The Application Of Article 300 Of United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea

As the interest propositions of various countries and the competition for resources continue to expand from land to sea,frictions and disputes around the sea are inevitably increasing.Collision and conflicts before the exercise of national maritime jurisdiction powers and the freedom of navigation of ships,and the legality and legitimacy of detaining ships of other countries have all caused maritime disputes between countries to varying degrees.Flexible use of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(hereinafter referred to as the "Convention")for peaceful settlement of maritime disputes has become the general trend.However,due to the different understanding of the Convention system by various countries,there have also been many differences in the interpretation and application of the Convention.The Law of the Sea Tribunal has judged and discussed different levels of quick release,interim measures,jurisdiction of the exclusive economic zone,freedom of navigation on the high seas,maritime delimitation,etc.in earlier practice.In addition to exploring "freedom of navigation" in accordance with Article 87,this case also specifically explains and judges the application of Article 300.This article starts with the case of Norstar,the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,and focuses on analyzing and studying the application of Article 300 of the Convention.This article is divided into five parts.The first part introduces the basic case of this case,the focus of the dispute and the judgment result.The Panamanian vessel "Norstar" was ordered by the Italian prosecutor to detain Spain for fueling the yacht in the Mediterranean Sea.In 2015,Panama prosecuted Italy to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.In the substantive trial,the application of Article 87 "Freedom of Navigation" and Article 300 "Goodwill" and "Abuse of Rights" was the main concern.The second part mainly analyzes the application conditions of Article 300,and refers to the previous explorations in judicial practice,such as the "Luisa","Virginia G" case,the Chagos Islands arbitration case.The application of Article300 in the case leads to the conclusion that Article 300 of the Convention cannot be invoked alone.When invoked,it must be combined with the specific provisions of the Convention to indicate that the parties have not exercised their obligations under the Convention in good faith or that Abuse of the rights granted by the Covenant.In the third part,the author discusses the determination of "good faith" and its interpretation and application under Article 300,and also puts forward the author’s conclusion in conjunction with the objections raised by individual judges in this case.The fourth part discusses the determination of "abuse of rights" and the application and controversy of "abuse of rights" in this case.The fifth part combines the current status of China’s maritime rights protection,and puts forward our suggestions when dealing with maritime disputes.China should make good use of the "Convention" to clarify China’s position to maintain the rights granted to it,strengthen the right of international discourse,and actively promote the construction of the Convention.As the core of the improvement of the international maritime legal system.At the same time,the obligations of international law should be performed in good faith,and the obligations of the Convention should be fulfilled to actively resolve disputes related to ocean-related issues.