Vymezení umělých ostrovů v mezinárodním mořském právu a jeho význam pro spory v Jihočínském moři

Environmental Law Aspects of the Arbitral Tribunal Award in the South China Sea Dispute

The United States promotes freedom of navigation in the South China Sea while China constructs artificial islands in the same area to bolster up its territorial claims. Both countries utilize their navies similarly but for opposed legal reasons. This reflects a geopolitical contest with the United States championing a sea open to global navigation and commerce while China builds a primarily land based ‘New Silk Road’ linking it to critical markets and natural resources. That struggle between land and sea, similarly as it were with piracy, encompasses both the law of the sea and international criminal law. Reading Carl Schmitt’s Land and Sea in light of Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s Faust in the context of the various South China Sea disputes provides the opportunity to evaluate whether it may clarify geo-strategic issues at stake that Schmitt himself did not have the opportunity to consider when elaborating his notion of Nomos.

This paper explores the legal basis and legitimacy of China’s claimed historical rights in the South China Sea dispute. By reviewing the principles and precedents of international law regarding historical rights, and combining rich historical evidence, it is argued that China’s territorial sovereignty over the South China Sea islands, historical rights within the U-shaped line, and traditional fishing rights in certain waters, all have a solid jurisprudential foundation that meets the constituent elements for the formation of historical rights, and should be recognized and protected under international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The paper also points out that the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award, which rejected China’s historical rights claims, seriously deviates from objective facts and legal rules, lacking legitimacy. Historical rights play an important role in resolving the South China Sea dispute and maintaining regional peace and stability.

This study aims to critically analyze ASEAN's policies and strategies concerning the South China Sea (SCS) disputes and assess their impact on regional peace and security. By examining ASEAN's approaches to managing sovereignty claims, maritime jurisdiction conflicts, and its role in fostering dialogue and cooperation among member states, the research will shed light on the organization's effectiveness in mitigating regional tensions. The study will explore ASEAN's founding principles, its formal and informal mechanisms for dispute resolution, and the challenges it faces due to external and internal pressures. Ultimately, it seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of ASEAN's contributions to regional stability and its influence on international relations in the context of the SCS.

The South China Sea dispute not only involves the sovereignty and security interests of the countries concerned, but also the stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region. As the South China Sea dispute has evolved, the United States, with its continuous engagement, has played a vital role in contributing to the complexity and internationalization of the dispute. This book summarizes American strategies in the South China Sea, and comprehensively examines the role of the United States in this maritime dispute from both historical and realistic perspectives. It argues that the U.S. policy towards the South China Sea dispute is highly skillful and targeted. The degree of the U.S. involvement in the disputes mainly depends on three factors, namely its Asia-Pacific strategy and interest demand, its strategy towards China, and the speed of China’s rise and how the United States perceives it. This book will be of great interest to those who study or focus on international relations, China-U.S. relations, maritime affairs, U.S. foreign policy, and East Asian security studies. University libraries, public libraries, think tanks, institutes for marine affairs, and engaged private individuals who are interested in international relations, China-U.S. relations, maritime disputes, South China Sea issues, etc., will also be interested in this book.

This research examines the role of ASEAN as a regional organization, in handling South China Sea (SCS) disputes and the problems faced by ASEAN as a community in handling SCS disputes with the substance of the legal issues to be studied in this research, this research is designed as a non-doctrinal legal research which is supported by secondary data. All research results are sought to relate to one another by using deduction and induction reasoning and then the existing legal materials are analyzed qualitatively so that the conclusions are generated to provide prescriptions. In accordance The research results explain that ASEAN's role in handling SCS disputes lies in ASEAN's ability as a regional organization to try to ensure that SCS dispute resolution is carried out through diplomatic mechanisms, compliance with international law and avoiding the use of force that reflects the implementation of the "ASEAN Way"

