Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Suhong Yang!

Welcome to Dr Suhong Yang who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Dr. Suhong Yang is an international lawyer interested in criminal law, human rights, and environmental law issues. Her S.J.D. dissertation investigates the legitimacy of international and hybrid criminal tribunals that try atrocity crimes in post-conflict situations. Suhong was awarded as a David D. Caron Fellow and a Salzburg Cutler Fellow for her research. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in the Chinese Journal of International Law, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, European Papers, George Mason International Law Journal, International Legal Materials, and Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting.

At the HKU Faculty of Law, Suhong is engaged in teaching activities and assisting the Director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law in research-related activities. Prior to joining the HKU, Suhong was a Judicial Fellow at the International Court of Justice, working with Judge H.E. XUE Hanqin. She also served the Office of the President of the U.N. International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and the Legal Policy Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Suhong holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from Renmin University of China, and LL.M. and S.J.D. degrees from Georgetown University Law Center. In addition to the academic degrees, she also studied at the University of Oxford, Kathmandu School of Law, and Cheng-Chi University (Taiwan) in different capacities. Suhong has facilitated teaching or been invited to give guest lectures on tort law, international law, US law, and Chinese law at Georgetown University, Leiden University, and Renmin University.

Suhong is currently Vice-Chair of the International Criminal Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), and Secretary of ASIL Women in International Law Interest Group. She served as Co-Chair of ASIL New Professionals Interest Group from 2019 to 2023.

New Book edited by Po Jen Yap and Mathias Siems: The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law (Cambridge University Press)

The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law
Edited by Mathias Siems, Po Jen Yap
Cambridge University Press
Published in February 2024
780 pp.

Book Description: Comparative law is a common subject-matter of research and teaching in many universities around the world, and the twenty-first century has aptly been termed 'the era of comparative law'. This Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law presents a truly global perspective of comparative law today. The contributors are drawn from all parts of the world to provide different perspectives on how we understand the 'law' and how it operates in practice. In substance, the Handbook contains 36 chapters covering a broad range of topics, divided under the following headings: 'Methods of Comparative Law' (Part I), 'Legal Families and Geographical Comparisons' (Part II), 'Central Themes in Comparative Law' (Part III); and 'Comparative Law beyond the State' (Part IV).

Abstract of book review by Fernanda Pirie on 16 November 2024:

The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law, edited by Matthias Siems and Po Jen Yap, continues recent calls to expand the field of comparative law. By including authors drawn from all parts of the world, it presents ‘new perspectives’ on the field. This wide geographic remit proves successful as a way of moving beyond traditional ‘families’ and doctrinal topics. The contributors raise new themes for comparison, many related to public law and processes of change. But this, in turn, raises questions about the purposes of expanding the field. The volume largely concerns the laws and legal issues of modern states, and the authors do not venture far into history. Nor do they consider the alternatives offered by religious and traditional legal systems or forms of non-state ordering. I suggest that these subjects could productively expand the field even further, raising more theoretical questions about what law is and does.

(Please click here to view the full text of book review.)

New Book by Melissa Loja (PhD 2018): International Agreements between Non-State Actors as a Source of International Law (Hart)

International Agreements between Non-State Actors as a Source of International Law

Melissa Loja (PhD 2018)

Bloomsbury

272 pp.

Published in September 2022

This book examines whether international agreements between non-state actors can be identified as a source of international law using objective criteria. It asks whether, beyond Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, there is a system of rules, processes, beliefs or semantics by which these agreements can be objectively identified as a source of international law. Departing from the more usual state-centric analysis, it adopts postmodern legal positivism as its analytical tool. This allows for the reality that international law-making takes place in subjective social landscapes. To test the effectiveness of this approach, it is applied to agreements between petroleum agencies and corporations which allow two or more states to exploit disputed resources across boundaries looking in particular at arrangements involving China, Vietnam and the Philippines. By so doing it illustrates an alternative way that states can manage disputes, without having to resort to conflict. It will appeal to both scholars and practitioners of public international law, as well as civil servants.

