Latest in maritime law
A proposed amendment in the Russian parliament would require foreign warships to obtain diplomatic clearance before navigating through the internal waters of the Northern Sea Route. It is plainly illegal—Moscow’s own past actions tell us so.
Is the recent sanctions-based seizure of a Russian cargo ship beyond French waters consistent with the high seas freedoms and exclusive flag state jurisdiction reflected in the law of the sea?
During armed conflict, can neutral states seize belligerent merchant vessels on the high seas and retain their neutral status?
A recent State Department legal analysis highlights the unique roles that the United States plays in interpreting and enforcing maritime law in the South China Sea. This legal diplomacy also illustrates methodological challenges of customary international law.
China's new Coast Guard Law has several inconsistencies with UNCLOS.
Escalations in the armed conflict between Israel, Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip tend to follow a familiar pattern. Often, following the shooting of rockets or the launching of incendiary balloons from Gaza to Israel, the Israeli government will constrain the space available for fishing next to Gaza’s shores. When matters become calmer, the fishing zone is extended.
Introduction
Satellite photograph showing Chinese ships near Thitu (Pag-asa) Island (Photo: AMTI)
As I explained in this legal primer, the South China Sea dispute has primarily revolved around two distinct legal quarrels: a dispute over territory and a dispute over the substance and application of maritime law.
Over at The National Interest, I’ve written an article parsing this distinction and what it means for the American approach to the South China Sea. I argue that
Although the United States will often urge the claimants to resolve the South China Sea dispute in accordance with “international law” writ broadly, the conflict is governed in reality by a number of different bodies of international law. Building on the historical backgrounder in an earlier post, I will lay out here the two primary legal quarrels at the core of the South China Sea conflict: the dispute over territory and the dispute over the substance and application of maritime law.