The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea admitted legislation and enforcement jurisdiction carried out by the flag state. However, the emergence of substandard ships and the growing number of ship accidents at sea indicate that flag state jurisdiction is far from effective. Four aspects of these failures are examined in this paper. Confronted with the failure of flag state jurisdiction, port states have devised a subsidiary remedy to ensure their national interests and restore the effectiveness of flag state jurisdiction. A problem hereunder arises because non-explicit permission was given to port states to prosecute substandard ships. Thus, this paper further analyses four aspects of port state jurisdiction. The authors aim to analyse the failures and remedies associated with state jurisdiction over ships. It reviews the scope and deficiency of state jurisdiction in combatting substandard ships and illicit activities at sea. This paper also addresses the importance of port state control, regional memorandums of understanding and international conventions.
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.
Recent incidents of state terrorism, including the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam, the murder (and attempted murder) of persons with strong ties to Russia, and the Jamal Khashoggi assassination, demonstrate cruelty while implying the involvement of the state, unlike other acts of terrorism since the Second World War. This trend denies the efforts of the international community, which has suppressed physical punishment including the death penalty in modern times and has achieved advances in human rights and humanitarianism under contemporary international law. Accordingly, this paper utilizes Michel Foucault’s indications regarding prison to reconsider recent cases of state terrorism from a broader perspective while taking into consideration the historical background of conventional terrorism and the development of international terrorism-related treaties.
The primary purpose of this paper is to know which formulation of FET standard among the diverse drafting approaches best serves the interests of both States and investors. In this respect, the paper first will have a review of general categorization of FET in a number of IIAs. Subsequently, it will focus on the two most controversial formulations of FET: (1) as a standalone clause and (2) with reference to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law. In light of this, it will discuss the impact of the various FET drafts on the decisions of arbitral tribunals dealing with this standard. Lastly, the paper will also explore the most recent approaches to the formulation of FET to see if they are capable of brining clarity in the overall discussion of FET’s formulation as well as interpretation. In short, these recent constructions of FET clauses may best serve these interests as they bring clarity.
This short article examines whether China has incurred responsibility for violating a general due diligence obligation in customary international law or specific obligations under the WHO’s International Health Regulations and the WHO Constitution in a context of Covid-19. It is submitted that due diligence is merely a notion to describe a primary obligation, or a standard by which a particular primary obligation is assessed. It cannot serve as the basis for holding a State responsible. Regarding the WHO regime, actions taken by China after December 2019 neatly fit into the staggered requirements of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Health Regulations, which do not set out clear standards for the evaluation of a health emergency. On a more general level, we reflect upon the role of international law in global pandemic control and caution against the politicization of international health law.
On March 18, 2020, Malaysian Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin declared the nationwide enforcement of the Movement Control Order to curb the spread of COVID-19. In September 2020, Malaysia entered the third wave of the outbreak. Active cases rose from 60 to more than 13,000. The government’s Ops Benteng stops illegal migrants, who are at high risk of bringing COVID-19 into Malaysia. This includes illegal Rohingya migrants, who enter Malaysia to flee persecution in their home country, Myanmar. There are approximately 150,000 Rohingya migrants in Malaysia and more are expected. This article examines the main reason behind the influx of Rohingya illegal migrants and discusses whether the Malaysian government should tighten its borders to safeguard against COVID-19. The government must prioritise its own citizens over the Rohingyas; the responsibility of managing this humanitarian disaster should be shared with other nations, particularly those party to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951.
The emergence of the construction and operation of a small satellite constellation in Low Earth orbit (LEO) to beam high-speed Internet to all parts of the world is a relatively new development in the use of outer space. States, international intergovernmental organizations, and private companies plan to deploy small satellites into Earth’s orbit because this effort is inexpensive and expandable, especially in the area of commercial activities. This movement will provide an essential tool to achieve sustainable development goals, especially for developing countries. However, it could also bring legal challenges because there is now a lack of binding regulations regarding the increasing risks of orbital collision, the proliferation of space debris, the satellite network service, and the rational, efficient, and economical use of a radio frequency allocation and the harmful interference caused by small satellite constellations in LEO. These issues could have an impact on the long-term sustainability of space activities.
Bilateral agreements are not the optimal solution to address modern challenges regarding the resolution of investment disputes. The time has come for multilateral agreements to define a clear procedure for resolving investment disputes and the formation of arbitration for these purposes. On November 15, 2020, ASEAN members and five regional partners signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), arguably the largest free trade agreement in history. Although the RCEP agreement defines the basic principles of legal protection of investments, it does not contain a procedure for settling disputes directly between investors and parties to the agreement, i.e., Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), but rather postpones the issue for future negotiations. Nevertheless, a majority of countries understand the importance of investment protection and have significant outward FDI that will support stronger ISDS protections within a multilateral framework. Therefore, it is recommended that in the near future member countries will come to an agreement and adopt appropriate amendments to the RCEP regarding ISDS.
Criticism has erupted around the world over the paper “Contracting for sex in the Pacific War” written by Mark Ramseyer, a Mitsubishi professor at Harvard University Law School. Ramseyer insists tha “comfort women” by Japanese imperial military made “credible contracts” with recruiters regardless of the Japanese government or the Japanese military. Ramseyer further insists that the “comfort women” were certified prostitutes. However, the Japanese government selected recruiters secretly and provided them with convenience in mobilizing women. Recruiters have deceived women, mainly by job fraud, into kidnapping them to military brothels. The recruiters signed with Japanese women as barmaids (shakuhu), meaning women who served drinks. However, the Japanese military brothels were prohibited from drinking. Almost Korean women were illiterate in 1940’s, so recruiters did not make contract papers with them. It was very easy to deceive Korean women to make sexual slaves of Japanese military. The surviving Japanese military’s surgeon or soldiers testified that Korean “comfort women” had been sexual slaves.
British colonial policies have led to stratified societies all over the world and America is no exception. But America is unique in transiting to an equal society and constructing the legal framework to achieve a fair society, even though not completely successful. What distinguishes America from other British colonies is the tradition of rule of law. Perhaps this tradition is also the most priceless heritage that the Britain left for America. Currently, racial discrimination and racial equality protests spread across America. This book provides valuable insights for understanding the divided America.