New Book by Agnes Chong (PhD graduate): International Law for Freshwater Protection

International Law for Freshwater Protection
Series: International Water Law Series, Volume: 9
Agnes Chong (PhD graduate)
Brill
Published in April 2022

Description: International Law for Freshwater Protection traces the development of international water law on fresh water protection and demonstrates how the regime focuses on the utilisation and rights of sovereign states over the protection and sustainable growth of shared water resources. The evolving jurisprudence influenced by environmental law highlights the regime’s insufficient focus on the environmental protection of watercourses. This book argues that existing rules, mechanisms and norms within international law can address the regime’s imbalance and establish how these might be applied to improve freshwater protection.

New Book by Kalana Senaratne: Internal Self-Determination in International Law (CUP)

Internal Self-Determination in International Law: History, Theory, and Practice
Kalana Senaratne (PhD 2014)
Cambridge University Press
Publication Date: December 2021

Description: Internal self-determination is an under-explored topic in international law. It is popularly understood to be a principle of relatively recent origin, promoting democratic freedoms to populations and autonomy for minority groups within states. It has also been viewed as a principle receiving the support of Western states, in particular. In this first book-length critical study of the topic, the reader is invited to rethink the history, theory and practice of internal self-determination in a complex world. Kalana Senaratne shows that it is a principle of great, but varied, potential. Internal self-determination promises democratic freedoms and autonomy to peoples; but it also represents an idea which is not historically new, and is ultimately a principle which can be promoted for different and conflicting purposes. Written in a clear and accessible style, this book will be of interest to international lawyers, state-officials, minority groups, and students of law and politics.

Melissa Loja on International Agreements between Nonstate Actors as a Source of International Law (ASIL Proceedings)

"International Agreements between Nonstate Actors as a Source of International Law"

Melissa Loja
2018, Vol 112, pp 151-5
Proceedings of the 112th Annual Meeting of The American Society of International Law

Abstract: International issues that are resolved traditionally through agreements between states are managed currently through agreements between government agencies and corporate entities. Government agencies1 and corporate entities are nonstate actors that have no formal capacity to engage in international lawmaking. Are their international agreements a source of international law? 

     The question is addressed in a case study of petroleum agencies and corporations in ninety-eight countries. These agencies and corporations are authorized to conclude agreements to settle disputes over petroleum resources that are shared by states across maritime zones and boundaries (shared resources). Their agreements are subjected to linguistic and procedural criteria for purposes of identification as a source of international legal rules on shared resources. The present paper summarizes some of the data and findings in the case study.  To listen to the presentation, click here.

HKU Team Wins Hong Kong Regional Jessup Round 2019

For the third consecutive year, the HKU Jessup Team won the Regional Champion title in the 60th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition on 29th February 2019. The Team was also awarded the Best Written Memorial Prizes for both the Applicant and Respondent.

     The Team consists of five students – Kaley Chan Yauting (LLM), Harrison Chung Wing Fung (PCLL), Jonathan Hsu Yau Yung (PCLL), Mathilda Kwong Yuan Shang (LLB5) and Myranda Lai Wun Chi (PCLL). Since October 2018, the Team intensely discussed and researched this year’s moot question on state responsibility for corporate actions, human rights violations, environmental degradation and appropriation of traditional knowledge for commercial purposes. By drafting two 9,000 word memorials and numerous advocacy trainings, the Team improved substantially their writing, researching and advocacy skills. 

     The Team takes this opportunity to express their sincere gratitude to the team coaches Ms Astina Au and Ms Natalie So for their valuable feedback and helpful guidance throughout. The Team would also like to thank the guest judges, Mr Victor Lui, Mr Jeff Chan, Ms Alice Leung, Ms Angel Cheng, Mr Sunny Hor, Mr Henness Leung and Mr Jason Ko, for their kind assistance. The Team will continue to work hard in preparation for the international rounds in Washington DC in April 2019, in which they will represent Hong Kong in competing against fellow advocates from nearly 100 countries and jurisdictions around the world. 

