Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

China’s Theory and Practice on Maritime Dispute Resolution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

  • 407 Accesses

Abstract

As the outcome of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides rules and guidance for constructing a marine legal order

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    John E. Noyes, “Compulsory Third-Party Adjudication and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, Connecticut Journal of International Law 4, 1989, p. 675.

  2. 2.

    See Gao Jianjun, Dispute Settlement System under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Revised Edition, Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press 2014; Natalie Klein, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; J. G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement, 5thed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 167–193; Igor V. Karaman, Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012; A. O. Adede, “The basic structure of the disputes settlement part of the Law of the Sea Convention”, Ocean Development and International Law 11, 1982, Issue 1–2, pp. 125–148; J. I. Charney, “The implications of expanding international dispute settlement systems: The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea”, American Journal of International Law 90, 1996, pp. 69–74; A. E. Boyle, “Dispute settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of fragmentation and jurisdiction”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46, 1997, pp. 37–54.

  3. 3.

    Article 246 is on marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf, and article 253 is on suspension or cessation of marine scientific research activities.

  4. 4.

    60th Plenary meeting, Document: A/CONF.62/SR.60, para.27, the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume V (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First, Second and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Fourth Session), https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_5/a_conf62_sr60.pdf, visited on 1 June 2020.

  5. 5.

    60th Plenary meeting, Document: A/CONF.62/SR.60, para. 27, the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume V (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First, Second and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Fourth Session), https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_5/a_conf62_sr60.pdf, visited on 1 June 2020.

  6. 6.

    103rd Plenary meeting, Document: A/CONF.62/SR.103, para.77, he Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume IX (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First, Second and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Seventh and Resumed Seventh Session), https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_9/a_conf62_sr103.pdf, visited on 1 June 2020.

  7. 7.

    112th Plenary Meetings, Document: A/CONF.62/SR.112, para.49, the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume XI (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First, Second and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Eighth Session) https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_11/a_conf62_sr112.pdf, visited on 30 May 2020.

  8. 8.

    60th Plenary meeting, Document: A/CONF.62/SR.60, para.28, the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Volume V (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First, Second and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Fourth Session), https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1973_los/docs/english/vol_5/a_conf62_sr60.pdf, visited on 1June 2020.

  9. 9.

    Declarations and statements, http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#China%20Upon%20ratification, visited on 13 July 2018.

  10. 10.

    Declarations and statements, http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#China%20Upon%20ratification, visited on 13 July 2018.

  11. 11.

    Full Text: China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, http://english.www.gov.cn/state_council/ministries/2016/07/13/content_281475392503075.htm, visited on 28 May 2020.

  12. 12.

    China and South Korea Issued a Joint Communiqué: Resolve the Maritime Delimitation Issue between China and South Korea as soon as Possible,http://www.china.com.cn/news/txt/2008-08/26/content_16330701.htm, visited on 28 May 2020.

  13. 13.

    The Action Plan for Enriching China and ROK Strategic Partnership, http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2013-06/28/content_2435863.htm, visited on 28 May 2020.

  14. 14.

    China and ROK Hold the First Round Maritime Delimitation Talks Successfully, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/bjhysws_674671/xgxw_674673/t1326878.shtml, visited on 28 May 2020.

  15. 15.

    China and ROK’s Governmental Delegations hold in Beijing the Second Round Talks on Maritime Delimitation, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/bjhysws_674671/xgxw_674673/t1683401.shtml, visited on 28 May 2020.

  16. 16.

    China and ROK will Hold the Second Bureau-level Meeting in Busan to Discuss the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone, http://www.guancha.cn/Neighbors/2016_12_16_384699.shtml, visited on 22 May 2020.

  17. 17.

    China and Japan have reached Principled Consensus on the East China Sea Issue, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/dhdw_673027/t466568.shtml, visited on 13 July 2018.

  18. 18.

    Zhou Jian, The Practice of International Law on the Delimitation of Beibu Gulf between China and Viet Nam, Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies, 5, 2019, pp. 11–18.

  19. 19.

    Briefing on the Agreement on the Delimitation of the Beibu Gulf between China and Vietnam, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgkhb/chn/xwdt/t146857.htm, visited on 13 July 2018.

  20. 20.

    China and Viet Nam Signed in Beijing Complementary Protocol on Fishery Cooperation Agreement in Beibu Gulf, http://jiuban.moa.gov.cn/zwllm/zwdt/200404/t20040429_200411.htm, visited on 28 May 2020.

  21. 21.

