Part VI (Chaps. 11 and 12) is devoted to the dispute settlement system under the
UNCLOS, which is characteristic in international law in terms of the unique
mechanism of compulsory jurisdiction of the Annex VII arbitration. In Chap. 11,
entitled ‘China’s Theory and Practice on Maritime Dispute Resolution’, Bo Qu
elaborates the attitude of China towards the UNCLOS dispute settlement system,
which emphasises the importance of negotiation rather than the compulsory dispute
settlement. The author also analyses precisely the requirements for establishing
compulsory jurisdiction of Annex VII arbitral tribunal, which were lacking in the
South China Sea case, according to the author. In Chap. 12, entitled ‘UNCLOS
Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Japan’s Experience and Contribution’, Dai Tamada
introduces the experience of Japan in the UNCLOS dispute settlement system in
light of actual cases in which Japan has been involved. The author’s analysis covers
almost all kinds of the dispute settlement procedures, including prompt release,
provisional measures, jurisdiction and admissibility. Based on this, the author
clarifies also the contributions of Japan to the dispute settlement system.
Conclusion
The above chapters have summarised the relevant state practice of the two countries
in the context of the UNCLOS. We can see that there are converging and diverging
views between the Chinese and Japanese scholars on legal issues concerning the
law of the sea, which may or may not affect the policy and law of their respective
countries. It is admitted that due to the limit of the book, it has only accommodated
some of the topics which interest the contributors of this book. We have a sincere
hope that future collaborative projects can focus on other issues in the law of the
sea, such as the deep seabed mining, and generic resources on the high seas.
Kobe, Japan
Dai Tamada
Preston, UK
Keyuan Zou
viii
Preface
UNCLOS, which is characteristic in international law in terms of the unique
mechanism of compulsory jurisdiction of the Annex VII arbitration. In Chap. 11,
entitled ‘China’s Theory and Practice on Maritime Dispute Resolution’, Bo Qu
elaborates the attitude of China towards the UNCLOS dispute settlement system,
which emphasises the importance of negotiation rather than the compulsory dispute
settlement. The author also analyses precisely the requirements for establishing
compulsory jurisdiction of Annex VII arbitral tribunal, which were lacking in the
South China Sea case, according to the author. In Chap. 12, entitled ‘UNCLOS
Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Japan’s Experience and Contribution’, Dai Tamada
introduces the experience of Japan in the UNCLOS dispute settlement system in
light of actual cases in which Japan has been involved. The author’s analysis covers
almost all kinds of the dispute settlement procedures, including prompt release,
provisional measures, jurisdiction and admissibility. Based on this, the author
clarifies also the contributions of Japan to the dispute settlement system.
Conclusion
The above chapters have summarised the relevant state practice of the two countries
in the context of the UNCLOS. We can see that there are converging and diverging
views between the Chinese and Japanese scholars on legal issues concerning the
law of the sea, which may or may not affect the policy and law of their respective
countries. It is admitted that due to the limit of the book, it has only accommodated
some of the topics which interest the contributors of this book. We have a sincere
hope that future collaborative projects can focus on other issues in the law of the
sea, such as the deep seabed mining, and generic resources on the high seas.
Kobe, Japan
Dai Tamada
Preston, UK
Keyuan Zou
viii
Preface