Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0005
D. Bosco
The years following the Second World War saw dramatic national expansion into the ocean. The United States began the process in 1945 by claiming the continental shelf and expanded fishing rights. Other countries followed suit, sometimes with even more ambitious claims. New concerns about overfishing motivated many countries to expand their national waters. National pressure on freedom of the seas combined with a conceptual challenge as newly independent countries argued that the doctrine had aided colonialism by the West. On the environmental front, figures like Rachel Carson warned about the damage humans were inflicting on the oceans. Meanwhile, ocean commerce went through a revolution prompted by the development of container shipping. The Soviet Union became a major maritime power, a transformation that would have major implications for the effort to provide a new legal framework for the oceans.
{"title":"Adrift","authors":"D. Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"The years following the Second World War saw dramatic national expansion into the ocean. The United States began the process in 1945 by claiming the continental shelf and expanded fishing rights. Other countries followed suit, sometimes with even more ambitious claims. New concerns about overfishing motivated many countries to expand their national waters. National pressure on freedom of the seas combined with a conceptual challenge as newly independent countries argued that the doctrine had aided colonialism by the West. On the environmental front, figures like Rachel Carson warned about the damage humans were inflicting on the oceans. Meanwhile, ocean commerce went through a revolution prompted by the development of container shipping. The Soviet Union became a major maritime power, a transformation that would have major implications for the effort to provide a new legal framework for the oceans.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123507004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0009
David L. Bosco
Seabed mining became more active as companies invested in technologies to harvest valuable minerals. Momentum toward commercial mining would test directly the idea of international control of ocean space. The industry’s prospects also revived attention to whether the United States might join the Convention, and the Obama administration pushed to secure ratification. That effort failed, mostly because of conservative concerns about the internationalization of the seabed. Washington’s continued refusal to join the Convention created a complicated situation in which the leading maritime power claimed to defend maritime rules but was outside the Convention. From inside the Convention, China and Russia both challenged maritime rules. Both countries rejected international rulings critical of their maritime behavior. Despite an international ruling, China continued its efforts to secure special rights in the South China Sea, and the United States responded by increasing its naval activities in the area and conducting more freedom of navigation operations.
{"title":"System Under Strain","authors":"David L. Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"Seabed mining became more active as companies invested in technologies to harvest valuable minerals. Momentum toward commercial mining would test directly the idea of international control of ocean space. The industry’s prospects also revived attention to whether the United States might join the Convention, and the Obama administration pushed to secure ratification. That effort failed, mostly because of conservative concerns about the internationalization of the seabed. Washington’s continued refusal to join the Convention created a complicated situation in which the leading maritime power claimed to defend maritime rules but was outside the Convention. From inside the Convention, China and Russia both challenged maritime rules. Both countries rejected international rulings critical of their maritime behavior. Despite an international ruling, China continued its efforts to secure special rights in the South China Sea, and the United States responded by increasing its naval activities in the area and conducting more freedom of navigation operations.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116515293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0006
David L. Bosco
As national claims to ocean space proliferated, diplomats tried to set new rules for the oceans. The idea of the oceans as humanity’s “common heritage” gained support as an alternative to freedom of the seas. The negotiations featured divisions between the leading maritime powers, who were most concerned about preserving open access to the oceans, and many coastal countries more concerned with protecting regional waters. The diplomats eventually crafted an elaborate compromise that expanded the territorial sea to 12 miles and created a large new economic zone within which coastal states would have the right to regulate marine resources. A host of other provisions dealt with questions including passage through international straits, regulation of ice-covered areas, and the ocean rights of archipelagic countries. The United States, the leading maritime power, ultimately turned against the agreement, primarily because of concerns about how the treaty would regulate seabed mining.
{"title":"The Ocean Constitution","authors":"David L. Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"As national claims to ocean space proliferated, diplomats tried to set new rules for the oceans. The idea of the oceans as humanity’s “common heritage” gained support as an alternative to freedom of the seas. The negotiations featured divisions between the leading maritime powers, who were most concerned about preserving open access to the oceans, and many coastal countries more concerned with protecting regional waters. The diplomats eventually crafted an elaborate compromise that expanded the territorial sea to 12 miles and created a large new economic zone within which coastal states would have the right to regulate marine resources. A host of other provisions dealt with questions including passage through international straits, regulation of ice-covered areas, and the ocean rights of archipelagic countries. The United States, the leading maritime power, ultimately turned against the agreement, primarily because of concerns about how the treaty would regulate seabed mining.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"337 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115669714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0008
David L. Bosco
Post–Cold War ocean diplomacy appeared promising, particularly in the Arctic. Countries in the region negotiated maritime boundaries and cooperated on environmental concerns. Globally, several new maritime organizations took shape, including a tribunal and an organization to manage the deep seabed. Many countries proved eager to get more undersea territory, and they assembled legal claims to large areas of the continental shelf. These developments were accompanied by increased tension in the South China Sea, where China asserted special rights. Its moves provoked tension with other countries, including the United States. A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft highlighted the risks. The new legal framework for the oceans was tested in other ways, including through boarding operations and moves by countries to keep dangerous vessels far away from their coasts. The effort to control fishing activities continued and featured both dramatic high-seas chases and quiet negotiations by regional organizations.
