Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Enforcement Options and Paths to Compliance: Disputants and Global Stakeholders in Philippines v. China 1

  • Diane A. DESIERTO (a1)
Abstract

The Philippines v. China arbitration award has been praised as a landmark victory setting forth illuminating jurisprudence interpreting the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], but it has also been repeatedly excoriated as an “unenforceable” decision—a Pyrrhic victory—due to China’s repeated refusal to date to acknowledge the binding effect of the award. China’s withdrawal from Scarborough Shoal—hailed by the new Duterte government as a hallmark of its diplomatic efforts—is one instance of state practice that still remains equivocal on the opinio juris of China’s acceptance (or rejection) of the arbitration award.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Michael J. Marks Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director, ASEAN Law & Integration Center [ALIC], the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law; 2016–2017 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences [CASBS], Stanford University; Adjunct Fellow, WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice, Stanford Global Studies. I can be reached at desierto@hawaii.edu, dianedesierto@aya.yale.edu, and diane.desierto@dapdlaw.com.

1

This paper is based on remarks given at the International Law Association’s Panel on Disputes in the South and East China Seas, during the Fall 2016 International Law Weekend, Fordham Law School, and a follow-up lecture in February 2017 at Stanford Law School’s Center for International Conflict Negotiation. My thanks go to panel moderator and chair Professor Ved Nanda, and fellow panelists Professors Jerome Cohen and Suisheng Zhao, and likewise to Stanford Law School Professor Allen Weiner for robust exchanges on this topic.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

2. WRIGHT, Quincy and WARNER, Edward, “Enforcement of International Law38 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1921–1969) 77 at 78 .

3. Michael REISMAN, W., “The Enforcement of International Judgments” (1969) 63 American Journal of International Law 1 at 1 .

4. ROXBURGH, Ronald F., “The Sanction of International Law” (1920) 14 American Journal of International Law 26 at 30 .

5. Reisman, supra note 3 at 6, 23.

6. See NOORTMAN, Math, Enforcing International Law: From Self-Help to Self-Contained Regimes (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016) at chapter 7 (on enforcement of judicial decisions).

7. RAUSTIALA, Kal and SLAUGHTER, Anne-Marie, “International Law, International Relations, and Compliance” in Walter CARLSNAES, Thomas RISSE, and Beth A. SIMMONS, eds., Handbook of International Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2002), 538 at 539.

8. BURGSTALLER, Markus, Theories of Compliance with International Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005) at 95–102.

9. See VON STEIN, Jana, “International Law: Understanding Compliance and Enforcement” in Robert A. DENEMARK, ed., The International Studies Encyclopedia (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010).

10. See SCHACHTER, Oscar, “The Enforcement of International Judicial and Arbitral Decisions” (1960) 54 American Journal of International Law 1 at 617 (on different methods of enforcement by the successful party, such as diplomatic and economic pressures, the attachment of property belonging to the debtor state, enforcement through municipal courts, and use of armed force in very limited circumscribed situations under the UN Charter).

11. WARIOBA, Joseph Sinde, “Monitoring Compliance with and Enforcement of Binding Decisions of International Courts” in J.A. FROWEIN and R. WOLFRUM, eds., Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001), 41 at 49; see also TANZI, Attila, “Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice” (1995) 6 European Journal of International Law 539 .

12. See FORELLE, Carlo, International Law as a Social Construct: The Struggle for Global Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 334–54, 336–7.

13. STILE, Kendall, State Responses to International Law (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015) at 3–4.

14. Tom PHILLIPS, Oliver HOLMES, and Owen BOWCOTT, “Beijing Rejects Tribunal’s Ruling South China Sea Case” The Guardian (12 July 2016), online: The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china>; SHI Jiangtao and JUN Mai, “China’s Xi Jinping Rejects Any Action Based on International Court’s South China Sea Ruling” South China Morning Post (12 July 2016), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/chinas-xi-jinping-rejects-any-action-based>.

15. In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China), Award [2016] Permanent Court of Arbitration Case No. 2013-19, 12 July 2016 [Philippines v. China Award of 12 July 2016].

16. Antonio T. CARPIO, “How the Philippines Can Enforce the South China Sea Verdict” The Wall Street Journal (17 July 2016), online: The Wall Street Journal <https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-philippines-can-enforce-the-south-china-sea-verdict-1468774415>.

