Abstract
This chapter explains the central components to the contrasting legal stances adopted by China and South Korea with regards to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelf rights. Because maritime law is often referred to by both parties, certain basics of maritime law need to be understood when examining this topic. Their claims include China’s natural prolongation of ‘its’ continental shelf and South Korea’s more internationally accepted median line solution with the submerged feature located well within Seoul’s EEZ. These claims overlap, and Socotra Rock rests within the overlapping area. The crux of the dispute is thus not territorial, but rather one concerning the right to exercise jurisdictional authority while also protecting against ‘foreign’ intervention. These also tie directly into national and regional security concerns, making it important to clarify where international legal practice tends to stand on these questions of equidistance, proportionality, natural prolongation, jurisdiction, and freedom of navigation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an overview, see Kim Suk Kyoon (2017), ‘Maritime Boundary Negotiations between China and Korea: The Factors at Stake’, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 32, no. 1: 69–94.
- 2.
Precisely where to begin to measure either EEZ or territorial limits from is another legal complication. These ‘baseline’ points are discussed at length in legal literature; see, for example: Robert Beckman, ‘The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea’, American Journal of International Law 107, no. 1 (January 2013): 142–163; Clive Schofield, ‘Challenges in Defining the “boundary” between land and sea’, National University of Singapore Centre for International Law Roundtable on the South China Sea, International Law and UNCLOS, 27–28 June 2013, https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Session-2-Schofield-Baselines-Issues-in-the-South-China-Sea.pdf; Stuart B. Kaye, ‘Territorial Sea Baselines along Ice-Covered Coasts: International Practice and Limits of the Law of the Sea’, Ocean Development & International Law 35, Issue 1 (2004): 75–102; Farhad Talaie, ‘The Issue of Straight Baselines in the International Law of the Sea and State Practice’, Maritime Studies 1999, Issue 105 (1999): 5–21.
- 3.
The term mutatis mutandis is defined as ‘the necessary changes. This is a phrase of frequent practical occurrence, meaning that matters or things are generally the same, but to be altered, when necessary, as to names, office, and the like.’ https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mutatis+mutandis.
- 4.
For more, see http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/?p1=4&p2=2#CHAPTER_II.
- 5.
For more on the latter two cases, see http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=401&p1=3&p2=3&case=78&p3=5.
- 6.
- 7.
For more on North Korea’s exploration and delimitation-related activities in the Yellow Sea, see http://38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bermudez-NK-Exploration-Oil-Gas.pdf.
- 8.
For the entire case, see http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/51/051-19690220-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
- 9.
Wolfgang Friedmann, ‘The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases—A Critique’, American Journal of International Law 64, no. 2 (April 1970), 229–240.
- 10.
For a fuller discussion of the North Sea cases and related issues, see, for example, Shuqing Qiao et al., ‘Sediment accumulation and budget in the Bohai Sea, Yellow Sea and East China Sea’, Marine Geology 390, no.1 (August 2017), 270–281; Jianwei Wei, et al., ‘Clay mineral distributions in the southern Yellow Sea and their significance’, Chinese Science Bulletin 48, Suppl 1 (June 2003): 7–11; Herman A. Karl, ‘Sediments of the Sea Floor’ at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1198/chapters/090-100_Sediment.pdf.
- 11.
He additionally refers here to two sources to make this point: David Joseph Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1987; and Douglas M. Johnston and Mark J. Valencia, Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems, Status and Solutions, Netherlands: Springer, 1991.
- 12.
According to Kang, during PRC President Hu Jintao’s state visit to South Korea on 25 August 2008, references to ‘Suyan Rock’ were intentionally removed from official PRC websites. Hu also called for the two sides to engage in peaceful dialogue and negotiations toward resolving their overlapping EEZs (Kang Hyun-kyung, 2012: 219).
Bibliography
Amer, Ramses and Li Jianwei. “Maritime Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin is Too Important to be Ignored.” ChinaUSFocus, 29/05/2015. http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/maritime-delimitation-in-the-gulf-of-tonkin-is-too-important-to-be-ignored/
Charney, Jonathan I. “Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law,” American Journal of International Law 88, no. 2 (1994): 227–256.
China demands S. Korea stop hoisting sunken ship near Ieodo (27/07/2011), Yonhap News Agency. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/07/27/19/0301000000AEN20110727006300315F.html
Cohen, Jerome A. and Jon M. Van Dyke. “Finding its Sea Legs.” South China Morning Post, 26/10/2010. https://www.scmp.com/article/728520/finding-its-sea-legs
Fisher, Richard Jr. “South China Sea Competition: China Contemplates More Mischief,” International Assessment and Strategy Center, 28/06/ 2009. http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.209/pub_detail.asp
Flenniken, Lauren. “Claiming Ieodo Rock: Maritime boundary disputes remain deadlocked between South Korea and China.” Jeju Weekly, 14/08/2011. http://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1829
Hsiung, James C. “Sea Power, Law of the Sea, and a Sino-Japanese East China Sea ‘Resource War.’” In China and Japan at Odds: Deciphering the Perpetual Conflict, edited by James C. Hsiung, 133–154. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
International Court of Justice. “North Sea Continental Shelf Cases: Denmark/Federal Judgement of 20 February 1969”. http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/5L1/5537.pdf
Ji, Guoxing. “Maritime Jurisdiction in The Three China Seas: Options for Equitable Settlement.” Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Policy Paper 19 (1995). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7rq2b069
Jung, Sung-ki. “S. Korea to Ask China to Rectify Claim Over Ieodo.” Korea Times, 08/08/2008. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/04/205_29027.html
Kang, Byeong-Cheol. “Ieodo, Okinotorishima and International Politics,” Journal of Peace Studies 14, no.2 (2013): 99–118. http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2981469
Kang, Hyun-kyung. “Lee says Ieodo not territorial dispute.” Korea Times, 12/03/2012. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/03/116_106794.html
Kim, Ji-hyun. “China informed Seoul of air defense zone.” Korea Herald, 25/11/2013. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131125001000
Kim, Se-jeong. “Ieodo seminar explores Korea’s new frontier.” Korea Times, 30/06/2011. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/359_89975.html
Kim, Young-jin. “Why Ieodo matters.” Korea Times, 18/09/2012. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/09/117_120266.html
Lee, Jae-min. “Equitable share of maritime zone.” Korea Herald, 29/12/2015. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20151229001062
Legault, Leonard and Blair Hankey. (1993) “Method, Oppositeness and Adjacency, and Proportionality in Maritime Boundary Delimitation,” 203–242 in Charney, J.I. and Alexander, L.M. (eds.) International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. (1996).
Pan, Junwu. Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China’s Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
Park, Choon-Ho. “Maritime Claims in the China Seas: Current State Practices,” San Diego Law Review 18, no. 3 (April 1981): 443–454.
Shin, Hae-in. “China demanded S. Korea stop activities near Ieodo.” Korea Herald, 27/07/2011. http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110727000696
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 16 November 1994, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1833. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
Van Dyke, Jon M. “The Republic of Korea’s Maritime Boundaries,” Honolulu, Hawaii: William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2003. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:F8E1lcIosdsJ:www.hawaii.edu/elp/publications/faculty/TheRepublicofKorea.doc+&cd=1&hl=ja&ct=clnk&gl=jp
Van Dyke, Jon M. “Ieodo.” Maritime Boundary Disputes in the East China Sea (conference), Seoul, South Korea, 30/06/2011–01/07/2011.
Zastrow, Mark. “Yellow Sea talks raise hopes for marine science,” Nature 528 (15 December 2015). http://www.nature.com/news/yellow-sea-talks-raise-hopes-for-marine-science 1.19027
Zhao, Quansheng. “China’s Northeast Water Frontiers, East China Sea Disputes and Co-Management Approach.” In: Hao, Yufan, and Bill K. P. Chou (eds.), China’s Policies on its Borderlands and the International Implications. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2011.
Zou, Keyuan. “China’s Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelf: Developments, Problems, and Prospects,” Marine Policy 25, no. 1 (2000): 71–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fox, S. (2019). The Limits of Maritime Law. In: China, South Korea, and the Socotra Rock Dispute. Palgrave Pivot, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2077-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2077-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2076-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2077-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)