HKU Jessup Team Ranks 11th in Washington DC and Wins Top Oralist Award

From left: Coach Ms Astina Au, Jason Ko, Natalie So, Brian Lee, Michelle Sum, and Sakinah Sat

Congratulations to the HKU Jessup Team for achieving 11th place in the preliminary round of the 59th Philip C Jessup International Law Moot Competition, held in Washington, DC from 1-7 April 2018, where 121 teams competed. Demonstrating outstanding advocacy skills, team member, Natalie So, was crowned the top oralist in the International Rounds Top 100 Oralists. "The Jessup" is known internationally as the most prestigious public international law mooting competition for law students, where teams, having won their respective regional round, represent their country in a mock case before the International Court of Justice. The 2017-2018 competition problem involved a dispute between two fictional countries, Anduchenca and Rukaruku, concerning issues related to the validity of an arbitral award, the law of the sea, international arms disarmament, and the use of force.

    This year 600 law schools from 100 jurisdictions competed in the competition.  The HKU team won the Hong Kong regional championship in February 2018, capturing the best memorial prizes for both the applicant and respondent teams.
     At the International Rounds, the team defeated Argentina, Pakistan, Indonesia and Armenia in the preliminary round, before losing to the United States in the advanced rounds. The team members, Jason Ko Lun, Natalie So Tsz Ching, Brian Lee Chun-Hin, Michelle Sum Hiu-Yan, and Sakinah Sat are all students studying in the PCLL programme.  Brian and Jason ranked 17th and 75th respectively in the the list of top 100 best oralists.
     The team thanks Professor Po Jen Yap, Eva Sit, Tim Parker, Lester Lee, Adrian Lai, Terrence Tai, Kevin Lau, Isaac Chan, Jeff Chan, Winky So, Victor Lui, Sunny Hor, Henness Leung, Angel Cheng and Jonathan Lee for their kind assistance, and express their indebtedness to team coaches, Astina Au and Peter Barnes, barristers at Parkside Chambers, for their unfailing support.

Melissa Loja Presents Paper at 112th American Society of International Law Annual Meeting

PhD student Melissa Loja presented a paper on the New Voices in International Law panel of the 112th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington DC from 4-7 April 2017. Based on work done for her dissertation, Ms Loja’s presentation focused on the legal significance of international agreements between non-state actors. She discussed international agreements that national petroleum corporations, such as Petronas, PetroVietnam, PetroleumBrunei and China National Offshore Oil Corporations, enter into to manage disputes over petroleum resources that are shared by states across maritime zones and boundaries.

    The panel commentator, Professor Laurence Helfer, Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of International Law, remarked that Ms Loja’s paper makes a concrete and original contribution to international law, because it presents primary data that have not been made known before, and it enables a granular examination of actual practices in international law.

HKU Team Wins Hong Kong Regional Jessup Round and Heads to Washington Finals

 

From left: Brian Lee, Natalie So, Jason Ko, Coach Ms Astina Au, Michelle Sum, and Sakinah Sat

Continuing the success of HKU last year, the HKU Jessup Team has won the Regional Champion in the 59th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition on 25th February 2018. The Team was also awarded with the Best Written Memorial Prizes for both the Applicant and Respondent.

     With participants from 700 law schools in 100 different jurisdictions, the world’s largest moot competition is based on a fictional case before the International Court of Justice. This year’s problem concerns international arbitration, law of the seas, nuclear disarmament, and use of force. It requires a thorough understanding of public international law, an increasingly important area of law in 21st century.

     The Team consists of 5 PCLL students – Ko Lun Jason, Lee Chun-Hin Brian, Sat Sakinah, So Tsz Ching Natalie, and Sum Hiu-Yan Michelle. Since the selection round in September 2017, the Team has been researching extensively on international conventions and customs. Further, numerous oral practice sessions were held before the Moot, through which the Team has tremendously benefitted from rigorous questions and comments on advocacy style. For this, the Team would like to express sincere gratitude to Mr Isaac Chan, Mr Jeff Chan, Mr Victor Lui, Mr Henness Leung and Ms Angel Cheng for their kind assistance.

     Last but not least, thanks must be given to Ms Astina Au and Mr Peter Barnes (team coaches), and Mr Sunny Hor (student coach), for their unfailing support all along. The Team will be representing Hong Kong in the upcoming international rounds in Washington DC in April 2018.

