Advertisement

The International Frameworks for the Conservation of Biodiversity and of the Marine Environment

  • Alfredo C. Robles Jr.
Chapter

Abstract

The Philippines, in its protests to China, invoked the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“the Convention”), the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”), and other international environmental agreements to preempt China’s rejections of its protests on the ground that China had sovereignty over the maritime areas in which Chinese nationals carried out their activities. The CBD framework is also useful not just because its concepts seemed more appropriate to describe the conduct of Chinese fishermen and China but also because the nature and jurisdictional scope of the obligations to conserve biodiversity seemed to be broader than those of the obligation to protect and preserve marine living resources under the Convention. Nevertheless, the Philippines did not present a claim under the CBD. The advantage of the Convention was that it provided for compulsory dispute settlement entailing binding decisions, while the CBD offered at most compulsory conciliation.

References

  1. Badinter, Robert. “La Cour de conciliation et d’arbitrage au sein de l’O.S.C.E [The OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration].” International Law FORUM du droit international 1 (1999): 99–102.Google Scholar
  2. Bastid, Suzanne. “La Commission de conciliation franco-suisse [The Franco-Swiss Conciliation Commission].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 2 (1956): 436–40, http://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1956_num_2_1_1256, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borràs, Susana. “Comparative Analysis of Selected Compliance Procedures Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements.” La mise en oeuvre du droit international de l’environnement [The Implementation of International Law of the Environment], 319–71. Eds. Sandrine Maljean-Dubois and Lavanya Rajamani. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Bowman, Michael, et al. Lyster’s International Wildlife Law, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  5. Breton-Jokl, Marcelle. “La Commission de conciliation italo-suisse [The Italo-Swiss Conciliation Commission].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 3 (1957): 210–21, http://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1957_num_3_1_1322, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caflisch, Lucius, and Laurence Cuny. “Der Vergleichs- und Schiedsgerichtshof der OSZE: Aktuelle Probleme [The OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration: Current Problems].” OSZE-Jahrbuch [OSCE Yearbook] 3 (1997): 373–82, https://ifsh.de/core/publikationen/osze-jahrbuch/1997/, accessed 3 April 2019.
  7. Churchill, Robin. “The Persisting Problem of Non-compliance with the Law of the Sea Convention: Disorder in the Oceans.” The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention at 30: Successes, Challenges and New Agendas, 139–46. Ed. David Freestone. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013.Google Scholar
  8. ———. “The LOS Regime for Protection of the Marine Environment—Fit for the Twenty-First Century?” Research Handbook for International Marine Environmental Law, 3–30. Ed. Rosemary Rayfuse. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar, 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Colliard, Claude-Albert. “Problèmes et solutions en matière de règlement des différends [Problems and Solutions in Dispute Settlement].” Perspectives du droit de la mer à l’issue de la 3e Conférence des Nations Unies [Perspectives on the Law of the Sea at the Conclusion of the Third United Nations Conference], 174–89. Société Française pour le Droit International [French Society for International Law]. Colloque de Rouen [Rouen Colloquium]. Paris: Éditions Pedone, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. “Conciliation Commission on the Continental Shelf Area Between Iceland and Jan Mayen: Report and Recommendations to the Governments of Iceland and Norway. Decision of June 1981.” Reports of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. 28, 1–34. New York: United Nations, 2008, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVII/1-34.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  11. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signed at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, entered into force on 29 December 1993, https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  12. ———. Conference of the Parties (COP) 2. Decision II/17. Form and Intervals of National Reports by Parties. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19 (30 November 1995), https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-02/official/cop-02-19-en.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  13. ———. COP 4. Decision IV/14. National Reports by Parties. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/4/27 (15 June 1998), https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-04/official/cop-04-27-en.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  14. ———. COP 5. Decision V/19. National Reporting. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23 (22 June 2000), https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-05/official/cop-05-23-en.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  15. ———. COP 7. Decision VII/5. Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/5 (13 April 2004), https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-07/cop-07-dec-05-en.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  16. ———. COP 7. Decision VII/25. National Reporting, Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/25 (13 April 2004), https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-07, accessed 3 April 2019.
  17. ———. COP 8. Decision VIII/14, National Reporting and the Next Global Biodiversity Outlook, Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VIII/14 (15 June 2006), https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-08, accessed 3 April 2019.
