The South China Sea Arbitration and New Zealand's Maritime Claims

Abstract

The decision in the South China Sea arbitration in relation to the interpretation of art 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has broad implications for states not party to the case. New Zealand, like many other countries, claims an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from uninhabited islands, but no other state has objected to those claims. This article applies the South China Sea approach to art 121(3) to show that, if strictly followed, some maritime features that have been regarded as islands might be classified as rocks not capable of generating maritime zones. The article critiques the reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal, and suggests that another tribunal might not follow its interpretation of art 121(3). In addition, in cases where coastal states such as New Zealand have long-standing claims from uninhabited features, it may be possible to argue that other states cannot challenge these claims based on acquiescence.