1) The document discusses China's claim over maritime space in the South China Sea through its "nine-dashed line", which encompasses around three million square kilometers, including areas that belong to other countries' exclusive economic zones under international law.
2) It summarizes key aspects of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which established maritime zones and declared fishery resources beyond countries' exclusive economic zones and mineral resources beyond their continental shelves as "the common heritage of mankind."
3) It argues that China's nine-dashed line claim violates UNCLOS and international law by attempting to claim sovereignty over waters beyond its territorial sea that are part of the global commons, including the area designated
The oceans had long been subject to the freedom of-the-seas doctrine - a principle put forth in the seventeenth century essentially limiting national rights and jurisdiction over the oceans to a narrow belt of sea surrounding a nation's coastline. The remainder of the seas was proclaimed to be free to all and belonging to none. While this situation prevailed into the twentieth century, by mid-century there was an impetus to extend national claims over offshore resources. There was growing concern over the toll taken on coastal fish stocks by long-distance fishing fleets and over the threat of pollution and wastes from transport ships and oil tankers carrying noxious cargoes that plied sea routes across the globe. The hazard of pollution was ever present, threatening coastal resorts and all forms of ocean life. The navies of the maritime powers were competing to maintain a presence across the globe on the surface waters and even under the sea……..
The oceans were generating a multitude of claims, counterclaims and sovereignty disputes.
The hope was for a more stable order, promoting greater use and better management of ocean resources and generating harmony and goodwill among States that would no longer have to eye each other suspiciously over conflicting claims……
On 1 November 1967, Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the world to look around them and open their eyes to a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans, the lifeline of man's very survival……..
The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva, representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained and traded national rights and obligations in the course of the marathon negotiations that produced the Convention.
The law of the sea is a body of customs, treaties, and international agreements by which governments maintain order, productivity, and peaceful relations on the sea.Law of the sea is also known as Maritime law which is that branch of public International Law which regulates the rights and duties concerning the regulation of states with respect to the sea. It governs the legal rules regarding ships and shipping. It is one of the principal subjects of international law and is a mixture of the treaty and established or emerging customary law.
The law of the sea forms the basis of conducting maritime economic activities, the codification of navigation rules and to protect oceans from abuse of power. It covers rights, freedoms and obligations in areas such as territorial seas and waters and the high seas, fishing, wrecks and cultural heritage, protection of the marine environment and dispute settlement.
The oceans had long been subject to the freedom of-the-seas doctrine - a principle put forth in the seventeenth century essentially limiting national rights and jurisdiction over the oceans to a narrow belt of sea surrounding a nation's coastline. The remainder of the seas was proclaimed to be free to all and belonging to none. While this situation prevailed into the twentieth century, by mid-century there was an impetus to extend national claims over offshore resources. There was growing concern over the toll taken on coastal fish stocks by long-distance fishing fleets and over the threat of pollution and wastes from transport ships and oil tankers carrying noxious cargoes that plied sea routes across the globe. The hazard of pollution was ever present, threatening coastal resorts and all forms of ocean life. The navies of the maritime powers were competing to maintain a presence across the globe on the surface waters and even under the sea……..
The oceans were generating a multitude of claims, counterclaims and sovereignty disputes.
The hope was for a more stable order, promoting greater use and better management of ocean resources and generating harmony and goodwill among States that would no longer have to eye each other suspiciously over conflicting claims……
On 1 November 1967, Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the world to look around them and open their eyes to a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans, the lifeline of man's very survival……..
The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva, representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained and traded national rights and obligations in the course of the marathon negotiations that produced the Convention.
The law of the sea is a body of customs, treaties, and international agreements by which governments maintain order, productivity, and peaceful relations on the sea.Law of the sea is also known as Maritime law which is that branch of public International Law which regulates the rights and duties concerning the regulation of states with respect to the sea. It governs the legal rules regarding ships and shipping. It is one of the principal subjects of international law and is a mixture of the treaty and established or emerging customary law.
The law of the sea forms the basis of conducting maritime economic activities, the codification of navigation rules and to protect oceans from abuse of power. It covers rights, freedoms and obligations in areas such as territorial seas and waters and the high seas, fishing, wrecks and cultural heritage, protection of the marine environment and dispute settlement.
The legal provisions about the exploration of hydrocarbons in an exclusive ec...Gazis-Nikolaos
A brief summary of the legal framework regarding hydrocarbons exploration and exploitation in an exclusive economic zone focusing in Greek issues; in the frame of the "contract law" cource of the MSc in Oil & Gas Technology, School of Engineering Technology Department of Petroleum & Natural Gas Technology
The legal provisions about the exploration of hydrocarbons in an exclusive ec...Gazis-Nikolaos
A brief summary of the legal framework regarding hydrocarbons exploration and exploitation in an exclusive economic zone focusing in Greek issues; in the frame of the "contract law" cource of the MSc in Oil & Gas Technology, School of Engineering Technology Department of Petroleum & Natural Gas Technology
Born with a Grey Beard: Canada's Navigable Waters Protection ActLOWaterkeeper
Presented at the 6th Canadian River Heritage Conference Ottawa, Ontario June 15, 2009, this paper examines the process by which the Navigable Waters Protection Act was amended, the reasons and trends behind the changes, and some of the flaws with the process. The paper suggests that fanciful notions of “navigation” and “rights” still matter in todayʼs Canada. It describes how our collective respect and understanding for the act of navigation has crumbled and how, in our hurry to “modernize” our laws, our Parliamentarians have laid the groundwork for two-tier justice and the unnecessary surrender of wealth.
