Parting the Waves: Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction and the Division of Ocean Space
This article casts aside traditional obsessions and examines the development and present state of coastal State claims to maritime jurisdiction, the overlapping claims to maritime space that have inevitably resulted from the significant extension of maritime claims in recent decades, and thus the delimitation of maritime boundaries.
The Effect of People's Republic of China (PRC) Territorial Claim on South China Sea (SCS) to Indonesia (2014 - 2016)
Currently, China has not abandoned its policy of resolving the contentious South China Sea (SCS) issue through peaceful means. China’s recent state behavior and unilateral military measures like naval blockades, and xenophobic rhetoric have all given the impression that overconfident China is increasingly shedding its soft-power image in resolving both the East China Sea and South China Sea disputes. China as the world’s 2nd largest economy which has already aroused deep suspicions among its neighbors by increasing its national defense budget in 2014 by 12 percent to USD132 billion, making it second in the world only to the U.S’s defense spending of USD528 billion. China’s recent measures such as new fisheries laws, the establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea and, most recently, a naval blockade around Second Thomas Shoal, known in China as the Ren’ai Reef and in the Philippines as Ayungin which is in the SCS have aggravated regional fears. In the past, China has resorted to military options to occupy territories that were claimed by other countries. In mid March 1988, China deployed its troops to seize the reefs of Co Lin (Collins), Len Dao (Lansdowne) and Gac Ma (Johnson South) in the Spratly archipelago, also known as Truong Sa in Vietnamese from Vietnam. China refers to Johnson South Reef as Chiguajiao, which is now under Beijing control. It raised question why China now resort to military options again in pursuing its South China Sea unilateral claim. None of Asian countries wants a war but China’s recent words and deeds are not only alarming but are moving in that direction. However, the main problem with China is that claims almost all of the SCS as its own, based on a vague Ushaped line known as the nine-dash line, an assertion that is fiercely contested by Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. Indonesia, which is not a claimant state, is more worried about China’s unilateral claims and its assertiveness, which could threaten regional peace and stability as well as the unity of ASEAN. China has now included part of Natuna Islands waters within Indonesia’s Riau Islands province in its territorial map based on the nine-dash line. It is a serious external threat to Indonesia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This research attempts to explain China’s territorial claim on Indonesia territory which interpreted differently by decision-makers. It used descriptive analytical methodology. It needs appropriate mechanism to prevent open conflict and promote cooperation among disagreeing parties.
Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility
The current proceedings before the International Court of Justice represent the latest phase in a series of attempts to resolve a set of complex problems concerning sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation issues and was submitted unilaterally by Qatar in July 1991, relying for jurisdiction on agreements made between the two States in 1987 and 1990. Initially, Bahrain claimed there was no agreement permitting a unilateral application to be made and objected to its inclusion in the General List but finally agreed to an initial phase concerning jurisdiction and admissibility. There is no doubt that the parties had agreed that their dispute should be submitted to the ICJ. What was at question was whether they had entered into a legally binding commitment that entitled either State to submit that question unilaterally. Qatar thought that they had, whilst Bahrain maintained that they had not. Underlying this, however, was a further disagreement concerning the nature of the dispute relating to the island of Zubarah.