    Article 2 of Agreement between China and Viet Nam on the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas, Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelves of the two Countries in Beibu Gulf.

  22. 22.

    Article 7 of Agreement between China and Viet Nam on the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas, Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelves of the two Countries in Beibu Gulf.

  23. 23.

    Article 4 of DOC, https://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea-2, visited on 29 May 2020.

  24. 24.

    Consultation on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea Takes a Key Step, People’s Daily (Overseas Edition), 3 August 2019.

  25. 25.

    The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, para. 131, http://english.www.gov.cn/state_council/ministries/2016/07/13/content_281475392503075.htm,visited on 1 June 2020.

  26. 26.

    Jonathan I. Charney & Lewis M. Alexander, International Maritime Boundaries, Volume I, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993, pp. 1019–1037,1049–1056, 1091–1097).

  27. 27.

    Jonathan I. Charney & Lewis M. Alexander, International Maritime Boundaries, Volume II, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993, pp. 1443–1472.

  28. 28.

    Jonathan I. Charney & Robert W. Smith, International Maritime Boundaries, Volume IV, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, pp. 2683–2694.

  29. 29.

    David A. Colson, & Robert W. Smith, International Maritime Boundaries, Volume VI, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011, pp. 4301–4315.

  30. 30.

    These states are: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Laos, and Viet Nam.

  31. 31.

    Department of Treaty and Law of PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Treaty Collections on Border Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (volume on China-India and China-Bhutan), World Knowledge Press 2004, pp. 3–4, and pp. 59-64 (in Chinese).

  32. 32.

    Ibid., pp. 90–103.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., pp. 123–132.

  34. 34.

    Ye Xingping. Pacific Settlement of Dispute (revised version), Beijing:Law Press, 2008, p. 233.

  35. 35.

    J.G. Merrills. International Dispute Settlement, 5th Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011, p. 2. Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020.

  36. 36.

    Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020.

  37. 37.

    Chinese Society of International Law, The Tribunal’s Award in the “South China Sea Arbitration” Initiated by the Philippines is Null and Void, Beijing:Law Press 2016, pp. 1–110.

  38. 38.

    Chinese Society of International Law, The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study, Beijing: Foreign Languages Press 2018, pp. 1–654.

  39. 39.

    Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, paras. 4-29, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020; Chinese Society of International Law, The Tribunal’s Award in the “South China Sea Arbitration” The South China Sea Arbitration Awards, Law Press 2016, pp. 79–86; Chinese Society of International Law, The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study, Foreign Languages Press 2018, paras. 84–109, paras. 207–269.

  40. 40.

    Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, paras. 30–56 https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020; Chinese Society of International Law (2016, pp. 79–86), Chinese Society of International Law (2018, paras. 270–330).

  41. 41.

    Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, paras. 57–75, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020; Chinese Society of International Law (2016, pp. 70–79), Chinese Society of International Law (2018, paras. 153–186).

  42. 42.

    Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, para. 3, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020.

  43. 43.

    Chinese Society of International Law (2018, para. 275).

  44. 44.

    Day 2, Hearing on jurisdiction and Admissibility between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, 8 July 2015, PCA Case No. 2013–19, pp. 20–21.

  45. 45.

    See Chinese Society of International Law (2018, paras. 275–328); “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines”, paras. 35–39, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/tyfls_665260/tfsxw_665262/t1217147.shtml, visited on 29 May 2020; Chinese Society of International Law (2016, pp. 79–86).

  46. 46.

    See Natalie Klein, Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 43.

  47. 47.

    See Myron H. Nordquist (Editor-in-Chief), Shabtai Rosenne and Louis B. Sohn (Volume Editors), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. V, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989, p. 27.

  48. 48.

    See Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 71.

  49. 49.

    See Liu Heng, “Legal Requirements for the Establishment of Jurisdiction over Compulsory Arbitration of Maritime Disputes: From the Perspective of Arbitration under Annex VII of the UNCLOS”, China Oceans Law Review, Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 12.

  50. 50.

    Settlement of disputes mechanism, http://www.un.org/depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/choice_procedure.htm#Choice_of_procedure, visited on 29 May 2020.

  51. 51.

    “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines”, paras. 30–44.

  52. 52.

    Some scholars hold that the legal obligation of exchange of views is the mandatory negotiation rule in the voluntary settlement mechanism of the convention. Pan Junwu, “Compulsory Dispute Settlement System in 1982 UNCLOS: A Profound Analysis”, Science of Law (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), 2014, No. 4, p. 194.

  53. 53.

    See Stefan Talmon and Bing Bing Jia, The South China Sea Arbitration: A Chinese Perspective, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014, p. 60.