Written by Krystyn Tully, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.
The presentation sketches the development of the law of the sea from the days of Hugo Grotius to 1982-- when the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention was adopted.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
Chapter OneOne of the most well known examples of how borders ar.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter One
One of the most well known examples of how borders are formed and how they can affect the lives of people occurred during and after World War II. From 1940 to 1944 Germany and Italy invaded the European mainland, to which a large portion of the free world (allied forces) united to drive the invaders out. When World War II ended, the U.S., the U.K. and the Soviet Union divided the occupied lands up, creating defined formal borders. These borders were agreed upon by and were to be maintained by the three countries, however over time the politics of borders and who could and could not cross them became an issue an Germany eventually became a divided country; the East (Russia) and the West (the Free World). This resulted in the Berlin Wall which was a border fence built to keep people in (the East) and those in the West out. What were originally boundaries between occupation forces became barriers to human and commercial traffic and ultimately morphed into a formal border between two, politically and economically divergent countries. The fence between East and West Germany became a physical border, protected with mine fields, wire fence that could only be cut with a torch, guard towers, lights, and armed forces with orders to shoot-to-kill people trying to “leave” rather than potential invading forces. Eventually, in 1989 the Berlin Wall was taken down uniting Germany into one country; the Federal Republic of Germany.
The separation between East and West Germany was a political and economic barrier that has left remnants of “otherness” in some people’s minds. A physical, political, and economic wall had separated people of the same ethnicity, language, and culture for nearly fifty years. Twenty years after that barrier came down there are still political, social, and cultural repercussions.
Our text outlines the difference between barriers, boundaries, and borders. Each has separate and unique functions while all are common components of the modern political and economic lines that separate countries, states, and counties. Natural barriers and boundaries make some of the best borders because of the inherent difficulties in crossing them. Geography is the best example of a natural barrier and therefore natural borders.
· Barrier is a material object that is intended to the block passage of people and/or property. Barriers can include solid walls, electric fences and mine fields.
· Boundary is line (imaginary or physical) that fixes a limit. Boundaries can be political, economic, legal, physical or mental.
· Border is an outer edge, perimeter, periphery, or rim and are commonly used to delineate national and political boundaries.
Geography, such as a mountain range has long been a barrier to movement and in much of the world it still is. Many mountain ranges have acted as natural barriers, boundaries, and borders. An example of this type of border would be the Andes mountains which is a continual mountain range that run ...
Chapter OneOne of the most well known examples of how borders are .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter One
One of the most well known examples of how borders are formed and how they can affect the lives of people occurred during and after World War II. From 1940 to 1944 Germany and Italy invaded the European mainland, to which a large portion of the free world (allied forces) united to drive the invaders out. When World War II ended, the U.S., the U.K. and the Soviet Union divided the occupied lands up, creating defined formal borders. These borders were agreed upon by and were to be maintained by the three countries, however over time the politics of borders and who could and could not cross them became an issue an Germany eventually became a divided country; the East (Russia) and the West (the Free World). This resulted in the Berlin Wall which was a border fence built to keep people in (the East) and those in the West out. What were originally boundaries between occupation forces became barriers to human and commercial traffic and ultimately morphed into a formal border between two, politically and economically divergent countries. The fence between East and West Germany became a physical border, protected with mine fields, wire fence that could only be cut with a torch, guard towers, lights, and armed forces with orders to shoot-to-kill people trying to “leave” rather than potential invading forces. Eventually, in 1989 the Berlin Wall was taken down uniting Germany into one country; the Federal Republic of Germany.
The separation between East and West Germany was a political and economic barrier that has left remnants of “otherness” in some people’s minds. A physical, political, and economic wall had separated people of the same ethnicity, language, and culture for nearly fifty years. Twenty years after that barrier came down there are still political, social, and cultural repercussions.
Our text outlines the difference between barriers, boundaries, and borders. Each has separate and unique functions while all are common components of the modern political and economic lines that separate countries, states, and counties. Natural barriers and boundaries make some of the best borders because of the inherent difficulties in crossing them. Geography is the best example of a natural barrier and therefore natural borders.Barrier is a material object that is intended to the block passage of people and/or property. Barriers can include solid walls, electric fences and mine fields.Boundary is line (imaginary or physical) that fixes a limit. Boundaries can be political, economic, legal, physical or mental.Border is an outer edge, perimeter, periphery, or rim and are commonly used to delineate national and political boundaries.