The South China Sea (SCS) has emerged as a major flashpoint in the last two decades. Some Chinese specialists have confirmed that the South China Sea (SCS) may possess approximately 130 billion barrels of oil and natural gas and also dubbed as the ‘Asia’s Persian Gulf.’ Therefore, the dispute in the SCS is accentuated by an abundance of natural resources, and its strategic importance of the Spratly and Paracel islands has again caused conflicts in the South China Sea. Thus, the persistent competition over the maritime rights, especially claims to territorial sovereignty over islands, reefs and natural resources in the South China Sea has emerged as the ‘new central theatre of conflict’ in the world. Therefore, there is no peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region for more than two decades.  But, it is also apparent that all the members of ASEAN have a deep interest in keeping peace and prosperity in the South China Sea. Therefore, ASEAN has started involving itself in the issue since the adoption of the 1992 ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea which was called for the peaceful resolution of the South China Sea dispute. Again in 2002, ASEAN and China had signed Joint Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC) to resolve the South China Sea disputes by peaceful means. Since then, ASEAN as a forum has been trying to resolve and manage the South China Sea dispute by initialising and supporting many frameworks or mechanisms (Track I and Track II) despite many differences among the member states about the issue. Thus, to analyse ASEAN’s initiatives to the SCS dispute through various mechanisms and approaches for bringing peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region are the main concerns of my article along with its weaknesses and challenges it faces.   Keywords: ASEAN, ASEAN Declaration, ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC), Code of Conduct (COC), Track I, Track II as Workshops on the South China Sea

The Law of the Sea increasingly developed in the 19-20 centuries marked by the 1982 UNCLOS Convention on the Law of the Sea. This research discusses the role of UNCLOS in handling South China Sea disputes. And how is the settlement of the South China Sea dispute based on the International Court of Justice? This study uses qualitative methods based on secondary data sources derived from books, the internet, documents, journal articles, media, and others. The theory used in this study is one of the theories of positivism with an international law approach. The South China Sea dispute began with China's claims to the seas listed on its Nine Dashed Line map. Cases of disputes over the jurisdiction of the ICJ against the agreement of the disputing parties are to be submitted to the International Court of Justice. Cases submitted to the International Court of Justice contain the determination of the matters in question as well as various kinds of questions submitted to the International Court of Justice. If viewed from the perspective of positivism, the position of national law is higher than international law, so the claims of the South China Sea that have existed since the Han dynasty cannot be denied if China itself does not ratify international law and does not ratify UNCLOS and still adheres to the principles of national law or jurisdiction of its country. As the International Court of Justice, this dispute should be resolved by the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Raising the Stakes:The Interests of Non-claimant States in the South China Sea Disputes Tiffany Ma (bio) and Michael Wills (bio) The geopolitical game playing out in the South China Sea is becoming more complicated. China’s increasingly provocative actions are forcing regional players—from near and far—to make clear their interests and positions on the ongoing territorial disputes. In December 2015, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet issued a tough warning against China’s attempt to establish “so-called military zones” around its artificial islands and criticized its unilateral assertiveness as unacceptable.1 Although a non-claimant, the United States, given its role as a regional security guarantor, has long been an important stakeholder in the management and settlement of the disputes. However, China’s recent escalatory actions and behavior are leading more regional players to engage directly on South China Sea issues, both in the diplomatic arena and in the contested waters. Going forward, these non-claimant parties will likely play a greater role in influencing events in the South China Sea. This Asia Policy roundtable provides a timely survey of regional perspectives from the most involved non-claimant states, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States—as well as two multilateral organizations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. Despite their geographic, political, and economic differences, it is clear that very real strategic interests drive all these non-claimant stakeholders when it comes to developments in the South China Sea. This is perhaps unsurprising given regional stakeholders’ dependence on critical sea lines of communication for shipping. The South China Sea contains the main arteries of global trade, with more than $5 trillion of the world’s [End Page 2] seaborne trade passing through its waters every year.2 These are also vital energy lifelines, providing transit for a third of global crude oil and half of global liquefied natural gas.3 For East Asian countries like South Korea and Japan, dependence is particularly acute with approximately 66% and 60%, respectively, of their energy imports passing through the South China Sea.4 Given vested economic interests, these regional stakeholders are wary of disruptions to trade from a geopolitical crisis, or outright conflict, over the contested waters. Another commonality among the non-claimant states is a fundamental interest in maintaining freedom of navigation and the rights of passage and overflight in the South China Sea. All of the non-claimants also call for peaceful resolution of the disputes in accordance with international norms and law. This is particularly true for the two multilateral institutions examined here. ASEAN, as Alice Ba argues, needs to see a peaceful, negotiated outcome to the disputes; anything less would threaten the organization’s fundamental approach of pursuing consensus-based solutions in the face of great-power interests. For the European Union, which, as Mathieu Duchâtel notes, sees itself as a normative power, failure to support international legal outcomes would similarly threaten the institution’s approach to collective security. Efforts by non-claimant parties to uphold a rules-based order and preserve access to the maritime commons can help consolidate a broader understanding of acceptable actions by the claimant states. Over time, this may reinforce pressure on any claimants that choose to engage in unacceptable behavior. Beyond diplomatic statements calling for de-escalation and peaceful resolution of the disputes, several of the non-claimant states have undertaken specific maritime deployments in the South China Sea to signal their interest, concern, and resolve. These range from the high-profile freedom of navigation operations undertaken by the United States, which Admiral Thomas Fargo describes, to quieter missions undertaken by Australia, which Rory Medcalf notes signal that Canberra will continue to assert its rights and encourage a rules-based approach. India, Abhijit Singh writes, has also increased its operational presence in the South China Sea, with a contingent [End Page 3] of four frigates completing a two-month tour in June 2015 and one frigate making a subsequent deployment to the Philippines in November. Several non-claimant states have also stepped up their military cooperation with and arms sales to some of the Southeast Asian...