  54. 54.

    Chinese Society of International Law (2016, p. 18).

  55. 55.

    See David Anderson, “Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, in Tafsir Malick Ndiaye and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes : Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007, p. 865.

  56. 56.

    See Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Separate Opinion of Judge Ndiaye, para. 4.

  57. 57.

    See Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, para. 378; see also M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v. Italy), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 4 November 2016, para.208.

  58. 58.

    See Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 15.

  59. 59.

    See Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Response of Singapore, p. 23. para. 68.

  60. 60.

    See Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand-Japan, Australia-Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Decision of 4 August 2000, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 2000, Vol. 23, para. 55.

  61. 61.

    See Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, paras. 33, 60.

  62. 62.

    See Ibid., paras. 57–59.

  63. 63.

    For example, of an unjustified breaking off of the discussions, abnormal delay, disregard of the agreed procedures, systematic refusals to take into consideration adverse proposals or interests, and, more generally, in cases of violation of the rules of good faith. See The Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), International Law Report 24, 1957, p. 128.

  64. 64.

    See MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 107, para. 58.

  65. 65.

    See Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore)Provisional Measures, Order of October 8, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 19, paras. 39–40, p. 20, paras. 49–50.

  66. 66.

    See Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal, 11 April 2006, paras. 195–198.

  67. 67.

    See M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 December 2010, ITLOS Reports 2008–2010, p. 68, paras. 63–65.

  68. 68.

    Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Separate opinion of Judge Rao, para. 11.

  69. 69.

    See M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 December 2020, ITLOS Reports 2008–2010, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Wolfrum, para. 28.

  70. 70.

    See M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Provisional Measures, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Golitsyn, para. 8.

  71. 71.

    See M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Provisional Measures, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Treves, paras. 7–11.

  72. 72.

    “Position Paper”, paras. 47–50. “The Tribunal’s Award in the ‘South China Sea Arbitration’ initiated by the Philippines is Null and Void”, pp. 86–90. “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study”, paras. 331–352.

References

  • Adede, A. O. (1982). The basic structure of the disputes settlement part of the Law of the Sea Convention. Ocean Development and International Law, 11(1–2), 125–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. (2007) Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In Ndiaye, T. M. and Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (p. 865). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, A. E. (1997). Dispute settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of fragmentation and jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney, J. I. (1996). The implications of expanding international dispute settlement systems: The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. American Journal of International Law 90, 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, J. I., & Alexander, L. M. (1993a). International maritime boundaries, Volume I (pp. 1019–1037, 1049–1056, 1091–1097). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, J. I., & Alexander, L. M. (1993b). International maritime boundaries, Volume II (pp. 1443–1472). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, J. I., & Smith, R. W. (2002). International maritime boundaries, Volume IV (pp. 2683–2694). Haque: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinese Society of International Law. (2016). The Tribunal’s Award in the “South China Sea Arbitration” initiated by the Philippines is null and void (pp. 1–110). Beijing: Law Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinese Society of International Law. (2018). The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A critical study (pp. 1–654). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colson, D. A., & Smith, R. W. (2011). International maritime boundaries, Volume VI (pp. 4301–4315). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. (2015). Legal requirements for the establishment of jurisdiction over compulsory arbitration of maritime disputes: from the perspective of arbitration under Annex VII of the UNCLOS. China Oceans Law Review, 1, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J. J. (2014). Dispute Settlement System under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Revised ed.). Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaman, I. V. (2012). Dispute resolution in the law of the Sea. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (2005). Dispute settlement in the UN convention on the law of the Sea. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merrills, J. G. (2011). International dispute settlement (5th ed., pp. 167–193). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nordquist, M. H., Rosenne, S., & Sohn, L. B. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. V (p. 27). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyes, E. J. (1989). Compulsory third-party adjudication and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 4, 675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon, S., & Jia, B. B. (2014). The South China Sea Arbitration: A Chinese perspective (p. 60). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye, X. P. (2008). Pacific settlement of dispute (revised version). Beijing: Law Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J. (2019). The Practice of International Law on the Delimitation of Beibu Gulf between China and Viet Nam. Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies, 5, 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

    Bo Qu

Authors
  1. Bo Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Qu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Law, Kobe University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan

    Dai Tamada

  2. School of Justice, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK

    Keyuan Zou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Kobe University

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Qu, B. (2021). China’s Theory and Practice on Maritime Dispute Resolution. In: Tamada, D., Zou, K. (eds) Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Kobe University Monograph Series in Social Science Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6954-2_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6954-2_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-33-6953-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-33-6954-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation