Professor Sienho Yee has recently published a paper in Chinese Journal of International Law, entitled, “Unilateral Sanctions: Kind and Degree; Long-arm and Strong Arm Jurisdiction; Real Intent and ‘Could-be’ Intent.” Yee has ably elaborated that to assess the conduct of unilateral sanctions, there is a need to consider a question of “kind” so as to a question of “degree.” Further, the so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” should be better phrased as “strong-arm jurisdiction” since sometimes long-arm jurisdiction may be lawful, whereas the current version of the long-arm jurisdiction asserted by the United States is so extreme that it is no longer lawful. To this end, attention should be paid to the level of scrutiny or standard of review that a decision-maker would apply to the assessment of intent. Following from Yee’s thoughts, this note would like to elaborate further on another aspect, namely, the proportionality and necessity of unilateral sanctions.

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.

The MV Arctic Sunrise, a vessel bearing the flag of the Netherlands, was detained by Russian authorities. The Netherlands instituted Annex VII arbitral proceedings against the Russian Federation and requested the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to prescribe provisional measures for the immediate release of the vessel and its crewmembers. On January 22, 2013, the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings to challenge China’s claims over the South China Sea and the underlying seabed. Both China and Russia claim that the tribunal in question does not have jurisdiction, and neither of them appeared before the tribunal. This article offers an analysis of the facts and reasoning in the Arctic Sunrise case concerning Russia’s declaration and its nonappearance. Furthermore, this article explores the relevant provisions of UNCLOS and relevant views, as well as attitudes of ITLOS towards certain issues.