combination of diplomatic measures and judicial proceedings. Among them, the ITLOS established in accordance with Annex VI, and two types of arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annexes VII and VIII are means for the disputes settlement firstly regulated in the UNCLOS. Especially, according to Article 287, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII has default jurisdiction in case one or both parties to a dispute are not covered by a declaration in force, or the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute. These means of dispute settlement have supplemented and enhanced the source of law for international dispute resolution more diversified. This paper clarifies some aspects of compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under the UNCLOS, evaluates the applicability of these procedures to the case of Vietnam in the disputes settlement on interpretation or application of the UNCLOS raising among countries in the South China Sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides detailed analysis of the so-called 'Rusk Letter' which has been generally referred to as an evidence of Japan's territorial claim to Dokdo island. The Rusk Letter is a diplomatic epistle which was drafted by Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State and sent to the Korean Embassy in the US on August 10, 1951. This letter considers Dokdo as Japan's territory. However, the Rusk Letter has been legally and historically criticized from mainly two aspects. First, the Rusk Letter referred to the ownership of Dokdo only considering the Japanese position which was not true. Second, this letter was a confidential and unofficial document which was sent only to Korea; Japan and even the US Embassy to Korea did not know the Rusk Letter. It did not influence on the decision of Peace Treaty. Therefore, the Rusk Letter cannot be a critical evidence of Japan's territorial claim over Dokdo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]