International Law Case Study

The effectiveness of international law is under question due to recent issues regarding the process and enforceability of such law. While international law has been effective in keeping peace between countries in some instances and has allowed organisations such as the UN to keep a line of communication between countries, there are many instances where international law is unable to resolve legal issues. An example of this is the South China Sea dispute, an issue that has been building for decades but only officially went to an international tribunal in 2013, and yet still is not resolved. Despite the amount of international legislation relating to the South China Sea dispute and the fact that these laws have been applied to China, the law

International law relates to all countries who have agreed to specific treaties, although some countries, such as the US, follow international law even though they have not agreed to many relevant treaties and constitutions. The South China Sea is currently a very relevant international law issue under UNCLOS. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS) is one of the world’s international treaties including one hundred and sixty-six countries. It provides both rules and remedial mechanisms for countries that believe other parties have violated the provisions of UNCLOS. Article 121 provides a definition of who can claim an exclusive economic zone. Other articles relevant to the South China Sea include article 298 and article 281. Perhaps the most important document in the South China Sea is 2002 ASEAN–China Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea (DoC), which China argued as having more power and being more relevant to the issue than UNCLOS. They also argued that this declaration was a binding agreement which legally overruled UNCLOS, although both of these points are untrue as the DoC was a non-binding

China refusing to acknowledge the rulings of the international tribunal with the Philippines is the most recent of many issues presented by China, Russia, and the US. The US was able to refuse initially to agree to UNCLOS, and later refuse any international tribunals verdicts. Russia agreed to UNCLOS, but in 2013 a dispute arose over the arrest of a Greenpeace ship and Russia refused to acknowledge that they had broken the law, refused to show up in court, and refused to acknowledge violation or pay damages. These three countries, China, Russia, and the US, make up three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, yet easily disregard the law in favour of their own interests. This is both ineffective and unfair to those who were wronged in the tribunals and proves that international law is unenforceable to the more powerful members of the UN. Resolving the South China Sea dispute could go in a number of ways, including China backing down and allowing others territory in the South China Sea, or may rely on the US and allies imposing economic sanctions on China until they agree to adhere to international law, which is also likely to impact the world’s economy, but it is more likely that this issue and ones like it which will inevitably arise in the future will not and cannot be resolved