Melissa Loja's Critical Legal Approach to the South China Sea Territorial Dispute (J History of IL)

"A Critical Legal Approach to the South China Sea Territorial Dispute"

Melissa H. Loja

Journal of the History of International Law

January 2018 (published online)

Abstract: The ‘law of nations’ that colonial powers invoked to claim the South China Sea islands was based not on international convention or custom but on their own municipal laws on guano concession. It provides that states have the exclusive right to assert title over distant islands where their respective citizens have engaged in economic activities. It was applied selectively to advance colonial and maritime interests and to suppress the claim of China. In their own records, the United States and United Kingdom acknowledged China’s prior and exclusive economic activities on the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, and consolidation of title over the Paracel Islands. The records were ignored and subsequently revised, thereby excluding China from availing of the rule. The Japanese peace treaties formalized China’s exclusion by relegating its claim to the same category as the claims that emerged from recent acts of occupation, and subjecting it to resolution by convention.

James Fry on the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (African J Int'l & Comp L)

"Ethiopian Exceptionalism and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission"

James Fry

African Journal of International and Comparative Law
2017, Vol. 25, Issue 2

Abstract: This article explores the reasons why Ethiopia relied on legal resolution with its territorial boundary dispute with Eritrea when it could have relied on its relative military power to dictate the terms and conditions of peace. It dismisses Ethiopia's familiarity with Western-style legal resolution and its relative lack of nationalism as potential explanations, instead focusing on Ethiopia's general sense of exceptionalism from its history as an African and global leader and as a respecter of international law, among other key factors. Ethiopia's example provides considerable hope that legal resolution can be used more frequently with politically sensitive disputes between states.

HKU Law Welcomes Two New Assistant Professors Specialising in IP, Innovation & Jurisprudence

We warmly welcome Dr Ryan Whalen, who joins us from Dalhousie University, and Mr Alex Green, who joins us from University College London, to the HKU Faculty of Law.

     Ryan Whalen’s research takes a data-driven approach to understanding the law and legal systems, with a particular focus on intellectual property law and innovation policy. This approach unites traditional doctrinal analyses with empirical techniques drawn from diverse fields including machine learning, natural language processing, network analysis, and data science.

     His work has appeared in a wide variety of journals including the Northwestern University Law Review, the Yale Law Journal Forum, the Michigan State Law Review, and the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society. 

     Ryan holds a BA(hons) from Saint Mary’s University (Canada), an MA from National Chengchi University (Taiwan), a JD from the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, and a PhD from Northwestern University. While at Northwestern, Ryan served as the editor-in-chief of the Northwestern University Law Review. 

     Ryan joined the Department of Law in July 2017 and will be teaching classes on Intellectual Property and Information Technology, Patent Law, and Administrative Law.

     Alex Green joined the Department of Law in August 2017 as an Assistant Professor. His current research, which has been funded by the Modern Law Review, concerns the moral nature of legal statehood and its role in determining the content of public international law. More broadly, he is interested in legal and political theory, moral philosophy, private law, public international law and human rights. Alex will be teaching LLB and JD Tort Law and is Deputy-Director of the Outgoing Exchange Programme.

Congratulations to Our Two Outstanding Research Postgraduate Student Awardees

Congratulations to our two PhD graduates, Dr Maria Carrai and Dr Han Zhu, who were recently awarded 2015-16 Outstanding Research Postgraduate Student Awards from the University of Hong Kong.  Both students were supervised by Cheng Chan Lan Yue Professor in Constitutional Law, Professor Albert Chen. Only two other Faculty of Law students have received this award in the past. 

    Dr Carrai's thesis was titled A Genealogy of Sovereignty in Modern China, 1840-today, and her examination panel included Professor Yu Xingzhong of Cornell University and internal examiners Simon Young and Michael Ng.  Since graduation, Dr Carrai has been a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute.  

     Dr Zhu is currently an Assistant Research Officer in the Centre for Chinese Law at the University of Hong Kong.  Her thesis was titled Social Movements and the Law in Contemporary China: A Comparative Perspective, and her examination panel included Dr Eva Pils of Kings College London and internal examiners Hualing Fu and Richard Cullen.

Roda Mushkat on Counterfactual Reasoning and International Law Methodology (German LJ)

"Counterfactual Reasoning: An Effective Component of the International Law Methodological Armor? 