{"title":"The Convention in Operation","authors":"David L. Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Post–Cold War ocean diplomacy appeared promising, particularly in the Arctic. Countries in the region negotiated maritime boundaries and cooperated on environmental concerns. Globally, several new maritime organizations took shape, including a tribunal and an organization to manage the deep seabed. Many countries proved eager to get more undersea territory, and they assembled legal claims to large areas of the continental shelf. These developments were accompanied by increased tension in the South China Sea, where China asserted special rights. Its moves provoked tension with other countries, including the United States. A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft highlighted the risks. The new legal framework for the oceans was tested in other ways, including through boarding operations and moves by countries to keep dangerous vessels far away from their coasts. The effort to control fishing activities continued and featured both dramatic high-seas chases and quiet negotiations by regional organizations.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128412678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0003
David Bosco
As Britain became the dominant naval power with increasingly global reach, its approach to the oceans underwent an important shift. London abandoned its claims to sovereignty over nearby waters and used its diplomatic and economic weight to push for a three-mile limit to territorial waters. At the same time, Britain shifted away from mercantilism and toward an embrace of free ocean commerce. As the anti-slavery movement gained influence in Britain, London used its maritime might to crack down on the slave trade and to stamp out piracy in several parts of the world. Britain was far from consistent in its defense of ocean freedom, however, and it often used its maritime muscle to interfere with shipping. By the end of the 19th century, however, interdictions at sea were becoming less common, and ocean commerce was booming. The first international attempts to study the health of fisheries and regulate shipping began.
{"title":"Britannia’s Rules","authors":"David Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"As Britain became the dominant naval power with increasingly global reach, its approach to the oceans underwent an important shift. London abandoned its claims to sovereignty over nearby waters and used its diplomatic and economic weight to push for a three-mile limit to territorial waters. At the same time, Britain shifted away from mercantilism and toward an embrace of free ocean commerce. As the anti-slavery movement gained influence in Britain, London used its maritime might to crack down on the slave trade and to stamp out piracy in several parts of the world. Britain was far from consistent in its defense of ocean freedom, however, and it often used its maritime muscle to interfere with shipping. By the end of the 19th century, however, interdictions at sea were becoming less common, and ocean commerce was booming. The first international attempts to study the health of fisheries and regulate shipping began.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128724622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0007
David L. Bosco
The Falklands War was a reminder that naval conflict could mean massive restrictions on the use of the oceans. Meanwhile, few Western countries ratified the Convention in the decade after it was finalized. With the Convention stalled, the United States conducted “freedom of navigation” operations to ensure that countries did not claim more of the oceans than Washington thought legal. US operations led to a clash with Libya and a confrontation with the Soviet Union. Other countries focused on sharpening claims to islands, which could give governments rights to nearby waters. At the same time, pressure grew on countries to grapple with overfishing. The costs of unrestricted high-seas fishing became evident in the Bering Sea, where a multinational fleet exhausted fish stocks. The thawing of the Cold War led to diplomatic breakthroughs on both high-seas fishing and seabed mining, paving the way for large-scale ratifications of the Convention.
{"title":"Jockeying for Position","authors":"David L. Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"The Falklands War was a reminder that naval conflict could mean massive restrictions on the use of the oceans. Meanwhile, few Western countries ratified the Convention in the decade after it was finalized. With the Convention stalled, the United States conducted “freedom of navigation” operations to ensure that countries did not claim more of the oceans than Washington thought legal. US operations led to a clash with Libya and a confrontation with the Soviet Union. Other countries focused on sharpening claims to islands, which could give governments rights to nearby waters. At the same time, pressure grew on countries to grapple with overfishing. The costs of unrestricted high-seas fishing became evident in the Bering Sea, where a multinational fleet exhausted fish stocks. The thawing of the Cold War led to diplomatic breakthroughs on both high-seas fishing and seabed mining, paving the way for large-scale ratifications of the Convention.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122071277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-23DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0002
David L. Bosco
Aspects of ocean governance have ancient roots, including early anti-piracy campaigns and basic rules for maritime commerce. Sovereign rulers periodically attempted to control ocean space but usually lacked the means to do so. As Spain and Portugal mastered the art of long-range seafaring in the 15th century, however, they attempted to divide the world’s oceans between them, an effort that still stands as one of the most ambitious attempts to divide up the oceans. During that period, Portugal tried to exclude outsiders from the Indian Ocean and asserted the right to control all shipping in the area. Portuguese claims prompted objections from other European powers and set the stage for the Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius to articulate the doctrine of a “free sea,” based on what he saw as the inherent nature of the oceans. While it faced several rebuttals, Grotius’s conception of the oceans mostly prevailed.
{"title":"The Oceans Become Global","authors":"David L. Bosco","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190265649.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Aspects of ocean governance have ancient roots, including early anti-piracy campaigns and basic rules for maritime commerce. Sovereign rulers periodically attempted to control ocean space but usually lacked the means to do so. As Spain and Portugal mastered the art of long-range seafaring in the 15th century, however, they attempted to divide the world’s oceans between them, an effort that still stands as one of the most ambitious attempts to divide up the oceans. During that period, Portugal tried to exclude outsiders from the Indian Ocean and asserted the right to control all shipping in the area. Portuguese claims prompted objections from other European powers and set the stage for the Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius to articulate the doctrine of a “free sea,” based on what he saw as the inherent nature of the oceans. While it faced several rebuttals, Grotius’s conception of the oceans mostly prevailed.","PeriodicalId":338177,"journal":{"name":"The Poseidon Project","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133304490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：