  18. ———. COP 10. Decision X/2. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 (29 October 2010), https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10, accessed 3 April 2019.
  19. ———. COP 10. Decision X/10, National Reporting: Review of Experience and Proposals for the Fifth National Report. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/10 (29 October 2010), https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10, accessed 3 April 2019.
  20. ———. COP 13. Decision XIII/25. Modus Operandi of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation and Mechanisms to Support the Review of Implementation. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/25 (9 December 2016), https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-12, accessed 3 April 2019.
  21. ———. Subsidiary Body on Implementation. Voluntary Peer-Review Mechanism for National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan. Note by the Executive Secretary. Doc. UNEP/CBD/SBI/1/10/ADD1 (8 March 2016), https://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=sbi-01, accessed 3 April 2019.
  22. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed at Washington, DC, on 3 March 1973, amended at Bonn, on 22 June 1979, amended at Gaborone, on 30 April 1983, https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php, accessed 26 March 2019.
  23. Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Court of Conciliation and Arbitration Within the OSCE: Periodic Report 2013–2016 to the States Parties to the Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration Within the OSCE, http://www.osce.org/cca, accessed 3 April 2019.
  24. Czybulka, Detlef. “Article 194: Measures to Prevent, Reduce and Control Pollution in the Marine Environment.” The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, 1295–1315. Ed. Alexander Proelss. München: Verlag C.H. Beck oHG, 2017.Google Scholar
  25. Evensen, Jens. “La délimitation entre la Norvège et l’Islande du plateau continental dans le secteur de Jan Mayen [The Delimitation Between Norway and Iceland of the Continental Shelf in the Jan Mayen Sector].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 27 (1981): 711–38, http://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1981_num_27_1_2469, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. “International Protection of the Environment.” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de La Haye [Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law]. Vol. 293 (2001-VI), 9–488.Google Scholar
  27. Fleischer, Carl-August. “La pêche [Fisheries].” Traité du Nouveau Droit de la mer [Treatise on the New Law of the Sea], 819–956. Eds. René-Jean Dupuy and Daniel Vignes. Paris: Éditions Economica, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. Glowka, Lyle, et al. A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Gland: IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1994, https://www.iucn.org/content/a-guide-convention-biological-diversity, accessed 3 April 2019.
  29. Grant, John P., and J. Craig Barker. Parry & Grant Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  30. Guruswamy, Lakshman D. “The Convention on Biological Diversity: Exposing the Flawed Foundations.” Environmental Conservation 26 (1999): 79–82, http://globalseminarhealth.wdfiles.com/local--files/pharmaceutical-harvesting/Guruswamy.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henne, Gudrun, and Saleem Fakir. “The Regime-Building of the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Road to Nairobi.” Max Planck Yearbook on United Nations Law 3 (1999): 315–61.Google Scholar
  32. Hermitte, Marie-Angèle. “La Convention sur la diversité biologique [The Convention on Biological Diversity].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 38 (1992): 844–70, http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/afdi_0066-3085_1992_num_38_1_3098.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Institut de Droit International [Institute of International Law]. Session of Salzburg, International Conciliation, 1961, http://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/1961_salz_02_en.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  34. Jóhansdóttir, Ađelheiđur, et al. “The Current Framework for International Governance of Biodiversity: Is It Doing More Harm Than Good?” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 19 (2010): 139–49.Google Scholar
  35. Kimball, Lee A. “The Biodiversity Convention: How to Make It Work.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 28 (1995): 763–75, http://69.90.183.227/doc/articles/2002-/A-00497.pdf, accessed 9 December 2016.
  36. “L’affaire du F. OABV (Maroc c. France) [The Case of F. OABV (Morocco v. France)].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 4 (1958): 282–95, http://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1958_num_4_1_1382, accessed 3 April 2019.
  37. Le Danff, Jean-Pierre. “La Convention sur la diversité biologique – tentative de bilan depuis le sommet de Rio de Janeiro [The Convention on Biological Diversity. A Preliminary Balance Sheet Since the Rio de Janeiro Summit].” Vertigo. La revue juridique en sciences de l’environnement [Vertigo. The Legal Journal on Environmental Sciences] 3 (2002), https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/4168, accessed 3 April 2019.
