Call for Papers: Conference on 21st Century Borders: Territorial Conflict and Dispute Resolution

A further call for papers has been issued for a conference on "21st Century Borders: Territorial Conflict and Dispute Resolution," to be held June 13, 2014, at Lancaster University. Here's the call:

21st Century borders are coming under increasing strain with shifting balances of international power. This was seen most dramatically in the recent Russian annexation of the Crimea, but also in continuing tensions in East Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. This conference, organised by the Centre for International Law and Human Rights at Lancaster University Law School will explore the causes and dynamics of contemporary territorial disputes as well as mechanisms to resolve them.

Building on our initial call for papers, we welcome abstracts for papers of no more than one page from both established researchers and early career academics on the themes of: critical perspectives on uti possidetis; the concept of the “border” in light of new technologies and transnational structures; historical and cultural perspectives on international borders; borders and international economic and environmental law; institutional mechanisms for territorial dispute settlement; and secession and borders.

Please send your proposals to Dr. James Summers j.summers@lancaster.ac.uk. The deadline for abstracts is Wednesday 7th May 2014.

Call for Papers: 21st Century Borders: Territorial Conflict and Dispute Resolution

A call for papers has been issued for a conference on "21st Century Borders: Territorial Conflict and Dispute Resolution," to be held June 13, 2014, at Lancaster University. Here's the call:

21st Century borders are coming under increasing strain with shifting balances of international power. This was seen most dramatically in the recent Russian annexation of the Crimea and its connected repudiation of uti possidetis that underpinned statehood in the former Soviet Union. In East Asia tensions remain high in sovereignty disputes over islands and maritime delimitation. Renewed attempts to reach a settlement between Israel and Palestine similarly turn on the crucial issue of borders. In addition to these, a number of other states have been involved in long-running boundary conflicts. This conference, organised by the Centre for International Law and Human Rights at Lancaster University Law School will explore the causes and dynamics of contemporary territorial disputes as well as mechanisms to resolve them.

We welcome abstracts for papers of no more than one page from both established researchers and early career academics. Please send your proposals to Dr. James Summers j.summers@lancaster.ac.uk. The deadline for abstracts is 20th April 2014.

Ciorciari: International Decision: Request for Interpretation of the Temple of Preah Vihear Judgment

John D. Ciorciari (Univ. of Michigan - Ford School of Public Policy) has posted International Decision: Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article reviews the 2013 International Court of Justice decision in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, the site of a longstanding territorial feud between Thailand and Cambodia. In 2011, after a series of military clashes, the Cambodian government asked the Court to interpret its 1962 judgment pertaining to Preah Vihear, which awarded the temple to Cambodia but left the status of surrounding territories unclear. The Court agreed to interpret the original judgment, seeking to clarify some of its ambiguities without violating the principle of non ultra petita. Its cautious 2013 interpretation left important questions unanswered and subject to further bilateral negotiation, but the absence of a more decisive ruling has a potential silver lining. It gave each side the capacity to claim partial victory, which may help relieve some of the nationalist pressure that has fueled the dispute.

Burney: International Court of Justice Defines Maritime Boundary Between Peru and Chile

Uzma S. Burney has posted an ASIL Insight on International Court of Justice Defines Maritime Boundary Between Peru and Chile.

Conference: London International Boundary Conference

The inaugural London International Boundary Conference will take place on April 18 and 19, 2013 at the Royal Geographical Society, London. It will provide a unique and multidisciplinary insight into the complex world of international boundary and sovereignty disputes. Speakers at the Conference are among the world's leading experts and practitioners in the effective resolution of territorial disputes. They will examine recent developments in disputed “hotspots” around the world, and discuss new and emerging ideas for the resolution and management of territorial disputes, from legal, geopolitical, technical, commercial and other viewpoints. The Conference will examine how these varied, emerging perspectives might inform a more integrated approach to international boundary and territorial disputes. The Conference, which will be a not-for-profit event, will be hosted by Department of Geography, King’s College London, Volterra Fietta and the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office.

The Conference will also run a half-day technical workshop at King’s College London on the afternoon of April 17, 2013, offering a practical introduction to maritime limits and boundaries.

For further details (including speakers, pricing and registration), please visit the conference website. Places are limited.

Roach: China’s Straight Baseline Claim: Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands

J. Ashley Roach has posted an ASIL Insight on China’s Straight Baseline Claim: Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands.