17. Katie HUNT, Matt RIVERS, and Catherine E. SCHOICHET, “In China, Duterte Announces Split with the US: ‘America Has Lost’” CNN (20 October 2016), online: CNN <http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/asia/china-philippines-duterte-visit/>; Ben BLANCHARD, “Duterte Aligns Philippines with China, Says U.S. Has Lost” Reuters (20 October 2016), online: Reuters <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-philippines-idUSKCN12K0AS>.

18. Nestor CORRALES, “Duterte Says He’ll ‘Set Aside’ Arbitral Ruling on the South China Sea” Philippine Daily Inquirer (17 December 2016), online: Philippine Daily Inquirer <http://globalnation.inquirer.net/150814/duterte-says-hell-set-aside-arbitral-ruling-on-south-china-sea>.

19. I note that other scholars have characterized subsequent developments as proof of China’s imperfect compliance and/or outright non-compliance with Philippines v. China. See Julian KU and Chris MIRASOLA, “Tracking Compliance with the South China Sea Arbitral Award: China’s 2017 Summer Fishing Moratorium May Rekindle Conflict with the Philippines” Lawfare (7 March 2017), online: Lawfare <https://www.lawfareblog.com/tracking-compliance-south-china-sea-arbitral-award-chinas-2017-summer-fishing-moratorium-may>.

20. See “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines” Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China (7 December 2014), online: Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China <http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml>.

21. For a summary of legal positions as well as empirically documented developments among claimants and interested parties in the South China Sea, see, among others, Christopher D. YUNG and Patrick MCNULTY, “An Empirical Analysis of Claimant Tactics in the South China Sea” INSS Strategic Forum (August 2015), online: INSS Strategic Forum <http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratforum/SF-289.pdf>; Island Tracker features in the Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative [AMTI] which documents and maps China’s land reclamation and island building activities, online <https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/>; and BAUTISTA, Lowell and ARUGAY, Aries A., “Philippines v. China, The South China Sea Arbitral Award: Implications for Policy and Practice” (2017) 9 Asian Politics & Policy 1 at 122152 .

22. See VILLIGER, Mark E., Customary International Law and Treaties (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985) at 32–3.

23. See Diane A. DESIERTO, “The Philippines v. China Arbitral Award on the Merits as a Subsidiary Source of International Law” EJIL:Talk! (12 July 2016), online: EJIL:Talk! <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-philippines-v-china-arbitral-award-on-the-merits-as-a-subsidiary-source-of-international-law/>.

24. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, U.N.T.S 1833 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS], at art. 296 (Finality and Binding Force of Decisions), and Annex VII, art. 11 (Finality of Award).

25. In the Matter of an Arbitration Before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility [2015] Permanent Court of Arbitration Case No. 2013-19, 29 October 2015 [Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility].

26. Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ibid., at para. 413.

27. Philippines v. China Award of 12 July 2016, supra note 15 at para. 1203(B)(1) and (2).

28. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(3).

29. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(6).

30. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(7).

31. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(4) and (5).

32. Ibid., supra note 15 at para. 1203(B)(9).

33. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(11).

34. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(12).

35. Ibid., at paras. 1203(B)(13) and (14).

36. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(15).

37. Ibid., at para. 1203(B)(16).

38. Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (The Chorzow Factory), Judgment [1927] Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A No. 13, 16 December 1927, at 20.

39. BORCHARD, Edwin M., “Declaratory Judgments in International Law” (1935) 29 American Journal of International Law 3 at 489 .

40. AHMED, Tawhida, “The EU, the ECHR and the Effective Protection of Human Rights for Individuals” in Duncan FRENCH, Matthew SAUL, and Nigel D. WHITE, eds., International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010), 345 at 358 .

41. MCINTYRE, Juliette, “Declaratory Judgments of the International Court of Justice” in Nikos LAVRANOS, Ruth KOK, et al., eds., 2012 Hague Yearbook of International Law (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 107 at 109.

42. See CHARNEY, Jonathan I., “Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law” (1994) 88 American Journal of International Law 227 at 234 (“… preliminary to a maritime boundary delimitation on the basis of the multistep analysis are questions of historic title, treaty obligations, common behavior and stability derived from the doctrine of uti possidetis”).

