Q1)“The UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea is far too vague to be considered anything more than some general guidance
to States. In fact, given the absence of any articles whatsoever which
determine, with any precision and clarity, what States can and cannot do in the
oceans, the word ‘Law’ in its title seems totally misleading.” Please
critically comment on the above statement and, where
appropriate, indicate how you consider the statement to be incorrect.
Q2) Critically discuss whether there is a need to include
exceptions to the prohibition of threat or use of force of article 2(4) of the
UN Charter beyond the two existing ones.
Q3) Has Myanmar
committed genocide against its Rohingya minority? Critically discuss with
reference to the Genocide Convention
1.
“The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is far too vague to be considered
anything more than some general guidance to States. In fact, given the absence
of any articles whatsoever which determine, with any precision and clarity,
what States can and cannot do in the oceans, the word ‘Law’ in its title seems
totally misleading.” Please critically comment on the above statement and,
where appropriate, indicate how you consider the statement to be incorrect.As
the foundation for a regional maritime security framework, the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has significant limits. The first is
the ambiguity in countries with complex naval geography. For instance, the
ambiguity in East Asia is partly due to the relatively complicated maritime
geography of the region with its many islands, narrow shipping channels and
archipelagos (Bateman 2007). However,
the limits stem from the sophistication of UNCLOS, its numerous inherent
ambiguities, and the subsequent growth of the law of the sea. These elements
offer insights into generic global issues rather than the needs and
peculiarities of specific areas. Nations in East Asia exhibit many differing
viewpoints on the primary areas of UNCLOS, and there is no clear regional view
evident on numerous issues. On the other hand, Cambodia, Thailand, the United
States, North Korea, and Timor-Leste are not part of this treaty. The United
States’ absence from the treaty is a considerable limitation of UNCLOS (Bateman 2007). The primary issue
the United States had with the treaty was the ratification attitude of the
powerful mining lobby to the sixth part of UNCLOS. There have also been
concerns that ratification of the treaty could restrict maritime operations by
the United States forces. Additionally, an article in the United States Navy
Institute proceedings claimed that UNCLOS is defective on economic, national
security, sovereignty, and judicial basis. Therefore, UNCLOS has various
limitations based on its ambiguity and other factors.