Bekker: The World Court Awards Sovereignty Over Several Islands in the Caribbean Sea to Colombia and Fixes a Single Maritime Boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua

Pieter Bekker (Univ. of Dundee - Law) has posted an ASIL Insight on The World Court Awards Sovereignty Over Several Islands in the Caribbean Sea to Colombia and Fixes a Single Maritime Boundary between Colombia and Nicaragua.

Huth, Croco, & Appel: Bringing Law to the Table: Legal Claims, Focal Points, and the Settlement of Territorial Disputes Since 1945

Paul K. Huth (Univ. of Maryland - Government and Politics), Sarah E. Croco (Univ. of Maryland - Government and Politics), & Benjamin J. Appel (Michigan State Univ. - Political Science) have published Bringing Law to the Table: Legal Claims, Focal Points, and the Settlement of Territorial Disputes Since 1945 (American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 90–103, January 2013). Here's the abstract:

In this article, we argue that international law can help state leaders reach a settlement in territorial disputes by suggesting a focal point for negotiations. International law is more likely to serve as a focal point when the legal principles relevant to the dispute are clear and well established and when one of the states in the dispute has a stronger legal claim to disputed territory. When these two conditions are present, we expect the state with a legal advantage to push for and receive favorable terms of settlement. In our analysis of all negotiated settlements in territorial disputes from 1945 to 2000, we find strong support for the importance of international law in influencing the terms of settlements. States with a strong legal advantage are more likely to secure favorable terms, whereas states lacking a strong legal claim are more likely to receive unfavorable terms.

Kwiatkowska: Submissions to the UN CLCS of Disputed and Undisputed Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Unresolved Land or Maritime Disputes of Developing States

Barbara Kwiatkowska (Utrecht Univ. - Law) has published Submissions to the UN CLCS of Disputed and Undisputed Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Unresolved Land or Maritime Disputes of Developing States (Vandeplas Publishing 2012). Here's the abstract:

This pioneering book surveys fundamental principles of not prejudicing by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) of Disputed and Undisputed Boundary Delimitations or Other Unresolved Land or Maritime Disputes under UNCLOS and the CLCS Rules. It constitutes a remarkable contribution by one of the world's leading academics in the field of international law of the sea to peaceful resolution of oceans and boundary disputes within the framework of the UNCLOS and the United Nations Charter.

The author presents convincing legal reasoning that interpretation of the treaty provisions of UNCLOS and the CLCS Rules, as well as vast state practice of Submissions made to the CLCS are clear in suggesting that - as the 2006 UNCLOS Annex VII Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Delimitation (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award and the 2012 ITLOS Bangladesh v. Myanmar Bay of Bengal Maritime Delimitation Judgment confirmed - the CLCS's Recommendations must in no way prejudice existing and prospective boundary delimitations, nor must they prejudice other land or maritime disputes, which can thus well be adjudicated-arbitrated or otherwise resolved: prior or in parallel to or sometimes in a follow-up to the CLCS' involvement. All practical means giving effect to such "without prejudice" principles are also being carefully analyzed, including practice of partial Submissions, deferral of Submissions, consideration of Submissions subject to consent of all parties to pending delimitations and disputes, or filing joint or separate Submissions by Agreement of all states concerned.

In view of much attention given in the UNCLOS literature to Submissions in the Arctic and other regions of the developed states, the high virtue of this book is a comprehensive focus on Submissions and the pertaining delimitations and disputes of developing states of the Caribbean and Latin America, Northeast and Southeast Asia, South Pacific, South Asia and the Middle East, East Africa - Indian Ocean, South Africa, West Africa and North Africa. In the context of such broad geographical coverage, also some practice of developed states is covered, notably that of the United States, France, Britain, Japan, Australia and Spain.

The full docket of the CLCS and an intimate link between process of disputed and undisputed boundary delimitations (by states and the judicial-arbitral fora) and process of delineation of outer CS limit beyond 200 miles (by the CLCS) will ensure that the CLCS remains in the UN-based center of stimulating law of the sea development and peaceful settlement of oceans disputes as a part of global system of the peace and security for at least the next two decades.