43. I have discussed this in greater detail in, Diane A. DESIERTO, “The Jurisdictional Rubicon: Scrutinizing China’s Position Paper on the South China Sea Arbitration—Part I” EJIL:Talk! (29 January 2015), online: EJIL:Talk! <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-jurisdictional-rubicon-scrutinizing-chinas-position-paper-on-the-south-china-sea-arbitration/>; and Diane A. DESIERTO, “The Jurisdictional Rubicon: Scrutinizing China’s Position Paper on the South China Sea Arbitration—Part II” EJIL:Talk! (30 January 2015), online: EJIL:Talk! <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-jurisdictional-rubicon-scrutinizing-chinas-position-paper-on-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-part-ii/>.

44. TANAKA, Yoshifumi, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) at 7–8.

45. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment [2012] I.C.J. Rep. 2012, 19 November 2012, at para. 141.

46. See SHI, Jiuyong, “Maritime Delimitation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice” (2010) 9 Chinese Journal of International Law 271, at para. 9 .

47. On technical, scientific, and legal approaches to maritime boundary delimitation, see COTTIER, Thomas, Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

48. UNCLOS, supra note 24 at art. 296(1). UNCLOS, supra note 24 at Annex VII, art. 11 states that “the award shall be final and without appeal, unless the parties have agreed in advance to an appellate procedure. It shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute.” For different views on the scope of this “finality” of UNCLOS Annex VII arbitral awards, see Stefan TALMON, “The South China Sea Arbitration and the Finality of ‘Final’ Awards” Journal of International Dispute Settlement (4 January 2017), online: Journal of International Dispute Settlement <https://academic.oup.com/jids/article/doi/10.1093/jnlids/idw027/2802494/The-South-China-Sea-Arbitration-and-the-Finality#51359950>, at paras. 21, 27; Robert BECKMAN, “UNCLOS Part XV and the South China Sea” in S. JAYAKUMAR, Tommy KOH, and Robert BECKMAN, eds., The South China Sea Disputes and the Law of the Sea (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014), 229 at 238.

49. UNCLOS, supra note 24 at art. 296(2).

50. See DALY, Brooks W., “Permanent Court of Arbitration” in Chiara GIORGETTI, ed., The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012), 37 at 47–8.

51. UNCLOS, supra note 24 at Annex VII, art. 12(1).

52. The Philippines’ pronouncements under the Duterte administration have not always been consistent with the Philippines’ legal positions taken in Philippines v. China. Philippine Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay told the international press that “my position, which is the official position, is that the disputed part of the South China Sea has never belonged to anyone”. See Raissa ROBLES, “Duterte Plays A Dangerous Game in the South China Sea” South China Morning Post (27 February 2017), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2073858/duterte-plays-dangerous-game-south-china-sea>. See also Nehginpao KIPGEN, “The Philippines’ South China Sea Flip-Flop” The Diplomat (2 March 2017), online: The Diplomat <http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/the-philippines-south-china-sea-flip-flop/>.

53. See D’ASPREMONT, Jean, “The Collective Security System and the Enforcement of International Law” in Marc WELLER, Alexia SOLOMOU, and Jake William RYLATT, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 129.

54. Charter of the United Nations, art. 94(2). Note that while this term remains undefined in international jurisprudence, under Security Council practice, the threshold for a “breach of the peace” has involved some serious interstate military action. See United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 (1950), 25 June 1950 (on Korea’s complaint of aggression); United Nations Security Council Resolution 505 (1982), 26 May 1982 (on Falklands/Malvinas invasion); United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990), 2 August 1990 (on invasion of Kuwait); and United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 (1987), 16 January 1987 (on Iran-Iraq war). See FARRALL, Jeremy Matam, United Nations Sanctions and the Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) at 64.

55. The Philippines is reported to have sent a note verbale to China in 2017, protesting China’s development of military infrastructure and installation of anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapons on seven artificial islands that China constructed in the South China Sea. See “Philippines Issues First Protest vs China under Duterte” PhilStar (16 January 2017), online: PhilStar <http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/01/16/1663254/philippines-issues-first-protest-vs-china-under-duterte>; Lindsay MURDOCH, “South China Sea: Philippines Quietly Protests China’s Weaponry on Artificial Islands” The Sydney Morning Herald (17 January 2017), online: The Sydney Morning Herald <http://www.smh.com.au/world/south-china-sea-philippines-quietly-protests-chinas-weaponry-on-artificial-islands-20170117-gtsw60.html>.