Geography, such as a mountain range has long been a barrier to movement and in much of the world it still is. Many mountain ranges have acted as natural barriers, boundaries, and borders. An example of this type of border would be the Andes mountains which is a continual mountain range that runs along t ...
International law of water courses 4 principlesManar Ramadan
This presentation explains the 4 laws of international water courses showing case studies from Rio de grand river conflict, Nile River conflicts, and few conflicts in some Indian rivers
Understanding the South China Sea: An Explorative Cultural Analysis.Hans-Dieter Evers
Evers, Hans-Dieter. 2014. "Understanding the South China Sea: An Explorative Cultural Analysis." International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies 10(1):80-95.
The South China Sea has attracted considerable attention among politicians, journalists and scholars since it has become a contested maritime space. Most works concentrate on conflicts and negotiations to resolve the ensuing issues. In this paper, a cultural theory will be applied to stress the importance of conceptions of space found in different cultures. The South China Sea is defined as "Mediterranean." By comparing it to other maritime spaces, like the Baltic and the Mediterranean Sea, lessons will be drawn from the "longue durée" of history, as analysed by French historian Fernand Braudel and from concepts of the cultural theory of Oswald Spengler. The paper will look at the South China Sea from two perspectives. The political perspective will discuss various events that have happened due to political tensions because of territorial demarcations, fishing rights and access to natural resources. Comparing three "Mediterranean seas," I shall argue that Mediterranean seas share certain properties that give rise to tensions and even armed conflict, but also solutions to its problems. The second perspective uses macro-sociology and cultural anthropology to classify and understand actions of the general population as well as political leaders when they ascertain property rights to Mediterranean seas.
Exclusive Economic Zone and Sustainable Ocean.pptxS M Masum Billah
The lecture focuses on the regime of the exclusive economic zone under the UNCLOS and discusses its various uses and implications for sustainable ocean management by referring to case laws.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
Remarks on the 50th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treati...Sam Rodriguez Galope
Keynote Speech on the 50th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Department of Foreign Affairs 26 November 2019 Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Ret.) Acting Secretary Enrique Manalo, Undersecretary Eduardo Malaya, Atty. Igor Bailen, other officials and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs, distinguished guests, friends, a pleasant afternoon to everyone. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon to join you in celebrating the Golden Anniversary of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As you know, the most important source of international law are treaties. Treaties regulate relations between and among states. Treaties constitute the law between and among treaty states. Treaties must be observed faithfully between and among treaty states as expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda. Harmonious relations between and among treaty states can be maintained only if states uniformly apply and interpret treaties that regulate their relations. Treaties cannot operate to regulate relations and conduct of states if treaty states have different interpretations of treaties to which they are parties. There can be no effective dispute settlement between and among treaty states without uniform and universally accepted rules of treaty interpretation.
Follow the Rule of Law, But Aspire for the Rule of Justice Ateneo Law School ...Sam Rodriguez Galope
Follow the Rule of Law, But Aspire for the Rule of Justice
Ateneo Law School Commencement Speech
Ateneo de Manila University, July 14, 2019
Justice Antonio T. Carpio
.
"Is war really the only way of enforcing the arbitral Award? The answer is, of course, a resounding no. Waging war to enforce the arbitral Award is against the rule of law, both under domestic law and international law. Under the Constitution, the Philippines has renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Our Constitution prohibits the government from going to war to enforce the arbitral Award. Under the United Nations Charter, war has been outlawed as a means of settling disputes between states.
.
"Any war of aggression can even subject the leaders of the aggressor state to prosecution for a crime against humanity, even if the aggressor state is not a member of the Rome Statute, as when the act of aggression is referred to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council. In short, it is against the rule of law to go to war to enforce the arbitral Award.
.
"Is there a way to enforce the arbitral Award using the rule of law in the absence of an enforcement mechanism under UNCLOS? This, in essence, is the question that President Rodrigo Duterte publicly asked me last June 24, 2019. Let me quote the Philippine Star news report on that day: “Xi Jinping (said) there will be trouble. So answer me, Justice,” Duterte said, referring to Carpio, “give me the formula and I’ll do it.”
.
"In short, President Duterte asked me before the entire Filipino people - show me the formula to enforce the arbitral Award without going to war with China and I will do it.
.
"My response is yes, Mr. President, there is a formula – and not only one but many ways of enforcing the arbitral Award without going to war with China, using only the rule of law. Let me mention a few of these, and I hope the President will implement them as he had promised."
.
~Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Second Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey: 4 out of 5 Pinoys repudiate govern...Sam Rodriguez Galope
The Second Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey, conducted from June 27-30, 2018, found that four out of five adult Filipinos repudiate the government’s policy of doing nothing about China’s intrusion in the West Philippine Sea.
The June 2018 survey asked, “Is [activity] RIGHT or NOT RIGHT for the Philippine government to do in resolving the conflict between the Philippines and China about the West Philippine Sea?” Five specific activities were tested.