  38. Le Prestre, Philippe. “The Convention on Biological Diversity: Negotiating the Turn to Effective Implementation.” ISUMA: Canadian Journal of Policy Research 3 (2002): 92–98.Google Scholar
  39. Linderfalk, Ulf. “The Jan Mayen Case (Iceland/Norway): An Example of Successful Conciliation.” Paper presented at the Symposium “Conciliation in the Globalized World of Today,” organized by the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration within the O.S.C.E. (10–11 June 2015), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2783622, accessed 3 April 2019.
  40. Maresca, Adolfo. Il diritto dei trattati. La Convenzione codificatrice di Viena del 23 maggio 1969 [The Law of Treaties. The Codifying Convention of Vienna, 23 May 1969]. Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1971.Google Scholar
  41. Mensah, Thomas A. “Using Judicial Bodies for the Implementation and Enforcement of International Environmental Law.” International Law Between Universalism and Fragmentation. Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner, 797–815. Eds. Isabelle Buffard et al. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008.Google Scholar
  42. Merrills, J. G. International Dispute Settlement, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  43. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, concluded at Montreal, 16 September 1987, entered into force 26 August 1989, https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Montreal-Protocol-English_0.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  44. ———. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Copenhagen, 23–25 November 1992. Doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro.4/15 (25 November 1992), https://unep.ch/ozone/Meeting_Documents/mop/04mop/MOP_4.shtml, accessed 3 April 2019.
  45. Morgera, Elisa, and Elsa Tsioumani. “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Looking Afresh at the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Yearbook of International Environmental Law 21 (2010): 3–40.Google Scholar
  46. Nordquist, Myron H., et al. (eds.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 Commentary. Vol. V. Settlement of Disputes, General and Final Provisions and related Annexes and resolutions. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989.Google Scholar
  47. ———. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 Commentary. Vol. IV. Third Committee: Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment, Marine Scientific Research, and Development and Transfer of Marine Technology. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
  48. Ong, David M. “International Environmental Law Governing Threats to Biological Diversity.” Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, 567–85. Eds. Malgosia Fitzmaurice, David M. Ong, and Panos Merkouris. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar, 2010.Google Scholar
  49. People’s Republic of China. Ministry of Environmental Protection. China’s Fifth National Report on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Beijing: Ministry of Environmental Protection, 2014, https://www.cbd.int/reports, accessed 3 April 2019.
  50. ———. State Environmental Protection Administration of China. China’s Second National Report on Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity. Beijing: China National Environmental Science Press, 2001, https://www.cbd.int/reports, accessed 3 April 2019.
  51. ———. China’s Third National Report on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Beijing: State Environmental Protection Administration of China, 2005, https://www.cbd.int/reports, accessed 3 April 2019.
  52. Ramsar Convention. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, signed at Ramsar, Iran, on 2 February 1971, as amended by the Protocol of 3 December 1982 and the Amendments of 28 May 1987, https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/current_convention_text_e.pdf, accessed 24 March 2019.
  53. ———. “China.” Ramsar Sites Information Service, http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/china, accessed 2 April 2019.
  54. ———. “Philippines.” Ramsar Sites Information Service, http://www.ramsar.org/wetland/philippines, accessed 2 April 2019.
  55. ———. The Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Coral Reefs: Critical Wetlands in Severe Danger. RAMSAR CoP12 Doc. 25 (1 April 2015), https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/factsheet_5_coral_reefs_en.pdf, accessed 2 April 2019.
  56. Ranjeva, Raymond. “Le règlement des différends [Dispute Settlement].” Traité du Nouveau Droit de la mer [Treatise on the New Law of the Sea], 1105–68. Eds. René-Jean Dupuy and Daniel Vignes. Paris: Éditions Economica, 1985.Google Scholar
  57. “Rapport de la Commission de conciliation Franco-Siamoise, Washington, 27 Juin 1947 [Report of the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, Washington, 27 June 1947].” Reports of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. 28, 433–50. New York: United Nations, 2007, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/433-450.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  58. Reimann, Heinrich B. “Le règlement pacifique des différends à l’OSCE [The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes at the OSCE].” La promotion de la justice, des droits de l’homme et du règlement des conflits par le droit international. Liber Amicorum Lucius Caflisch [Promoting Justice, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution through International Law. Liber Amicorum Lucius Caflisch], 891–96. Ed. Marcelo G. Kohen. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.Google Scholar
  59. Republic of the Philippines. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau. The First Philippine National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Quezon City: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1998, https://www.cbd.int/reports/, accessed 25 April 2010.
