CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

VOJTĚCH POSPÍŠIL CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ in Article 58(3) of the Convention. The Convention establishes systematic hierarchy of obligations, which some of the are due diligence obligations, and some of them are direct obligations. When Articles 58(3), 62(4), 94(6) and 192 of the Convention are read in conjunction, it is clear that the States have specific due diligence obligation to take certain measure to prevent their nationals from illegal actions. Outside of the scope of this paper is factual impact of this arbitration. From the political and international relations point of view, it is important message to China’s illegal activities in South China Sea. Even though, the results of this arbitration proceeding are generally accepted in the international community, it is still unclear how the position of China will evolve. Conclusion The concept of due diligence obligation was largely brought to the attention to international law and international lawyers by the case of Pulp Mills from 2010. International Court of Justice identified basic structure of due diligence obligation. The three cases referenced in this paper, furthermore work with the concept of due diligence obligation in relation with the law of the sea. The analysis indicates that the scope and application of any due diligence obligations is extremely variable, depending on various factors. However, the basic test for determining due diligence obligation has been set. It consists of taking all necessary measures (i.e. adoption of certain laws and rules) and effectively enforcing them. On the other hand, it seems that certain factors are not relevant (most notably, frequency of illegal actions). The Convention contains more provisions, which arguably impose due diligence obligation upon States. Further cases might give us more information about due diligence obligations in different situations and specifications, which factors and variables are relevant in the process of determination due diligence obligations.

140