Roda Mushkat

German Law Journal

2017, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 59-97

Abstract: The exploration of international legal patterns is an increasingly multifaceted enterprise. As such, it inevitably entails recourse to a progressively broader array of analytical instruments designed to place the process on a firmer scientific, or quasi-scientific, foundation. This expanding set consists predominantly, albeit not exclusively, of qualitative techniques relied upon in seeking generalizations about complex realities that are shrouded in uncertainty. The cluster of tools employed or deemed potentially usable includes, although tentatively, counterfactual thinking. The latter may be regarded as a research vehicle of “last resort,” underpinned by a soft substructure, but it may facilitate the quest for better grasp of phenomena observed in the international law domain and more effective action in that realm.  Click here to download the full article.

Melissa Loja on the China-Japan Dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (EJIL)

"Status Quo Post Bellum and the Legal Resolution of the Territorial Dispute between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"

Melissa H Loja (PhD Candidate)
The European Journal of International Law
2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 979-1004

Abstract: This article ascertains whether Japan’s possession of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands has a legal basis that is opposable to China. It departs from the traditional approach that focuses on historic titles and ancient maps. It applies an alternative approach that is based on the status quo post bellum or the relative legal position of the parties at the end of armed hostilities. This approach is warranted by the practice of China, Japan and the Allied powers of defining the status quo in the East China Sea as a frame of reference for the future disposition of the islands. Primary records of their conduct in the period 1945–1952 reveal consensus that: (i) the islands are part of Nansei Shoto rather than of Formosa; (ii) they remained under the residual sovereignty of Japan and (iii) they were being claimed by Japan but not China. The conduct of the parties proximate to 1945–1956 indicate that there was no prior existing title to the islands that would contradict the status quo. Rather, during the period 1952 up to the critical date of 1970, the positive acts of the Republic of China and the acquiescence of the People’s Republic of China confirmed the status quo.  Click here to read the entire article.

Roda Mushkat's Review Essay of ASEAN as an Actor in International Fora (Melbourne JIL)

"'Loose' Regionalism and Global Governance: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Factor"
Roda Mushkat
Melbourne Journal of International Law
2016, Vol. 17, Issue 1

Abstract: The international regulatory structure is heavily skewed in favour of a handful of industrialised countries operating as a ‘club’. This undermines its efficiency and legitimacy. An in-depth and sophisticated study, part of a large-scale and multidisciplinary research initiative by the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore, convincingly and elegantly demonstrates that insufficiently cohesive groupings such as ASEAN lack the will and capacity to ameliorate the situation. However, because of the narrow theoretical path trodden by the authors, the picture that emerges is incomplete and needs to be augmented with insights derived from complementary paradigmatic sources.  Click here to download the essay.

Michael Davis on Damage Control After the South China Sea Arbitration Award

"Why Beijing should seek damage control following the South China Sea decision"
Michael Davis
South China Morning Post
19 July 2016

It is time to get realistic over the South China Sea arbitral decision. Chinese officials and their supporters have made this case out to be some gross overreaching by the arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

     A better view is that the tribunal properly exposed some serious violations that China ought to correct both for its own reputation and for the sake of the natural environment. At the same time, it offered a platform for negotiating a reasonable settlement. The following 10 points are worth considering.

      First, we should appreciate that China signed on to the UN convention for good reason. Not traditionally a maritime power, the treaty offered China expanded rights in adjoining territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf, which would be rich in fisheries and minerals. Substantially hemmed in by its neighbours, China surely saw great advantage in embracing such treaty.

     Second, by agreeing to the treaty, China agreed to the associated arbitration that has just taken place. If China refused to appear, the tribunal was required to proceed without it and was bound to consider as best it could what it judged to be China’s arguments.

      Third, by refusing to appear, China waived its right to participate in selecting the five judges for the arbitration... Click here to read the full article.

Melissa Loja on the Full Significance of the South China Sea Arbitration Award

It is important to bear in mind the underlying theory of the Philippines' submissions in order to appreciate the full significance of the conclusions of the Tribunal in the Final Award of In The Matter of an Arbitration before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Final Award, 12 July 2016. According to the Philippines the legal basis of its claims to certain features and waters in the South China Sea is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, Articles 76 and 77), not territorial title. For this legal basis to exist the following conditions must obtain:

1. The features being claimed are found within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Philippines. 
2. These features are not encompassed by the maritime zones of any other feature in the Spratly Islands.
3. These claimed features are low tide elevations.