To this, 81% said it is not right to leave China alone with its infrastructures and military presence in the claimed territories [Chart 1].
At the same time, 80% said it is right for the government to strengthen the military capability of the Philippines, especially the Navy.
Seventy-four percent said it is right for the government to bring the issue to international organizations, like the United Nations or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), for a diplomatic and peaceful negotiation with China about the claimed territories.
Seventy-three percent said it is alright to have direct, bilateral negotiations between the Philippines and China to discuss the resolution of the issue of the claimed territories.
Sixty-eight percent said the government should ask other countries to mediate the issue of the claimed territories.
81% say it is not right to do nothing about China’s intrusion in claimed territories
80% want the military, particularly the Navy, to be strengthened
74% want to bring the issue to international organizations for diplomatic negotiations
73% say it is alright for PH and China to have direct, bilateral negotiations
68% say the government should ask other countries to mediate
Net trust in China falls to “Bad” -35
https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20180714202446&mc_cid=ed998182eb&mc_eid=6280559e78
Remarks on 2nd Anniversary of the Arbitral Ruling on South China Sea Dispute ...Sam Rodriguez Galope
The July 12, 2016 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal was a
landmark ruling for three reasons. First, the Arbitral
Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called historic nine-dashed
line cannot serve as legal basis to claim any part of the
waters or resources of the South China Sea. China, like all
other coastal states in the South China Sea, cannot claim
maritime zones beyond what UNCLOS allows, that is, not
exceeding 350 NM from the coastline. The result is that
about 25 percent of the South China Sea are high seas, and
all around the high seas are the exclusive economic zones
of the adjacent coastal states. Of course, in the high seas
and exclusive economic zones there is freedom of
navigation and freedom of overflight as recognized under
customary international law and UNCLOS.
Ideas that Divide the Nation
Address to the 2018 Graduates on Recognition Day
National College of Public Administration & Governance
University of the Philippines, 22 June 2018
Our nation today is facing radical proposals to change its historic identity, its grant of regional autonomy, and its foreign policy. Because these proposals are radical and divisive, they require the deepest examination from all sectors of our society - from lawyers, public administrators, historians, political experts, businessmen, scientists, farmers, NGOs, and all other sectors in our society. I call these proposals Ideas that Divide the Nation.
We should be wary of new concepts imported from foreign shores and alien to our history as a people, which could Divide the Nation and even lead to the dismemberment of the Philippine state. Let me point out a few examples of these divisive ideas that have been introduced into our national discourse.
Japanese Translation: The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine Sovereign Right...Sam Rodriguez Galope
On 29 October 2011, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio delivered a speech before the Ateneo de Davao University College of Law on its 50th Founding Anniversary. Entitled e Rule of Law as the Great Equalizer, the speech signaled the beginning of his advocacy to protect the maritime entitlements of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea as conferred by international law. In that speech, Justice Carpio declared:
This battle to defend our EEZ from China, the superpower in our region, is the 21st century equivalent of the battles that our forebears waged against Western and Eastern colonizers from the 16th to the 20th century. e best and the brightest of our forebears fought the Western and Eastern colonizers, and even sacri ced their lives, to make the Philippines free. In this modern- day battle, the best and the brightest legal warriors in our country today must stand up and fight to free the EEZ of the Philippines from foreign encroachment. In this historic battle to secure our EEZ, we must rely on the most powerful weapon invented by man in the settlement of disputes among states – a weapon that can immobilize armies, neutralize aircraft carriers, render irrelevant nuclear bombs, and level the battle eld between small nations and superpowers.
That weapon – the great equalizer – is the Rule of Law. Under the Rule of Law, right prevails over might.
This eBook is a collation of Justice Carpio’s lectures and speeches on the South China Sea dispute and the historic arbitral award rendered in favor of the Philippines. Totaling more than 140 lectures and speeches and spanning a period of more than five years, or from October 2011 to March 2017, these presentations were made in various fora, both in the Philippines and abroad. An earlier collation of his lectures and speeches was published in Antonio T. Carpio, Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea, 88 Phil. L.J. 389 (2014).
is ebook is interactive — if you click on a map or photo, or on the underlined name of the source of a photo or illustration, it will bring you to its online source.
Acceptance of Ruling is Material -- Statement of Justice Antonio T. CarpioSam Rodriguez Galope
Why China’s Acceptance of the Ruling Is Material
Statement of Justice Antonio T. Carpio
China is legally bound by the tribunal’s ruling, whether China likes it or not. That is the compulsory nature of international law. But China can decide to go rogue and refuse to accept and implement the ruling.
This is what China has done – refusing to vacate Mischief Reef which the tribunal ruled is submerged at high-tide and forms part of the Philippine EEZ. The tribunal ruled that only the Philippines can exploit or erect a structure in Mischief Reef.
