English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the 2021  Mauritius/Maldives  (preliminary objections) case, the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rejected Maldives’ first and second preliminary objections to jurisdiction, which were based on the  Monetary Gold  principle. However, the Special Chamber’s reasoning regarding the  Monetary Gold  principle in this case is questionable. This article discusses the application of the principle in this case. After introducing the background to the maritime delimitation dispute between Mauritius and Maldives, this article explores the evolving jurisprudence of the  Monetary Gold  principle and its constitutive elements. It goes on to analyze the application of the  Monetary Gold  principle in the  Mauritius/Maldives  case and criticizes the Special Chamber’s approach, arguing that the Maldives’ first and second preliminary objections should have been upheld.

Reviving the Monetary Gold Principle? A Case Note on the Judgment of Preliminary Objections in the Mauritius/Maldives Case