  60. Richardson, Elliott L. “Jan Mayen in Perspective.” American Journal of International Law 82 (1988): 443–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sohn, Louis B. “Settlement of Disputes Relating to the Interpretation and Application of Treaties.” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de La Haye [Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law]. Vol. 150 (1976-II), 195–294.Google Scholar
  62. South China Sea Arbitration. Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015, https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506, accessed 26 March 2019.
  63. ———. Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Transcript, Day 2 (8 July 2015), https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1400, accessed 3 April 2019.
  64. ———. Transcript, Day 3 (13 July 2015), https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1401, accessed 3 April 2019.
  65. ———. Memorial of the Philippines (30 March 2014). Annex 19. Memorandum from Erlinda F. Basilio, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (29 March 1995). Vol. III, 213–17, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  66. ———. Annex 20. Memorandum from Lauro L. Baja, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Office of Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (7 April 1995). Vol. III, 219–24, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  67. ———. Annex 28. Memorandum from Fact Finding Committee, National Police Commission, Republic of the Philippines, to Chairman and Members of the Regional Committee on Illegal Entrants for Region 1, Republic of the Philippines (28 January 1998). Vol. III, 271–76, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  68. ———. Annex 29. Memorandum from Assistant Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (23 March 1998). Vol. III, 277–82, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  69. ———. Annex 30. People of the Philippines v. Shin Ye Fen, et al., Criminal Case No. RTC 2357-I, Decision, Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 69, Iba, Zambales, Philippines (29 April 1998). Vol. III, 283–86, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  70. ———. Annex 31. People of the Philippines v. Wuh Tsu Kai, et al., Criminal Case No. RTC 2362-I, Decision, Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 69, Iba, Zambales, Philippines (29 April 1998). Vol. III, 287–90, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  71. ———. Annex 32. People of the Philippines v. Zin Dao Guo, et al., Criminal Case No. RTC 2363-I, Decision, Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 69, Iba, Zambales, Philippines (29 April 1998). Vol. III, 291–94, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  72. ———. Annex 37. Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-85-98-S (4 December 1998). Vol. III, 315–19, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  73. ———. Annex 43. Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-06-2001-S (13 February 2001). Vol. III, 351–55, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  74. ———. Annex 45. Memorandum from Willy C. Gaa, Assistant Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines to Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines (14 February 2001). Vol. III, 363–67, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  75. ———. Annex 47. Memorandum from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, No. ZPE-09-2001-S (17 March 2001). Vol. III, 375–78, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  76. ———. Annex 48. Memorandum from Josue L. Villa, Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (21 May 2001). Vol. III, 379–94, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  77. ———. Annex 51. Memorandum from Josue L. Villa, Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Beijing, to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (19 August 2002). Vol. III, 405–409, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  78. ———. Annex 58. Memorandum from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the President of the Republic of the Philippines (11 January 2006). Vol. III, 481–84, https://files.pca-pa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20III%20%28Annexes%201-60%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  79. ———. Annex 186. Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila No. 2000100 (14 January 2000). Vol. VI, 259–61, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20VI%20%28Annexes%20158-221%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  80. ———. Annex 205. Memorandum from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Republic of the Philippines (11 January 2006). Vol. VI, 377–81, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Memorial%20-%20Volume%20VI%20%28Annexes%20158-221%29.pdf, accessed 26 March 2019.
  81. ———. Supplemental Documents of the Philippines (19 November 2015). Annex 608. Department of Foreign Affairs—Republic of the Philippines. Statement on China’s Reclamation Activities and their Impact on the Region’s Marine Environment (13 April 2015). Vol. I, 7–9, https://files.pca-cpa.org/pcadocs/The%20Philippines%27%20Supplemental%20Documents%20-%20Volume%20I%20%28Annexes%20607-667%29.pdf, accessed 2 April 2019.