In international law, where there is no world policeman to enforce a legally binding ruling, acceptance and implementation of the ruling by the losing State is obviously material. More so if the losing State is a military power, and the winning State is not.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
RIGHTS OF VICTIM EDITED PRESENTATION(SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Victims of crime have a range of rights designed to ensure their protection, support, and participation in the justice system. These rights include the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the right to be informed about the progress of their case, and the right to be heard during legal proceedings. Victims are entitled to protection from intimidation and harm, access to support services such as counseling and medical care, and the right to restitution from the offender. Additionally, many jurisdictions provide victims with the right to participate in parole hearings and the right to privacy to protect their personal information from public disclosure. These rights aim to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims and to provide them with the necessary resources and involvement in the judicial process.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Precedent, or stare decisis, is a cornerstone of common law systems where past judicial decisions guide future cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system. Binding precedents from higher courts must be followed by lower courts, while persuasive precedents may influence but are not obligatory. This principle promotes fairness and efficiency, allowing for the evolution of the law as higher courts can overrule outdated decisions. Despite criticisms of rigidity and complexity, precedent ensures similar cases are treated alike, balancing stability with flexibility in judicial decision-making.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
Grand theft of global commons (final edited delivery version)
1. Grand Theft of the Global Commons
(Speech delivered on the 75th Anniversary of the College of Law
of the University of San Agustin, Iloilo City, 30 August 2014)
Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Hainan claims to administer all the waters enclosed by the dashes from
1 to the heavy red line intersecting the dashes between 8 and 9. The
enclosed waters comprise two million square kilometers. China claims a
total of three million square kilometers of maritime space, and all the
resources found there, out of the 3.5 million square kilometers of
maritime space in the South China Sea.
2. Most of us gathered here tonight consider ourselves life-long
students of the law. We believe in the rule of law among nations as
the essential condition for the survival of our civilization on this
planet. We have seen the development of the rule of law from
ancient times to the present, with international law generally
progressing to regulate the conduct of wars among nations. Thus,
the foundation of international law is the laws of war and peace
among nations.
UNCLOS – The Constitution for the Oceans and Seas
After WWII when the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity of another State was outlawed under the Charter
of the United Nations, international law progressed considerably.
One of the greatest achievements in international law was the
signing in 1982 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea or UNCLOS. UNCLOS took effect in 1994 and has
regulated the use of the oceans and seas of our planet for the last
two decades. UNCLOS is the Constitution for the oceans and seas
of the earth.
UNCLOS is the greatest codification of international law into
one coherent system, complete with a compulsory dispute
settlement mechanism to enforce its provisions. It took 26 years,
starting from the first negotiating conference in 1956, to negotiate
UNCLOS – the longest running negotiation in the history of the
United Nations. Some 165 States have ratified UNCLOS,
representing an overwhelming majority of members of the United
Nations. All the claimant States in the South China Sea dispute are
parties to UNCLOS and are bound by UNCLOS.
UNCLOS not only codified existing customary international
law on the law of the sea, it also created novel watershed
entitlements like the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the
Extended Continental Shelf (ECS). UNCLOS institutionalized the
global commons – which originated from the ancient idea that the
oceans and seas of our planet belonged to all mankind.
Under UNCLOS, there are four maritime zones in the oceans
and seas, all measured from coastal land following the concept that
the land dominates the sea, which means that entitlement to
maritime zones is derived from sovereignty over land. First, we
2
3. have the 12-NM territorial sea adjacent to coastal land; second, the
200-NM EEZ adjacent to coastal land; third, the additional 150-
NM ECS beyond the EEZ; and fourth, the AREA, the maritime
space beyond the ECS.
In its territorial sea the adjacent coastal State has full
sovereignty just like in its land territory. In its EEZ beyond its
territorial sea, the adjacent coastal State has only the sovereign or
exclusive right to exploit the living or fishery resources, as well as
the non-living or mineral resources; in its EEZ the adjacent coastal
State does not have full sovereignty in the same way it has full
sovereignty in its territorial sea. In its ECS the adjacent coastal
State has the sovereign right to exploit only the non-living or
mineral resources; in the ECS the living or fishery resources
belong to all mankind. In the AREA, the living and non-living
resources also belong to all mankind.
In short, the fishery resources beyond the 200-NM EEZ of a
coastal State belong to all States of this planet, whether coastal or
landlocked. The waters beyond the 200-NM EEZ are called the
“high seas.” No State can claim exclusive right to fish in the high
seas. No State can bar other States from fishing in the high seas.
The fishery resources in the high seas belong to all mankind,
forming part of the global commons, just like the sun, the moon
and outer space. No State can appropriate for itself the fishery
resources in the high seas, in the same way that no State can
appropriate for its exclusive use the energy radiating from the sun.
Thus, UNCLOS expressly provides: “The high seas are open
to all States, whether coastal or landlocked. Freedom of the high
seas xxx comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and landlocked
States xxx, (e) freedom of fishing. xxx. No State may validly
purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
UNCLOS expressly defines the high seas as “all parts of the sea
that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the
territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the
archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State.” These are the
express declarations and specific commands of international law,
in particular UNCLOS. Clearly, the fishery resources in the high
seas are part of the global commons, belonging to all mankind.
