Abstract
Mixed maritime disputes are maritime disputes that involve the concurrent consideration of any dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory, which according to Article 298(1)(a)(i) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should be excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal referred to in Article 287. However, by means of treaty interpretation or consensus of two parties, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and other Annex VII tribunals have increasingly broken through the limits to actively exercise jurisdiction. Judgements under the influence of this tendency will be firmly resisted by states whose sovereign interests are damaged. Moreover, these judgements will not only fail to resolve disputes, but will create more serious international law and international political disputes, such as the judgement on preliminary objections of Mauritius v. Maldives delimitation case. In this judgement, the Special Chamber of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea circumvented the Monetary Gold principle by citing the International Court of Justice advisory opinion and United Nations General Assembly resolution, which had no legally binding force. It is proposed that this judgement could open Pandora's box of challenges to general principles of international law and jurisdiction over sovereignty disputes. For States with mixed maritime disputes to resolve the issues mentioned above, it is necessary to respond to lawsuits actively, avoid adverse consequences caused by default judgements and reach regional consensus, and avoid unfavourable International Court of Justice advisory opinions and United Nations General Assembly resolutions.