About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


3 Asia Pac. J. Ocean L. & Pol'y 1 (2018)

handle is hein.journals/apjolp3 and id is 1 raw text is: ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF OCEAN LAW AND POLICY BRILL 3 (2018) 1-4 AM C NIJHOFF brillcom/apoc Editorial Note Volume 3, number I of the Asia-PacificJournal of Ocean Law andPolicy features articles on a number of important and timely matters arising from the ten- sions in the South China Sea including the duty to cooperate in relation to the environment and China's use of a maritime militia as well as an examination of the precautionary principle and how it applies to the Bangladesh's fisheries regime. Robert Beckman and Zoe Scanlon of the Centre for International Law, Na- tional University of Singapore look at Assessing Environmental Impact and The Duty to Cooperate: Environmental Aspects of The Philippines v China Award. They particularly examine the Tribunal's decision in light of obligations set forth in UNCLOs regarding environmental impact assessments (articles 205 and 206) and the duty to cooperate along with the Tribunal's application of ar- ticles 197 and 123. After summarizing the findings of the Tribunal with respect to protection and preservation of the marine environment and paying particu- lar attention to poaching of endangered species by Chinese fishing vessels and the impact of China's island-building activities on the marine environment, they turn to the Tribunal's decision regarding the obligations found in UNC LOS pertaining to Monitoring and Environmental Assessment and the States' obligations around planned activities and the evaluation, monitoring and communication of risks to the marine environment arising from those activi- ties. They evaluate the Tribunal's findings on China's monitoring and assess- ment with respect to its construction activities. They ultimately come to the conclusion that despite the questionable aspects of the Tribunal's application of articles 205 and 206, the overall outcome on this aspect of the decision is ap- propriate and will have a beneficial impact for the marine environment. They then turn to the Tribunal's treatment of the duty to cooperate and its holding that China breached its obligations in this regard. After analysing the Tribunal's application of articles 197 and 123 of UNCLOS, they come to the conclusion that the Tribunal's judgment here is disjointed and not clearly rea- soned. They add that the decision is difficult to reconcile with the language set forth in UNCLOS. They are also critical of the brevity of the reasoning make it @ KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 DOI 10.1163/24519391-00301001