The Philippines asked the Tribunal to declare that all three conditions obtain and that legal basis exists for its claim to Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, McKennan Reef, Hughes Reef, Gaven Reef (North) and Gaven Reef (South).

     The Tribunal declared that all the claimed features are found within the Philippine EEZ, although Gaven Reef falls outside by a few metres. It found no feature in the Spratly Islands able to generate an EEZ which would encompass the claimed features. Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are low tide elevations but McKennan Reef is a high tide elevation; Hughes Reef is a low tide elevation but it forms a single unit with McKennan Reef; Gaven Reef (North) is a high tide elevations; and Gaven Reef (South) is a low tide elevation but it forms a single unit with Gaven Reef (North). 

     The significance of the foregoing findings is that the first condition obtains for all the claimed features, but the second condition obtains for Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal only and not with respect to McKennan Reef, Hughes Reef, Gaven Reef (North) and Gaven Reef (South). The third condition obtains for Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal but not for McKennan Reef in relation to Hughes Reef and Gaven Reef (North) in relation to Gaven Reef (South), which are high tide elevations with 12 nautical mile territorial sea. Moreover their territorial sea overlaps with the Philippine EEZ. 

     In effect, the Tribunal found that the Philippines has legal basis to claim Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal but it has no legal basis to claim McKennan Reef, Hughes Reef, Gaven Reef (North) and Gaven Reef (South). Having no legal basis to claim McKennan Reef, Hughes Reef, Gaven Reef (North) and Gaven Reef (South), the Philippines is out of contention for these features and only China and Vietnam are the remaining claimants. However, in order for China and Vietnam to avail of the foregoing claims they have to accept the attribution of Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal to the Philippines in the Final Award. 

      The Final Award declared that Scarborough is a rock and that fishing on Scarborough is a traditional right of both Filipinos and Chinese fishermen. The Final Award  did not declare that the Philippines owns Scarborough or that its fishermen alone can fish there.  These traditional fishing rights will be preserved no matter the outcome to the future settlement of the territorial dispute over Scarborough. The Final Award did not touch upon any other feature in the Spratly Islands, except to declare them rocks with 12 nautical mile territorial sea. It did not award any major feature to the Philippines.  It is possible that, in relation to Thitu, etc., in the future China and Vietnam will hold the Philippines to the conditions underlying its claim to features in the South China Sea. China and Vietnam might argue that the Philippines is estopped from changing its legal position (and its underlying conditions), especially as the Philippines' claims to all the features arose  from the same act - Presidential Decree 1596 - and invoked the same basis - contiguity or EEZ. However, before they could effect an estoppel against the Philippines in this way, China and Vietnam would have to accept the attribution of Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal to the Philippines in the Final Award.  Written by Ms Melissa Loja, PhD candidate in the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong.

New Article on Oil Pollution, International Environmental Law and the Law of the Sea (Georgetown J Int'l L)

"Oil Pollution, and the Dynamic Relationship between International Environmental Law and the Law of the Sea"

James D Fry and Inna Amesheva (PhD candidate)
Georgetown Journal of International Law
Spring 2016, Vol 47, Issue 3, p. 1001

Abstract: This Article examines the relationship between international environmental law and the law of the sea in the context of trying to address the problem of oil pollution in a coherent manner. Both of these branches of international law share a common goal, yet their relationship is inherently complex. Starting with a brief synopsis of international environmental law and the law of the sea, this Article then explores the ways these two branches interact in a dynamic manner. The Article demonstrates that they do not operate in isolation, but rather help shape one another. The authors then identify the situations where international environmental law and the law of the sea conflict, primarily in the provisions contained in international and regional conventions, which leads to a multifaceted legal framework that is difficult to follow in a coherent manner. In these cases, pursuing the rules of one regime could mean breaching provisions and goals of the other. The Article concludes with a case study on oil-spill pollution, which demonstrates how the two branches of international environmental law and the law of the sea simultaneously conflict and complement each other. The main take-away point of this Article is the fact that the unity-versus-fragmentation debate regarding the law of the sea and international environmental law should serve as a reminder that coordination of these two legal regimes is needed in order to effectively adopt measures that protect the global commons.  Accessible on LexisNexis.