3
4. The Concept of the Global Commons
The concept of the global commons is central to the
development of the law of the sea. The Institutes of Justinian of
the Roman Emperor Justinian, written in the 6th
century, declared
that the sea is “common to mankind” and its use is subject only to
“the law of nations.” This early concept of the global commons
prevailed in Europe from the 6th
to the 12th
century. Afterwards,
States started claiming control and ownership of their adjacent
seas.
In 1609, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius wrote his famous Mare
Liberum or the Free Sea. Grotius argued that no nation could
claim ownership of the oceans and seas because they belonged to
all mankind. The naval powers at that time – Spain, Portugal and
England – held the opposite view, claiming ownership of the
oceans and seas by discovery. The English John Selden advocated
this opposite view in his 1635 treatise Mare Clausum or the Closed
Sea. Since then until the end of the 18th
century, these two
contradictory views - one claiming that the oceans and seas
belonged to all mankind and the other claiming that nations could
appropriate as their own the oceans and seas - competed for world
approval. Grotius’ idea eventually won and became the foundation
of the law of the sea. Grotius is known as the father of
international law for his writings on the laws of war and peace.
Thus, under international law since the turn of the 19th
century until today, the waters beyond a coastal State’s territorial
sea could never be subject to sovereignty by the coastal State.
Before UNCLOS, the territorial sea was a belt of 3-NMs of waters
from the coast, and beyond this 3-NM territorial sea was the high
seas, belonging to all mankind as part of the global commons.
Under international law, before and after UNCLOS, no State could
appropriate the high seas as its own exclusive waters. Before and
after UNCLOS, the high seas were part of the global commons.
In 1967, the negotiations for a new law of the sea treaty had
become moribund under the UNCLOS I and UNCLOS II
negotiating Conferences. Then, on November 1, 1967 Ambassador
Arvid Pardo of Malta, in an impassioned speech before the General
Assembly, beseeched the United Nations to declare “the seabed
and the ocean floor a common heritage of mankind.” The concept
4
5. of the “common heritage of mankind” electrified the General
Assembly. This paved the way for the UNCLOS III negotiating
Conference that finally resulted in the signing of UNCLOS in
1982.
Thus, UNCLOS expressly provides: “The Area and its
resources are the common heritage of mankind. No State shall
claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of
the Area or its resources xxx. All rights in the resources of the
Area are vested in mankind as a whole xxx.”
Clearly, international law, specifically UNCLOS,
indisputably declares that the fishery resources in the high seas,
which are the waters beyond the EEZ of a coastal State, and the
fishery and mineral resources in the Area, which is the maritime
zone beyond the ECS of a coastal State, belong to all States as the
common heritage of mankind. These fishery and mineral resources
are part of the global commons. No State can appropriate these
resources as its own. No State can bar other States from enjoying
these resources in accordance with international law. Any State
that bars other States, and appropriates for its own exclusive use,
these fishery and mineral resources is shamelessly stealing what
belongs to all mankind.
The Global Commons vs. China’s 9-Dashed Lines
In the South China Sea, the global commons for fishery
resources refers to the area beyond the EEZs of coastal States. In
maps of the South China Sea that indicate the EEZs of coastal
States, the global commons appears as the elongated hole of a
doughnut right in the middle of the South China Sea. This “hole
of a doughnut” was a phrase coined by the late Foreign Minister of
Indonesia, Ali Alatas. This global commons, beyond the EEZs of
coastal States, comprises about one-fifth of the South China Sea.
All States, coastal and landlocked, have the right to fish in this
global commons. However, China’s infamous 9-dashed lines
gobble up entirely this global commons.
China’s 9-dashed lines were first made known by China to its
own people in 1947. China officially submitted a map of its 9-
dashed lines to the United Nations only in 2009. Up to today the
5
6. 9-dashes, which have been increased to 10 dashes in 2013, have no
fixed coordinates. China has never explained the legal or factual
basis of the 9-dashed lines. Under its 9-dashed lines China asserts
control and “indisputable sovereignty” to almost 90% of the South
China Sea, including China’s coastal waters outside the 9-dashed
lines. Of course, this blatantly violates international law because
no State could appropriate for itself the high seas, whether before
or after UNCLOS. China is the only country in the world today
that is claiming “indisputable sovereignty” over the high seas.
Under China’s 1986 Fisheries Law, foreign fishing vessels
are required to secure permission from Chinese authorities “before
entering the territorial waters of the People’s Republic of China to
carry on fishery production or investigation of fishery resources.”
This law refers to “territorial waters” of China. Other States have
no quarrel with this Chinese law since obviously foreigners cannot
engage in fishing in the “territorial waters” of China. There is no
dispute that China has indisputable sovereignty over its own
“territorial waters.”
