{"created":"2023-05-15T09:20:00.198561+00:00","id":1069,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"7ed07208-d2cd-401e-967c-7e7f1f77920b"},"_deposit":{"created_by":2,"id":"1069","owners":[2],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"1069"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:jiia.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001069","sets":["6:7:39"]},"author_link":["1976"],"control_number":"1069","item_3_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2019-03-05","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"3","bibliographicPageEnd":"35","bibliographicPageStart":"8","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"2","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"Japan Review","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_3_description_5":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"This article examines validity of international law, UNCLOS, over historic rights, particularly focusing upon the Award on the South China Sea dispute. The arbitral tibunal found that China’s historic rights are contrary to UNCLOS by mainly emphasizing “comprehensiveness” of UNCLOS. This logic adopted by the arbitral tribunal seems different from the two kinds of logics that are to be applied to historic waters: first, to establish a general rule in permitting exceptions to it; and second, to deny a general rule due to varieties of international practices. As a third logic, in the 1951 Fishery Case, ICJ demonstrated logic that the Norwegian straight baseline method is an application of a general rule. By doing so, ICJ kept the sphere of legal regulation of a general rule over the Norwegian specific case. For China’s historic rights the arbitral tribunal did not adopt any of these kinds of logics. The tribunal’s logic is critically analysed from the perspective of ensuring regulation of international law, UNCLOS, over those claims challenging against its regulation, such as claims to historic waters and historic rights. From the same perspective, namely, keeping the sphere of international regulation over challenging phenomena, several findings in the Award are also considered. Since judicial and arbitral procedures that interpret and apply international law have close relation to maintenance of legal regulation of international law, particularly the tribunal’s findings concerning its jurisdiction are also examined.","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_3_description_6":{"attribute_name":"内容記述","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"This article was originally published on Jochi Hogaku Ronshu (Sophia Law Review), Vol.61, No.1-2, 2017, pp. 27-76.","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_3_publisher_16":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"日本国際問題研究所","subitem_publisher_language":"ja"}]},"item_3_publisher_18":{"attribute_name":"出版者（英）","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"Japan Institute of International Affairs","subitem_publisher_language":"en"}]},"item_3_text_17":{"attribute_name":"出版地","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"ja","subitem_text_value":"東京"}]},"item_3_text_4":{"attribute_name":"著者所属（英）","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"en","subitem_text_value":"Professor at Sophia University, Faculty of Law"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorAffiliations":[{"affiliationNames":[{"affiliationName":"Professor at Sophia University, Faculty of Law","affiliationNameLang":"en"}]}],"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"Kanehara, Atsuko","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"1976","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2019-08-22"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"JapanReview_Vol2_No3_02_Kanehara.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"269.8 kB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"JapanReview_Vol2_No3_02_Kanehara.pdf","url":"https://jiia.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/1069/files/JapanReview_Vol2_No3_02_Kanehara.pdf"},"version_id":"1f7a0023-d954-4617-a4cb-73d3b5492cb9"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"eng"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"article","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"Validity of International Law over Historic Rights : The Arbitral Award (Merits) on the South China Sea Dispute","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"Validity of International Law over Historic Rights : The Arbitral Award (Merits) on the South China Sea Dispute","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"3","owner":"2","path":["39"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2019-08-22"},"publish_date":"2019-08-22","publish_status":"0","recid":"1069","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["Validity of International Law over Historic Rights : The Arbitral Award (Merits) on the South China Sea Dispute"],"weko_creator_id":"2","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2024-02-28T00:58:26.874340+00:00"}