Admirality Attorneys

The high court is full Alaskans this morning, and the press has a super effort for all. The Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, and most of these people are still not surrendered. Indeed, over 32000 fishermen and small businesses, the owners of these class action lawsuit filed against Exxon in 1994, more than 20 percent are now dead. Outside the court, Alaskans hold banners demanding justice. And accompanying me in the section of the press today, at least four journalists from various newspapers in Alaska. He himself is as a plaintiff, the Exxon-costume. Moments before the argument starts at them some are even on the front two rows reserved for the final judgement of the corporation to strike at the sacred soil of your usual journalists dare not aspire.

The class action suit against Exxon 1994 led to a decision of the jury of $ 5 billion punitive damages, hit $ 2.5 billion from the United States by the Federal Constitution, the Court of Appeal. Exxon, which has already paid $ 3.4 billion in cleanup costs. The issues on which the Court has granted certiorari are narrow, and the envy of a crime it did not amount to analysis rather than “What did you bring for drunken sailor ? Unlike other cases, punitive damages, the Court found the end, the case of Exxon only runs anyway if the law of the sea precludes such a huge reward, either because the owner can not be liable deputy for the implementation of their drunken sailors, or the clean water because the law should be read to borders to punitive damages. almost as fast as hearing begins, one thing is very clear we are all increasingly on the ocean.

Former General Counsel and frequent Slate contribution Walter Dellinger’s mission is the protection of the quantity of oil. Taken as a whole, in 1989, he recognized an accident, the Prince William Sound was “one of the worst environmental disasters in the United States in maritime history, but that sound a note, then, nowadays it is often repeated, calls for Exxon has already been paid. Citing a case of the Admiralty 1818 is called a marvel, the Amiable Nancy, he argues that respect for the judgement against Exxon would be too disturbing, the Law of the Sea, one on “almost 200 years .

MANILA, Philippines, Six Asian countries claim the Spratly Islands — China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Disputes among these six parties have led to various minor military skirmishes, the detention of fisherfolk and diplomatic rows in the past three decades.

Control of the Spratlys is important since the region is supposed to contain large deposits of oil, gas, hydrocarbon and mineral resources. The islands are also strategically located in the sea lanes for commerce and transport in the South China Sea.

The Spratlys consist of about 26 islands and islets and 7 groups of rocks in the South China Sea found approximately between the latitude of 4 degrees to 11 degrees 30′N. and longitude 109 degrees 30′E. They have a maritime area of 160,000 square kilometers and an insular area of about 170 hectares.

The Spratlys are popular among fishermen. However, they are considered dangerous for commercial navigation. Maps from the early part of the last century have advised seamen to avoid passing through them.

Japan explored the Spratlys for military reasons during World War II. The British Admiralty and U.S. Navy have also ordered some top secret missions there. But the U.S. Navy never released the new charts of the Spratlys to civilian authorities. Writer Francois-Xavier Bonnet wonders about the role of the Spratlys during the Vietnam War.

In 1933 a Philippine senator protested the French annexation of the Spratlys. A parliamentary committee studied the issue but the U.S. government, which controlled the Philippines at that time, did not take an interest in the matter.

In 1946 Vice President Elpidio Quirino claimed the Spratlys on behalf of the Philippine government. A year later, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs declared that the “New Southern Islands” previously occupied by Japan during World War II were part of Philippine territory.

In 1955 the Philippine military reported that the Spratly island group was of “vital proximity” to the country. The following year, Filipino navigator and businessman Tomas Cloma issued a “proclamation to the whole world” claiming ownership and occupation of the Spratlys. Cloma sent six letters to the government about the need to settle the question of ownership of the islands.

The vice president of the Philippines replied in 1957, assuring Cloma that the government “does not regard with indifference the economic exploitation and settlement of these uninhabited and unoccupied islands by Philippine nationals.”

According to Filipino law professor Haydee Yorac, the Cloma Proclamation was the first assertion of title to the Spratlys after Japan renounced its ownership of the islands in 1951 and 1952.

In 1978 President Ferdinand Marcos issued a proclamation declaring ownership of most of the islands in the Spratlys. The area was renamed the Kalayaan (Freedom) Island Group. The proclamation laid the following basis for the Philippine claim: “By virtue of their proximity and as part of the continental margin of the Philippine archipelago”; that “they do not legally belong to any state or nation, but by reason of history; indispensable need, and effective occupation and control established in accordance with international law”; and while other states have laid claims to some of these areas, their claims have lapsed by abandonment and cannot prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical, and equitable ground.”

In 1995 President Fidel Ramos articulated the Philippine position regarding the Spratlys issue. He said “I would like to clarify that the Philippines does not only claim eight islands in the Spratlys but owns all islands and waters in the Spratlys as defined in the presidential decree issued by former President Marcos.”

Militarization of the Spratlys started in the 1970s. The Philippines sent a military contingent to occupy some of the islands in 1971. After four years, the Philippines had already established a military presence in six islands. Today, the Philippines occupies eight islands in the area.

The Philippine military insists it is ready to protect and assert Philippine sovereignty in the Spratlys at all costs. However, in the mid-1980s the Philippine defense secretary publicly recommended that the Philippines should give up its claim to the islands, since it had limited capacity to defend them.

Prospects are dim for international bodies like the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal on the Law and the U.N. Charter to resolve the issue of ownership in the Spratlys. A military solution should be avoided since it would threaten the stability of the region and the world. The best approach should be the forging of bilateral and multilateral agreements among claimants.

Retired Philippine Ambassador Rodolfo A. Arizala has proposed the following options to peacefully settle the Spratlys dispute: Antarctic type of treaty, joint administration and co-imperium or condominium.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 by 12 countries which agreed to “freeze” their claims on the Antarctic Territories for the duration of the treaty. In the meantime, the claimants vowed to work for the development of new international legal arrangements to settle the dispute and the launching of scientific and cooperative activities in the region.

Co-imperium or condominium refers to joint rights of administration. Condominium, in particular, covers the right to dispose of a territory.

In 2004 the Philippines, Vietnam and China signed the controversial “Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in Certain Areas in the South China Sea.” The agreement excluded other claimants in the region. The agreement also covered many islands in the Spratlys which are claimed only by the Philippines. Opposition politicians are accusing the Philippine president of having committed treason.

Is the “Joint Undertaking” the proper way to resolve the issue of ownership in the Spratlys? Dialogue among all parties should be continued. Cooperative activities should be pursued. But these approaches should all be done in a transparent manner.