Vidmar: South Sudan and the International Legal Framework Governing the Emergence and Delimitation of New States

Jure Vidmar (Univ. of Oxford - Law) has posted South Sudan and the International Legal Framework Governing the Emergence and Delimitation of New States (Texas International Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This Article identifies and analyzes the legal framework relevant for South Sudan’s emergence as a state and its international delimitation. It demonstrates that independence stemmed from the domestic constitutional arrangement. Referring to the practice of confining new international borders, the Article also argues that, contrary to Sudan’s argument, the 1956 colonial boundary does not apply automatically. Of central importance is the latest internal boundary. This arrangement foresees an exception to the 1956 line but has not been determined in accordance with applicable law.

Wählisch: Israel-Lebanon Offshore Oil & Gas Dispute - Rules of International Maritime Law

Martin Wählisch has posted an ASIL Insight on Israel-Lebanon Offshore Oil & Gas Dispute - Rules of International Maritime Law.

Chesterman: Resolving Territorial Disputes: Cambodia-Thailand, the South China Sea, and the Role of International Law

Simon Chesterman (National Univ. of Singapore - Law; New York Univ. - Law, Singapore Programme) has posted Resolving Territorial Disputes: Cambodia-Thailand, the South China Sea, and the Role of International Law. Here's the abstract:

International law - indeed, the present international order - is grounded on the concept of the modern state. The foundation of that state, and thus of international law, lies in the effort to limit conflict by agreeing on the inviolability of borders. International law assists in the avoidance or resolution of territorial disputes in four ways. Which of these tools is used will depend on the state concerned, but there is some interesting literature suggesting a link between the domestic legal regime of a state and the preferred dispute resolution method. This paper, presented at the 2011 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, considers those tools in the context of two current examples: the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute and the competing claims over the South China Sea.

Strauss: The Viability of Territorial Leases in Resolving International Sovereignty Disputes

Michael J. Strauss (Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques - Geopolitics and International Relations) has published The Viability of Territorial Leases in Resolving International Sovereignty Disputes (L'Harmattan 2010). Here's the abstract:

States often lease territory from each other for economic or military reasons, but on rare occasions leases have been made with the objective of settling disputes about sovereignty. This book offers the first collective examination of cases in which states have attempted to resolve territorial conflicts this way. It assesses their success and examines the broader potential for leases where sovereignty is contested, particularly in the frontier zones of adjacent states.

Neumann: Norway and Russia Agree on Maritime Boundary in the Barents Sea

Thilo Neumann (Bucerius Law School) has posted an ASIL Insight on Norway and Russia Agree on Maritime Boundary in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

Byers: Who Owns the Arctic?

Michael Byers (Univ. of British Columbia - Law) has published Who Owns the Arctic?: Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in Canada’s North (Douglas & McIntyre 2009). Here's the abstract:

Who actually controls the Northwest Passage? Who owns the trillions of dollars of oil and gas beneath the Arctic Ocean? Which territorial claims will prevail—those of the U.S., Russia, Canada or the Nordic nations—and why? And, in an age of rapid climate change, how do we protect the fragile Arctic environment while seizing the economic opportunities presented by the rapidly melting sea ice?

In the highly readable book Who Owns the Arctic, Michael Byers, a leading Arctic expert and international lawyer explains the sometimes contradictory rules governing the division and protection of the Arctic and the disputes that remain unresolved. What emerges is a vision for the Arctic in which co-operation, not conflict, prevails, and where the sovereignty of individual nations is exercised for the benefit of all.

Crook: Abyei Arbitration – Final Award

John R. Crook has posted an ASIL Insight on Abyei Arbitration – Final Award.

Lathrop: Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)

Coalter G. Lathrop (Duke Univ. - Law) has posted Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) (American Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Report on Romania v. Ukraine, decided February 3, 2009 by the International Court of Justice, concerning the delimitation of their maritime boundaries in the Black Sea.

de Guttry, Post, & Venturini: The 1998–2000 War Between Eritrea and Ethiopia: An International Legal Perspective

Andrea de Guttry (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa), Harry Post (Università degli Studi di Modena), & Gabriella Venturini (Università degli Studi di Milano) have published The 1998–2000 War Between Eritrea and Ethiopia: An International Legal Perspective (T.M.C. Asser Press 2009). Here's the abstract:

The war that raged between Eritrea and Ethiopia from 1998 to 2000 has caused great loss of life and tremendous devastation. This book analyses from an international legal perspective the nature and the state of the boundary conflict preceding the actual armed conflict, the military actions themselves as well as developments in the aftermath of the military activities, like the role of the UN peace-keeping deployment and the responsibility for the multitude of explosive remnants of the war. The authors address the complex issues of responsibility for the use of force, violations of humanitarian law and ‘borderline’ issues regarding situations where the law of armed conflict and the (successive) law of peace meet. Ample attention is paid to the decisions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission.