This chapter notes that the South China Sea (SCS) disputes are multidimensional and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is selectively involved in some aspects of these dimensions. The chapter addresses the major pillars of conflict and geostrategic interest in the SCS, beginning with territorial sovereignty disputes among claimant parties over various land features in the South China Sea. It also covers maritime area claims and maritime rights claims by the disputant parties. The chapter reviews statements by ASEAN that suggest that it attempts to uphold certain principles on how a claimant should legally and legitimately claim maritime zones and rights, although ASEAN has made it clear that it does not want to be an arbiter for maritime boundary demarcations. It talks about the maintenance of peace and security in the SCS, such as the proposal for rules and norms to regulate various parties' policies.

The South China Sea (SCS) dispute involves overlapping territorial claims among China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei over the Paracel and Spratly islands, which are rich in resources and strategically located. The conflict also tests the limits of international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This document examines the legal framework of the dispute, its historical evolution, and the claims of the involved countries in light of international law. It highlights the complexities arising from differing interpretations of UNCLOS, the role of international arbitration, and the challenges in enforcing legal outcomes due to geopolitical tensions. This study calls for a reevaluation of UNCLOS to address the ongoing territorial disputes in the SCS effectively.

The South China Sea (SCS) dispute is one of the most burning issues in contemporary international politics. Mainstream academia and scholarship are rigorously investigating various dimensions of the dispute. The present study attempts to analyze the conflict of interest of various states in the South China Sea region and the consequences of rising assertiveness from the contesting parties. The study adopts qualitative methodology and analyzes the data collected from various sources of literature utilizing a thematic analysis. The study analyses the problem in the paradigm of Offensive Realism and argues that rising assertiveness and the compromised nature of international law will subsequently lead to regional and global instabilities. The study further suggests that the enhancement of the international sea regime and peaceful settlement of territorial disputes between the contesting parties can potentially reduce the risk of military confrontations in the South China Sea region.