  82. Tanaka, Yoshifumi. The International Law of the Sea, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  83. Tardieu, Aurélie. “Les conferences des États parties [Conferences of States Parties].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 57 (2011): 111–43, http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/afdi_0066-3085_2011_num_57_1_4178.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tinker, Catherine. “A ‘New Breed’ of Treaty: The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.” Pace Environmental Law Review 13 (1995): 191–218, http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article397&context=pelr, accessed 2 April 2019.
  85. ———. “Responsibility for Biological Diversity Under International Law.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 28 (1995): 777–821.Google Scholar
  86. Tomuschat, Christian. “Sleeping Beauty: The OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.” Security Community. The OSCE Magazine 2 (2014): 36–37, http://www.osce.org/cca, accessed 3 April 2019.
  87. Tomuschat, Christian, et al. (eds.). Conciliation in International Law: The OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2016.Google Scholar
  88. United Nations. Law of the Sea: Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment. Report of the Secretary General. UN Doc. A/44/461 (18 September 1989), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/76086?ln=en, accessed 3 April 2019.
  89. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded at Montego Bay on 10 December, entered into force on 16 November 1994, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm, accessed 21 March 2019.
  90. ———. Meeting of the States Parties. Fifteenth Meeting, New York, 16–24 June 2005. Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of States Parties. Doc. SPLOS/135 (25 July 2005), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/439/16/PDF/N0543916.pdf?OpenElement, accessed 3 April 2019.
  91. ———. Twenty-First Meeting, New York, 13–17 June 2011. Report of the Twenty-First Meeting of States Parties, Doc. SPLOS/231 (29 June 2011), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/393/68/PDF/N1139368.pdf?OpenElement, accessed 3 April 2019.
  92. ———. Twenty-Fifth Meeting, New York, 8–12 June 2015. Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of States Parties. Doc. SPLOS/287 (13 July 2015), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/217/42/PDF/N1521742.pdf?OpenElement, accessed 3 April 2019.
  93. ———. Twenty-Sixth Meeting, New York, 20–24 June 2016. Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of States Parties. Doc. SPLOS/30 (2 August 2016), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/245/62/PDF/N1624562.pdf?OpenElement, accessed 3 April 2019.
  94. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Convention on Biological Diversity. Fifth Revised Draft Convention on Biological Diversity. Explanatory Note. Doc. UNEP/Bio.Div/N7-INC.5/2 (20 February 1992), https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/iccbd/bdn-07-inc-05/official/bdn-07-inc-05-02-en.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  95. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs. Codification Division. United Nations Diplomatic Conferences. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 1973–1982, 2019, http://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/, accessed 4 April 2019.
  96. Vignes, Daniel. “La sentence de la Commission de conciliation franco-italienne dans l’affaire du différend sur les biens immeubles appartenant à l’ordre de Saint-Maurice et de Saint Lazare (Hospice du Petit Saint-Bernard) [The Award of the Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission in the Case relating to the Dispute concerning Immovable Property belonging to the Order of Saint Maurice and Saint Lazarus (Little Saint Bernard Hospice)].” Annuaire Français de Droit International [French Yearbook of International Law] 11 (1965): 319–32, http://www.persee.fr/doc/afdi_0066-3085_1965_num_11_1_1822, accessed 3 April 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Villani, Ugo. “Osservazioni sulla soluzione delle controversie nelle convenzioni di codificazione del diritto internazionale [Observations on the Settlement of Disputes in Conventions Codifying International Law].” Le droit international à l’heure de sa codification. Études en l’honneur de Roberto Ago [International Law at the Time of Its Codification. Studies in Honor of Roberto Ago]. Vol. III. Les différends entre États et la responsabilité [Inter-State Disputes and Responsibility], 497–521. Milano: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1987.Google Scholar
  98. Wehberg, Hans. “Die Vergleichskommissionen im modernen Völkerrecht [Conciliation Commissions in Modern International Law].” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [Journal for Foreign Public Law and International Law] 19 (1958): 551–93, http://www.zaoerv.de/19_1958/19_1958_1_3_a_551_593.pdf, accessed 3 April 2019.
  99. Wolfrum, Rüdiger, and Nele Matz. “The Interplay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 4 (2000): 445–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfredo C. Robles Jr.
    • 1
  1. 1.De La Salle UniversityManilaPhilippines

Personalised recommendations