Contents include:

• Fausto Pocar, Introductory remarks
• Gian Paolo Calchi Novati, The lines of tension in the Horn and the Ethiopia-Eritrea case
• Bahru Zewde, The historical background of the 1998–2000 war: Some salient points
• Uoldelul Chelati Dirar, Rivalry, antagonism and war in the nation- and state-building process: The H factor in the relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia
• Edoardo Greppi, The Algiers agreements between Eritrea and Ethiopia of June 18 and December 12, 2000
• Andreas De Guttry, The UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
• Olivier Ribbelink, Some observations on the nature, practice and future of UNMEE
• Federica Guazzini, The Eritrean-Ethiopian boundary conflict: The physical border and the human border
• Jon Abbink, Law against reality? Contextualizing the Ethiopian-Eritrean border problem
• Christopher Clapham, Indigenous statehood and international law in Ethiopia and Eritrea
• Kaiyan Kaikobad, The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission: A legal analysis of the boundary delimitation decision of 13 April 2002 and relevant subsequent decisions
• Romesh Weeramantry, International law as to the use of force
• Ige Dekker & Wouter Werner, The crime of aggression and the Eritrea-Ethiopia war
• Paul Tavernier, Criminal responsibility and the crime of aggression: Some observations
• Christian Ponti, The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission on the threat or the use of force and on self-defence
• Gabriella Venturini, International law and the conduct of military operations
• Silvia Sanna, International humanitarian law and the treatment of protected persons
• Marco Sassòli, Comments on the approach of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission towards the treatment of protected persons in international humanitarian law
• Andrea Gioia, The belligerent occupation of territory
• Terry D. Gill, The distinction between invasion and occupation of disputed territory
• Wolff Heintschel Von Heinegg, International economic relations and armed conflict
• Michael Bothe, The protection of property rights in times of armed conflict
• Emanuele Sommario, State responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law in the work of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
• Luisa Castagnetti, The claims on behalf of individuals before the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
• Erik Koppe, Compensation for war damages
• Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Some remarks on compensation for war damages
• Michael Addo, The role of intergovernmental agencies in the management of human rights risk
• Harry Post, Explosive remnants of war

Hong & Van Dyke: Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea

Seoung-Yong Hong & Jon M. Van Dyke have published Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009). Contents include:

• Harry N. Scheiber & David D. Caron, Preface
• Seoung-Yong Hong & Jon M. Van Dyke, Introduction
• David D. Caron, Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and the Coming Uncertainty in Oceanic Boundaries: A Proposal to Avoid Conflict
• Clive Schofield, The Trouble with Islands: The Definition and Role of Islands and Rocks in Maritime Boundary Delimitation
• Jon M. Van Dyke, Disputes Over Islands and Maritime Boundaries in East Asia
• Ji Guoxing, Sino-Japanese Jurisdictional Delimitation in East China Sea: Approaches to Dispute Settlement
• Masahiro Miyoshi, Some Thoughts on Maritime Boundary Delimitation
• Seokwoo Lee, Intertemporal Law, Recent Judgments and Territorial Disputes in Asia
• Kentaro Serita, Some Legal Aspects of Territorial Disputes over Islands
• Yann-huei Song, Okinotorishima: A “Rock” or an “Island”? Recent Maritime Boundary Controversy between Japan and Taiwan/China
• Ted L. McDorman, Canada-U.S. International Ocean Law Relations in the North Pacific: Disputes, Agreements and Cooperation
• Richard J. McLaughlin, Maritime Boundary Delimitation and Cooperative Management of Transboundary Hydrocarbons in the Ultra-Deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico
• Marcus Haward, The Law of the Sea Convention and the Antarctic Treaty System: Constraints or Complementarity?
• Helmut Tuerk, The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to International Law
• Bernard H. Oxman, The Tomimaru Case: Confiscation and Prompt Release

Conference: Mounting Tensions and Melting Ice: Exploring the Legal and Political Future of the Arctic

The Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law is sponsoring a symposium this Friday, February 6th, on "Mounting Tensions and Melting Ice: Exploring the Legal and Political Future of the Arctic." There will be panels on the Continental Shelf, the Northwest Passage, and Social, Environmental, and Security Claims and Boundary Disputes. The full program is available here.