56. Charter of the United Nations, art. 39.

57. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/377(V) (“Uniting for Peace”) at para. 1.

58. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea” Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China (13 July 2016), online: Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China <http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1380615.shtml>; and LIU Zhen, “China, Philippines to Set Up Negotiation Mechanism to Resolve South China Sea Disputes” South China Morning Post (21 October 2016), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2038993/china-philippines-agree-set-negotiation-mechanism>.

59. There are alleged reported conversations between the Philippines and China on Chinese coast guards’ enforcement activities at Scarborough Shoal. See Emily RAUHALA, “Philippines Says China Has Stopped Chasing Fishermen from Contested Shoal” Washington Post (28 October 2016), online: Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-filipino-fishermen-return-to-fish-shoal-contested-with-china/2016/10/28/51d51eb4-9cb3-11e6-b4c9-391055ea9259_story.html?utm_term=.571c4e79a228>. Although note that China has announced a 2017 summer fishing moratorium over many parts of the South China Sea. See Julian KU and Christopher MIRASOLA, “Tracking Compliance with the South China Sea Arbitral Award: China’s 2017 Summer Fishing Moratorium May Rekindle Conflict with the Philippines” Lawfare (7 March 2017), online: Lawfare <https://www.lawfareblog.com/tracking-compliance-south-china-sea-arbitral-award-chinas-2017-summer-fishing-moratorium-may>.

60. Note that the Philippines has declared a unilateral ban on all fishing at Scarborough Shoal. See Ben BLAND, “Duterte ‘Bans’ All Fishing in the Disputed Area of South China Sea” The Financial Times (21 November 2016), online: The Financial Times <https://www.ft.com/content/d0ef9402-afd4-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0>.

61. See Tim DAISS, “China, Philippines Reportedly Set to Agree on Joint South China Sea Oil Exploration” Forbes (18 October 2016), online: Forbes <https://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/10/18/china-philippines-oil-deal-underway-in-south-china-sea-says-report/#5292ddde7352>.

62. See Minnie CHAN, “Beijing Ready to Impose Air Defence Identification Zone in South China Sea Pending US Moves” South China Morning Post (1 June 2016), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1960954/beijing-ready-impose-air-defence-identification-zone-south-china-sea>.

63. See “Manila Expects China to Build on Scarborough Shoal” South China Morning Post (7 February 2017), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2068863/manila-expects-china-build-scarborough-shoal>.

64. See, among others, “South China Sea: US Reports ‘Unsafe Encounter’ with Chinese Military Aircraft” The Guardian (10 February 2017), online: The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/10/south-china-sea-us-navy-aircraft-encounter>; Tom PHILLIPS, “Images Show ‘Significant’ Chinese Weapons Systems in South China Sea” The Guardian (23 November 2016), online: The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/15/images-show-significant-chinese-weapons-systems-in-south-china-sea>; Catherine WONG, “China’s New Aircraft Carrier to be Based Near South China Sea, as Tensions with Washington Rise” South China Morning Post (1 February 2017), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2067130/chinas-new-aircraft-carrier-stay-near-south-china-sea>.

65. Philippines v. China Award of 12 July 2016, supra note 15 at 369–98.

66. See Trishia BILLIONES, “Carpio Suggests Turning Spratlys into ‘Marine Peace Park’” ABS-CBN News (14 July 2016), online: ABS-CBN News <http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/14/16/carpio-suggests-turning-spratlys-into-marine-peace-park>.

67. Paterno ESMAQUEL, “Focus: Marine Riches of South China Sea” Rappler (26 April 2012), online: Rappler <http://www.rappler.com/nation/4407-eyes-on-marine-riches-of-south-china-sea>.

