In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under\u00a0Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (\u201cUNCLOS\u201d).\u00a0The arbitration sought to determine \u201cthe legal basis of maritime rights and\u00a0entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain geographic features in\u00a0the South China Sea, and the lawfulness of certain actions taken by China in the\u00a0South China Sea.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Tribunal issued its final award (\u201cAward\u201d) on July 12, 2016. The Award is\u00a0a milestone in international environmental law as it relates to the law of the sea.\u00a0This Article examines the Award\u2019s findings with respect to China\u2019s large-scale\u00a0construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, alleged State-sponsored\u00a0fishing activities by Chinese-flagged vessels, and the harvesting of endangered\u00a0species by Chinese vessels and fishermen. The Article discusses the legal and\u00a0evidentiary standards adopted by the arbitral tribunal, States\u2019 positive duties of\u00a0due diligence and vigilance with respect to the marine environment, and potential\u00a0future implications for marine environmental and conservation disputes.<\/p>\n
All told, the implications of the Award for the justiciability of international\u00a0environmental disputes are significant. In light of the Award\u2019s conclusions as to\u00a0the nature and scope of the environmental obligations under UNCLOS, it is\u00a0arguable that any State party to UNCLOS has standing to bring an environmental\u00a0complaint against any other State party with respect to the conduct of its\u00a0nationals or flagged vessels in any maritime area. This might be especially\u00a0important where the conduct concerned threatens severe damage to the marine\u00a0environment or conservation, including with respect to endangered species or\u00a0fragile ecosystems.<\/p>\n
Regardless of whether the implications of the Award will extend so far, the\u00a0Award will provide a seminal precedent both in the litigation of international\u00a0environmental disputes and in relation to the nature and scope of States\u2019 \u201cdue\u00a0diligence\u201d obligations, both under UNCLOS and more broadly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under\u00a0Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (\u201cUNCLOS\u201d).\u00a0The arbitration sought to determine \u201cthe legal basis […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"parent":62,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-37","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/37","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/37\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1765,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/37\/revisions\/1765"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/62"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/environmental-law-review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}