Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Remarks by Douglas Guilfoyle

  • Douglas Guilfoyle (a1)

Extract

In my remarks I would like to draw attention to the role of history in the Tribunal's reasoning concerning the regime of islands, both as regards its approach to historical uses of maritime features and in particular its approach to determining what it was the drafters of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) intended. My contention in these remarks is that the Tribunal took an unashamedly developing-state oriented view in its conception of the object and purpose of the regime of islands, thus foregrounding perspectives that were present at the time of the negotiation of UNCLOS but which are not necessarily given much attention in the contemporary English-language literature. Before turning to this perspective, one must closely scrutinize the Tribunal's reading of UNCLOS Article 121.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Remarks by Douglas Guilfoyle
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Remarks by Douglas Guilfoyle
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Remarks by Douglas Guilfoyle
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 These comments draw on a paper published in 8 Asian J. Int'l L. 51 (2018).

2 South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), Award, para. 475 (Perm. Ct. Arb. July 12, 2017) [hereinafter Award].

3 Id., paras. 483–84.

4 Id., para. 487.

5 All references in this paragraph are to: Award, supra note 2, para. 497 (emphases added).

6 Id., para. 500 (emphasis added).

7 Id., para. 503.

8 All references in this paragraph are to: Award, supra note 2, paras. 514–15.

9 Id., para. 515 (emphasis added).

10 Id., para. 519.

11 Id., para. 520. See further id. para. 542, also repeating the word “home.”

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed