International Arbitration of Maritime Delimitation: An Alternative for East Asia?

Abstract

International arbitration, as a neutral, flexible, efficient and binding legal means of dispute resolution, has been effective in settling maritime delimitation disputes, especially in recent years since the UNCLOS came into force. There are a number of reasons (i.e. advantages) for its increased popularity. Reasonable expectations thus arise as to its applicability onto similar maritime delimitation disputes of the East Asian countries whose diplomatic efforts have mostly failed to address these matters. This article examines this practical issue primarily from the legal perspective by reviewing relevant international rules including the UNCLOS provisions on compulsory dispute resolution and cases such as the ongoing Philippines-China arbitration over the South China Sea. Observations are also made from the political and cultural perspectives as well. It concludes that, though multiple dispute settlement means are still encouraged, international arbitration could be an important alternative for East Asian countries seeking a peaceful solution to their maritime delimitation disputes.

The Growing Impotance of International Arbitration in International Commerce

“…The investment environment guaranteed by the great ability to enforce arbitration awards is conducive to attracting foreign investors and FDI. 4 The study of Wagle (2011) demonstrates a positive association between the quality of arbitration and FDI. In Myburgh and Paniagua's (2016) research, international arbitration was found to have a positive impact on FDI, showing that countries' accession to the New York Convention has a beneficial effect on the rise in the level of bilateral FDI.…”