68. See Anders CORR, “China May Owe the Philippines $177 Billion in South China Sea Rent & Damages” Forbes (15 July 2016), online: Forbes <https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/07/15/the-philippines-should-sue-china-for-177-billion-in-south-china-sea-rent-and-damages/#7e9a01d226a3>; Matthew SOUTHERLAND, “China’s Island-Building in the South China Sea: Damage to the Marine Environment, Implications, and International Law” U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Staff Research Report (12 April 2016), online: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China’s%20Island%20Building%20in%20the%20South%20China%20Sea_0.pdf>.

69. See TIAN Jinchen, “One Belt and One Road’: Connecting China and the World” McKinsey (July 2016), online: McKinsey <http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/one-belt-and-one-road-connecting-china-and-the-world>.

70. Julian KU and Chris MIRASOLA, “Tracking China’s Compliance with the South China Sea Arbitral Award” Lawfare (3 October 2016), online: Lawfare <https://www.lawfareblog.com/tracking-chinas-compliance-south-china-sea-arbitral-award>.

71. Kristin HUANG, “China and ASEAN Agree on Draft Code of Conduct for South China Sea, Says Beijing’s Top Envoy” CNBC (8 March 2017), online: CNBC <http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/08/china-and-asean-agree-on-draft-code-of-conduct-for-south-china-sea-says-beijings-top-envoy.html>.

72. UNCLOS, supra note 24 at arts. 74(3), 83(3). See HOSSAIN, Kamal, “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Provisional Arrangements Relating to Activities in Disputed Maritime Areas” in Lilian CASTILLO, ed., Law of the Sea: From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Liber Amicorum Judg Huge Caminos (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2015), 674 .

73. See Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order [1976] I.C.J. Rep. 1976, 11 September 1976, at paras. 29–31; Guyana v. Suriname, Arbitration Award of 17 September 2007, at paras. 459–70; Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 15 March 1996, at paras. 42–5.

74. BECKMAN, Robert, “The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea” (2013) 107 American Journal of International Law 142 at 158160 .

75. “Xi Tells Duterte that Scarborough Shoal Will Stay Open to Philippine Fishermen” South China Morning Post (20 November 2016), online: South China Morning Post <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2047747/xi-tells-duterte-scarborough-shoal-will-stay-open>.

76. On mutual restraint arrangements, see Kim, SUN Pyo, Maritime Delimitation and Interim Arrangements in North East Asia (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004) at 36–42.

77. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38(1)(d). See also THIRLWAY, Hugh, The Sources of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) at 120–8; GRAY, Christine and KINGSBURY, Benedict, “Inter-State Arbitration since 1945: Overview and Evaluation” in Mark W. JANIS, ed., International Courts for the Twenty-First Century (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1992), 55 at 58–60.

78. MCGIBBON, Ian C., “The Scope of Acquiescence in International Law” (1954) 31 British Yearbook of International Law 143 at 143 .

79. COUVREUR, Philippe, “The Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice in the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes” in A.S. MULLER, S. RAIC, and J.M. THURANZSKY, eds., The International Court of Justice: Its Future Role after Fifty Years (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997).

80. On the substantial and imperfect compliance by states with decisions of the IC, see LLAMZON, Aloysius P., “Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice” (2008) 18 European Journal of International Law 815 .

81. JONES, Heather L., “Why Comply? An Analysis of Trends in Compliance with International Judgments since Nicaragua” (2012) 12 Chicago-Kent Journal of International Law 58 at 58 . See also SCHULTE, Constanze, Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at Part III.

* Michael J. Marks Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director, ASEAN Law & Integration Center [ALIC], the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law; 2016–2017 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences [CASBS], Stanford University; Adjunct Fellow, WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice, Stanford Global Studies. I can be reached at , , and .

1 This paper is based on remarks given at the International Law Association’s Panel on Disputes in the South and East China Seas, during the Fall 2016 International Law Weekend, Fordham Law School, and a follow-up lecture in February 2017 at Stanford Law School’s Center for International Conflict Negotiation. My thanks go to panel moderator and chair Professor Ved Nanda, and fellow panelists Professors Jerome Cohen and Suisheng Zhao, and likewise to Stanford Law School Professor Allen Weiner for robust exchanges on this topic.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Asian Journal of International Law
  • ISSN: 2044-2513
  • EISSN: 2044-2521
  • URL: /core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 14
Total number of PDF views: 178 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 447 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 16th February 2018 - 17th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.