Under China’s 2011 amendment to its Fisheries Law, foreign
fishing vessels are required to secure permission from Chinese
authorities if they wish “to enter the waters under the jurisdiction
of the People’s Republic of China to engage in fishery production
or survey of fishery resources.” This amendment refers to “waters
under the jurisdiction” of China, which legally is more expansive
than the “territorial waters” of China. Under UNCLOS, a State has
jurisdiction over its EEZ, and this jurisdiction includes the
exclusive right to fish in its own EEZ. Thus, other States still
have no quarrel with China’s 2011 amendment to its Fisheries Law
because under UNCLOS a coastal state has exclusive fisheries
jurisdiction over its own EEZ.
Under Article 35 of the Hainan Provincial Government’s
2014 Regulations to implement China’s Fisheries Law, foreign
fishing vessels “entering the waters under the jurisdiction of this
province (Hainan) to engage in fishery operations or fishery
resource surveys shall secure approval from relevant departments
of the State Council.” The fishery Regulations, which took effect
January 1 this year, require permission from Chinese authorities to
enter “waters under the jurisdiction” of Hainan.
6
7. Area of Waters under China’s Jurisdiction
The problem arises when China’s Fisheries Law is applied to
the high seas, and to the EEZs of other coastal States, that China
claims fall within its 9-dashed lines in the South China Sea.
China’s 12th
Five-Year Plan for National Oceanic Development
states that the sea area under China’s jurisdiction comprises three
million square kilometers. The 12th
Five-Year Plan of the Hainan
Maritime Safety Administration states that the sea area under
Hainan’s jurisdiction comprises two million square kilometers.
The South China Sea has a sea area of three million five hundred
thousand square kilometers. In the 1988 decision of China’s
National People’s Congress creating the province of Hainan,
Hainan’s territory expressly includes Zhongsa Island or what is
internationally known as Macclesfield Bank.
The Fisheries Law of China, and the fishery Regulations of
Hainan, when applied to the high seas in the South China Sea,
violate directly, openly and glaringly two specific provisions of
UNCLOS: first, that all States have a right to fish in the high seas;
and second, that no State can subject the high seas to its
sovereignty.
Let me quote from the January 24, 2014 article of Isaac
Kardon in China Brief published by the Jamestown Foundation:
The Xinhua press release announcing the new banfa
(Regulations) asserts that Hainan is responsible for
some 2 million square kilometers of relevant maritime
area (xiangguan haiyu). The only official document
citing this figure is the relatively obscure Twelfth Five-
Year Plan of the Hainan Maritime Safety
Administration (MSA) (Hainan Maritime Safety
Administration, July 7, 2012). The Hainan MSA
document claims that the province administers roughly
two thirds of China’s overall maritime space (woguo
haiyu), sets basepoints for the northern tier of waters
under Hainan’s administration, and extends a line
south-east at 140 degrees from the Qiongzhou Straight
as the north-eastern boundary of that zone xxx. By
7
8. inference, this line encloses the Macclesfield Bank, and
then intersects the now-infamous U-shaped, or “nine-
dashed,” line, thus including the disputed Spratly and
Paracels Islands as well as areas claimed as the EEZ of
Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the
Philippines. xxx.
This tells us five revealing assertions. First, Hainan claims
to administer two million square kilometers of maritime space, or
two-thirds of China’s total claimed maritime space in the South
China Sea. Second, China’s total claimed maritime space in the
South China Sea is three million square kilometers. Third, since
the entire South China Sea has an area of 3.5 million square
kilometers, the maritime space Hainan claims to administer
comprises 57% of the entire South China Sea. Fourth, with a
claimed maritime space of 3 million square kilometers, China
claims 85.7% of the entire South China Sea. Fifth, and most
importantly, the maritime space China claims under its jurisdiction,
and Hainan claims to administer, includes the Macclesfield Bank,
as well as large swathes of the EEZs of Vietnam, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.
Wu Shicun, the head of Hainan’s Foreign Affairs Office and
President of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies,
told the New York Times that Hainan’s fishing Regulations apply to
“all entities within the nine dotted line and the contiguous waters.”
Wu Shicun also told the Global Times that Hainan would put more
focus on administering the Xisha Islands (Paracels) and Zhongsa
Islands (Macclesfield Bank) and their adjacent waters. Shen
Shishun, Director of the Department of Asia-Pacific Security and
Co-Operation of the China Institute of International Studies,
explained to the South China Morning Post, “Our navy and law
enforcement forces have not patrolled the disputed areas often
enough. Now, given the strengthening of their capabilities, they
will set up surveillance … That’s why we now require foreign
fishing vessels to get permission.”
Macclesfield Bank - A Part of the Global Commons
Macclesfield Bank is one of the largest atolls in the world,
with a water surface area of 6,448 square kilometers, about ten
8
9. times the land area of Metro Manila. Macclesfield Bank lies just
outside the Philippines’ EEZ facing the South China Sea in Luzon
Island. Macclesfield Bank is named after the HMS Macclesfield, a
British warship that ran aground in the area in 1804.