It is determined that when studying foreign relations as an object of international law, it is necessary to clearly establish its content and scope, as well as to distinguish it from other approximate concepts and terms. The understanding of the concept of «foreign relations» with the terms «foreign relations», «foreign affairs and international relations», as well as «the sphere of foreign relations» and «foreign affairs» is distinguished. Attention is paid to terminological and semantic differences between the concepts of «foreign relations» and «international relations». It is proved that international relations are defined as a systemic set of political, economic, social, diplomatic, legal, military and humanitarian ties and relations. These relations are between the main actors of the world community, which include peoples, states, social and public forces, movements and organizations. The opinion is substantiated that the concept of «foreign relations» is defined as part of the general system between state relations and international activities of each state, covering official, supported by special state bodies mainly political ties and relations between states and other subjects of international law in order to carry out their external functions by peaceful means in accordance with the basic principles of international law. It is established that the sources of regulation of foreign relations are numerous international agreements, both bilateral and multilateral. It is stated that foreign relations are regulated activities of the state on a coordinated, democratic basis in the field of official relations and relations, which is established and maintained by the entire system of foreign relations of each state to achieve their foreign policy goals by peaceful means provided by international law. Also, foreign relations are characterized by the following features: first, it is the official nature of the state’s activities in international affairs; secondly, the activity is carried out exclusively by authorized bodies; thirdly, in all cases, foreign relations must be carried out exclusively by peaceful means within the framework of international law. It is established that foreign relations as an object of international law can be defined as the activities of states, international organizations and other subjects of international law on a coherent, democratic basis in the field of official relations and relations, which is established and maintained by the system of foreign relations of such relations, in order to achieve common foreign policy goals by peaceful means provided for by international law, that is a manifestation of the realization by such subjects of their rights within the framework of international legal relations.

The article discusses topical issues of the formation and further development of the theory of international humanitarian law. Explored the basic concepts of this area of humanitarian public law. For the first time, international humanitarian law is defined as a set of conventional and customary international legal norms that govern the law of armed conflict and human rights law. The processes of globalization of modern international relations, characterized by increasing influence of leading international organizations and crises in individual states, objectively affect the renewal and further development of the theory of international humanitarian law as one of the rapidly developing branches of public international law. New conceptual approaches to the modern definition of international humanitarian law, its philosophy and legal nature require a rethinking of scientific views as classics of international law, including the founder of the theory of natural law and modern science of international law Hugo Grotius, researcher of state interests in «just war» Thomas Hobbes and the founder of the «social contract», the sentimentalist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the views of such prominent scholars as Immanuel Kant, Fedor Martens and Jean Pictet. Given the normative definition, «the law of armed conflict» and «the law of human rights» are two independent legal systems within the framework of international humanitarian law, which operate mainly in different periods: during armed conflicts or in peacetime, respectively. These legal systems, although closely interlinked within the framework of international humanitarian law, are still independent and relatively independent of each other, as they have features in the sources and mechanisms of implementation and control over compliance with their norms and principles. Key words: theory of international humanitarian law, international relations, state, international organization, international court.

This research paper investigates wartime migration patterns of Ukrainian citizens in the initial period of the full-scale Russian invasion and examines the complex dynamics of migration and integration in Poland in the following years in the light of international and national law. The conflict triggered one of the largest refugee crises in Europe since World War II, with Poland emerging as the primary destination for displaced Ukrainians. The study analyzes the legal and social dimensions of this process, situating it within the framework of international law, international humanitarian law, and national legislation. It argues that Poland’s response represents a distinctive global phenomenon: a largely peaceful, inclusive, and effective approach to managing a sudden and massive influx of displaced persons. At the same time, the absence of a coherent long-term integration policy, combined with shifting public sentiment, generates both risks and opportunities for future social cohesion. The article advances an original theoretical contribution by introducing the concept of large-scale integration, a pioneering analytical framework in migration and legal scholarship. It defines this phenomenon as the rapid, law-based incorporation of an exceptionally large population of displaced persons into the structures of a modern state. This concept, developed here for the first time, provides a new lens through which to interpret the intersection of humanitarian response, international law, and domestic governance. Closely related is the notion of emergency integration, describing the legal and institutional mechanisms that enable swift adaptation of state systems during mass displacement. Methodologically, the study follows a doctrinal and comparative legal approach complemented by interpretive social analysis. It examines the interaction between international instruments (including the 1951 Geneva Convention and the EU Temporary Protection Directive), Polish special-purpose legislation, and the evolving public response. The findings reveal that Poland’s model combined legal innovation with civic solidarity, offering an instructive example of rights-based governance in the face of large-scale displacement. By reframing Poland’s experience as both a national and global phenomenon, the article contributes to migration, humanitarian, and international law scholarship. It proposes a new conceptual and normative framework for analyzing how law, policy, and social agency converge to enable large-scale, peaceful integration – a process that remains fragile yet potentially transformative for the future of global migration governance.