DILEMA PASAL 121 AYAT (3) KONVENSI HUKUM LAUT INTERNASIONAL 1982 TENTANG BEBATUAN KARANG (STUDI KAJIAN PUTUSAN SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION)

  • C. Bonya A. Susatyo Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
Keywords: Bebatuan Karang, Putusan Pengadilan Internasional, Sengketa Kemaritiman

Abstract

Tulisan ini akan membahas secara spesifik problematika dilematis yang terjadi ketika Pasal 121 ayat (3) Konvensi Hukum Laut Internasional 1982 (1982 United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea) dihadapkan pada praktik-praktik internasional yang dilakukan oleh negara pantai atas eksistensi bebatuan karang yang terdapat di dalam zona maritim negara pantai. Dalam tulisan ini, penulis berpendapat bahwa Pasal 121 ayat (3) Konvensi Hukum Laut 1982 ternyata sangat sulit untuk dipahami dan hal tersebut mengakibatkan klaim negara pantai atas perlakuannya terhadap bebatuan karang menjadi variatif dan menimbulkan kebebasan bagi negara pantai untuk menginterpretasikan Pasal 121 ayat (3) KHL 1982 seturut dengan kepentingan geopolitik dan kebijakan strategisnya.

This paper will specifically discuss the dilemma that occurs when Article 121 paragraph (3) of the 1982 International Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 UNCLOS) is confronted with international practice of the coastal state over the existence of rocks in their maritime zones. In this paper, the author argues that Article 121 paragraph (3) UNCLOS is quite arduous to be understood, causing a varied interpretation from the coastal state regarding a claim of rocks in their respective maritime zone according to their geopolitical interest and policies strategy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Buku
Bouchat CJ, The Paracel Island and U.S. Interest and Approaches in the South China Sea (Department of the Army).
Djalal H, Indonesia and the Law of the Sea (Centre for Strategic and International Studies 1995).

Artikel Jurnal
Dahalan WSAW, et.al, ‘Article 121 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the Maritime Delimitation in the Straits of Singapore’ (2009) 13 Jurnal Undang-undang dan Masyarakat Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Elferink AGO, ‘Clarifying Article 121 (3) of the Law of the Sea Convention:
The Limits Set by the Nature of International Legal Processes’ (1998) 6 (2) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin.
Triggs G, ‘Maritime Boundary Disputes in the South China Sea: Internasional Legal Studies’ (2009) 9 (37) Sydney Law School Research Paper.
Franckx E, The Enigma of Article 121, Paragraph 3: The Way Forward?, Maritime Issues and United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea: Sharing European and Asia Approaches to Territorial Disputes, Halong Bay, Vietnam, June 2015.

Tesis/Disertasi
Breitling D, ‘Small Island Developing State and Statehood’ (Tesis, Faculty of Social Science Charler University in Prague 2018).
Choon PS, ‘The Legal Status of Dokdo under Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS: Is Dokdo Entitled to Generate EEZ or Continental Shelf?’ (Dissertation, World Maritime University 2009).
Henley KD, ‘The Sovereignty of Island: A Contemporary Methodology for the Determination of Rights Over Natural Maritime Resources’ (Disertasi Queensland University of Technology 2003).
Moise F, ‘Island and their Capacity to Generate the Maritime Zone’ (Tesis, University of Oslo, 2008).
Rebello X, ‘Island and Rocks: Moving Towards Certainty on the Interpretation of Article 121 of the Law of the Sea’ (Disertasi, University of Cape Town 2017).
Schofield CH, ‘The Trouble with Island’ (Tesis, University of British Columbia 2009).

Putusan Pengadilan Internasional
South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China) (Award) (UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal, Case Number 2013-19, 12 July 2016) (‘Merits Award').
Published
2019-08-26