Macclesfield Bank is not an island but a fully submerged
atoll whose highest peak is some 9 meters below sea level. China
calls Macclesfield Bank the Zhongsa Island, which is glaringly
misleading because the entire area is fully submerged even at high
tide. Under UNCLOS, a geologic feature is an island only if it is
above water at high tide. Macclesfield Bank does not qualify as an
island under this UNCLOS definition. An island is subject to a
claim of territorial sovereignty but not a fully submerged atoll
beyond the territorial sea like Macclesfield Bank. As a fully
submerged atoll beyond China’s territorial sea, Macclesfield Bank
is not subject to any claim of territorial sovereignty by China. And
since Macclesfield Bank is beyond China’s EEZ, China cannot also
claim any sovereign right to exploit exclusively the fishery
resources in Macclesfield Bank.
Under UNCLOS, Macclesfield Bank is part of the high seas
since it is situated beyond the EEZ of any coastal state.
Macclesfield Bank is within the hole of the doughnut in the middle
of the South China Sea. UNCLOS prohibits any State from
subjecting the high seas to its sovereignty. All States have the right
to fish in Macclesfield Bank, which is part of the global commons.
Macclesfield Bank, rich in fishery resources, has been a traditional
fishing ground of Filipino fishermen, just like the nearby
Scarborough Shoal.
Grand Theft of the Global Commons
Hainan’s fishing Regulations authorize Chinese maritime
administration vessels to apprehend foreign fishing vessels
operating without permission within waters administered by
Hainan. Chinese authorities can seize the fish catch and fishing
equipment of these foreign vessels operating in Macclesfield Bank,
and even fine these fishing vessels up to US$83,000. Prof. Carl
Thayer of the University of New South Wales calls the fishery
Regulations an act of “state piracy” by China. Others have called
the fishery Regulations as the biggest seizure of international
9
10. waters since the 1493 Papal Line of Demarcation divided between
Spain and Portugal the newly discovered world outside of Europe.
I call the fishery Regulations of Hainan a grand theft of the
global commons in the South China Sea. China is taking for its
own exclusive benefit fishery resources that belong to all the
peoples of the world, as prescribed and commanded by UNCLOS.
China, being a party to UNCLOS, is legally bound to comply with
the provisions of UNCLOS in good faith. By appropriating the
fishery resources of Macclesfield Bank for its own exclusive use,
China is blatantly violating its international obligation to comply
with UNCLOS.
The Chinese authorities have carefully presented Hainan’s
fishery Regulations as routine administrative issuances that merely
implement existing Chinese law. Thus, China’s Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Hua Chunying stated, “China is a maritime nation,
so it is totally normal and part of the routine for Chinese provinces
bordering the sea to formulate regional rules according to the
national law to regulate conservation, management and utilization
of maritime biological resources.” The Global Times chimed in
that the fishery Regulations are “just technical amendments to
China’s Fisheries Law that has been enforced for more than two
decades.”
The “technical amendments,” as interpreted and applied by
Hainan authorities, actually bring China’s Fisheries Law into a
direct and frontal clash with UNCLOS. China’s claim of
jurisdiction over the high seas in the South China Sea creates this
direct and frontal clash. As long as China subjects the high seas,
and the EEZs of other coastal states, to its sovereign jurisdiction,
China cannot escape being in gross violation of international law,
in particular UNCLOS.
Where the Philippines Stands
The Philippines has brought China to an UNCLOS
arbitration panel to question the validity of China’s 9-dashed lines,
which encroach on 80% of the EEZ of the Philippines in the West
Philippine Sea, including the Reed Bank and the Malampaya gas
field. The stakes are enormous not only for the Philippines, but
also for all States of this planet.
10
11. The Philippines seeks to prevent China from encroaching not
only on the EEZ of the Philippines, but also on the global
commons in the South China Sea. The Philippines is fighting a
legal battle not only for itself but also for all mankind. A victory
for the Philippines is a victory for all States, coastal and
landlocked, that China has shut out of the global commons in the
South China Sea. ASEAN States whose EEZs are also encroached
by China’s 9-dashed lines will likewise benefit immensely from a
Philippine victory.
If China’s 9-dashed lines are allowed to stand, then there will
be no global commons in the South China Sea. If there is no
global commons in the South China Sea, then there will be no
global commons in the rest of the oceans and seas of our planet.
Great naval powers will appropriate for themselves whatever
global commons they can grab. Coastal nations, large or small,
will be forced to strengthen their naval forces to protect their own
maritime zones. Naval might, not the law of the sea, will prevail
in the oceans and seas of our planet. That will spell the end of
UNCLOS, and the end of the rule of law in more than two-thirds of
the surface of our planet.
As citizens of the world, we all have a profound stake in
preserving the global commons in the South China Sea. As law
professors, law students, law practitioners, magistrates and life-
long students of the law, we must employ all our legal skills to
defend the rule of law in the South China Sea. As Filipinos
blessed by the Almighty with the extensive marine resources of an
archipelagic State, we must be faithful to our duty as stewards of
these marine resources - to protect and preserve these marine
resources in our EEZ for the present and future generations of
Filipinos.
11