The anthrax mailings of late 2001 triggered one of the costliest and most complex criminal investigations in the history of the United States Department of Justice. Parts of that investigation were carried out with impressive skill and creativity, but parts were not. The seven-year history of the anthrax investigation highlights certain longstanding problems at the Department of Justice: the Department's underdeveloped interface with organized science, its insufficient preparation for criminal investigations conducted at the intersection of public health, and its lack of formalized processes for institutional learning. This article reviews the course of the Department of Justice's anthrax investigation and then draws two sets of lessons, one having to do with thinking systematically about science, and the other having to do with thinking scientifically about systems. The first set of lessons includes the need for better and clearer decision-making and communication protocols for crises arising at the intersection of law enforcement and public health, the benefits of preserving the values of transparency and neutrality in harnessing scientific expertise, and the desirability of institutional structures to bridge the culture gap between law enforcement and science. The second set of lessons centers on the advantages of developing formal procedures for institutional learning within the Department of Justice, modeled on the "after action" reviews conducted by other government agencies.
{"title":"Science, Suspects, and Systems: Lessons from the Anthrax Investigation","authors":"E. Murphy, D. Sklansky","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1110","url":null,"abstract":"The anthrax mailings of late 2001 triggered one of the costliest and most complex criminal investigations in the history of the United States Department of Justice. Parts of that investigation were carried out with impressive skill and creativity, but parts were not. The seven-year history of the anthrax investigation highlights certain longstanding problems at the Department of Justice: the Department's underdeveloped interface with organized science, its insufficient preparation for criminal investigations conducted at the intersection of public health, and its lack of formalized processes for institutional learning. This article reviews the course of the Department of Justice's anthrax investigation and then draws two sets of lessons, one having to do with thinking systematically about science, and the other having to do with thinking scientifically about systems. The first set of lessons includes the need for better and clearer decision-making and communication protocols for crises arising at the intersection of law enforcement and public health, the benefits of preserving the values of transparency and neutrality in harnessing scientific expertise, and the desirability of institutional structures to bridge the culture gap between law enforcement and science. The second set of lessons centers on the advantages of developing formal procedures for institutional learning within the Department of Justice, modeled on the \"after action\" reviews conducted by other government agencies.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1110","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68566186","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}
Climate change will require innovative solutions – new energy technologies and new adaptation strategies. These innovations will inevitably pose risks, often in the form of possible harm to human welfare or the environment. Climate change itself involves uncertainties. Evaluating these risks and informing decision makers and members of the public will be challenging. An environmental impact statement does not dictate the substance of regulatory decisions but is at least supposed to force the agency to take a "hard look" at the relevant factors. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to codify this directive in the context of catastrophic risks, which generally have low probabilities but extreme consequences. The problem of how to handle potentially catastrophic risks has vexed the courts. Dam safety and nuclear power have been particularly fertile sources of disputes over risk assessment, and are used here as case studies. This article suggests six improvements in current NEPA practice.
{"title":"Confronting Uncertainty under NEPA","authors":"Daniel A Farber","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1111","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change will require innovative solutions – new energy technologies and new adaptation strategies. These innovations will inevitably pose risks, often in the form of possible harm to human welfare or the environment. Climate change itself involves uncertainties. Evaluating these risks and informing decision makers and members of the public will be challenging. An environmental impact statement does not dictate the substance of regulatory decisions but is at least supposed to force the agency to take a \"hard look\" at the relevant factors. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to codify this directive in the context of catastrophic risks, which generally have low probabilities but extreme consequences. The problem of how to handle potentially catastrophic risks has vexed the courts. Dam safety and nuclear power have been particularly fertile sources of disputes over risk assessment, and are used here as case studies. This article suggests six improvements in current NEPA practice.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1111","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68566232","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}
Since shortly after the implementation of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Department of Justice has sought to constrain the discretion of prosecutors at the charging, plea-bargain and sentencing phases in order to ensure the faithful application of the Guidelines. The latest manifestation of this policy is the so-called "Ashcroft Memorandum," which requires prosecutors to charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense and advocate a Guideline sentence in nearly all cases. Although this policy arguably made sense when the Guidelines were mandatory, it makes less sense now that they are advisory. This article argues that the Department should revisit this policy and return some limited discretion to line prosecutors, particularly at sentencing. Under an advisory Guidelines regime, the Department's current policy of strict adherence to the Guidelines takes prosecutors out of the sentencing process, perpetuates some of the failings of the mandatory Guidelines approach, and prevents line prosecutors from participating in the formulation of sentencing policy. If the Department departs from its current approach, however, the challenge is to determine how much discretion to grant prosecutors. This article suggests various substantive and procedural mechanisms to cabin the discretion exercised by line prosecutors and to ensure uniformity and transparency in sentencing.
{"title":"How Prosecutors Should Exercise Their Discretion Now that the Sentencing Guidelines are Advisory","authors":"A. Whiting","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1107","url":null,"abstract":"Since shortly after the implementation of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Department of Justice has sought to constrain the discretion of prosecutors at the charging, plea-bargain and sentencing phases in order to ensure the faithful application of the Guidelines. The latest manifestation of this policy is the so-called \"Ashcroft Memorandum,\" which requires prosecutors to charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense and advocate a Guideline sentence in nearly all cases. Although this policy arguably made sense when the Guidelines were mandatory, it makes less sense now that they are advisory. This article argues that the Department should revisit this policy and return some limited discretion to line prosecutors, particularly at sentencing. Under an advisory Guidelines regime, the Department's current policy of strict adherence to the Guidelines takes prosecutors out of the sentencing process, perpetuates some of the failings of the mandatory Guidelines approach, and prevents line prosecutors from participating in the formulation of sentencing policy. If the Department departs from its current approach, however, the challenge is to determine how much discretion to grant prosecutors. This article suggests various substantive and procedural mechanisms to cabin the discretion exercised by line prosecutors and to ensure uniformity and transparency in sentencing.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1107","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68565899","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}
An important aspect of the history to date of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is the role of urgent proceedings. Of the fifteen cases submitted to the Tribunal from 1997 until the end of 2008, thirteen have related to urgent proceedings, especially proceedings for prompt release of vessels and crews (under article 292 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention), and proceedings for the request of provisional measures, pending constitution of an arbitral tribunal (under article 290, par. 5, of the convention). This article considers the maritime and environmental issues that have come before the Tribunal, with discussion of how urgent proceedings in the cases at issue have responded to the needs of the international community; and it examines other areas of dispute, including maritime boundary delimitation, in which urgent proceedings can be a useful tool for potential litigants.
{"title":"Urgent Proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea","authors":"P. Gautier","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1105","url":null,"abstract":"An important aspect of the history to date of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is the role of urgent proceedings. Of the fifteen cases submitted to the Tribunal from 1997 until the end of 2008, thirteen have related to urgent proceedings, especially proceedings for prompt release of vessels and crews (under article 292 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention), and proceedings for the request of provisional measures, pending constitution of an arbitral tribunal (under article 290, par. 5, of the convention). This article considers the maritime and environmental issues that have come before the Tribunal, with discussion of how urgent proceedings in the cases at issue have responded to the needs of the international community; and it examines other areas of dispute, including maritime boundary delimitation, in which urgent proceedings can be a useful tool for potential litigants.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1105","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68566322","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}
Closing Guantánamo presents a daunting challenge, both politically and practically. The detainees cannot be transferred readily to other locations abroad, and yet many commentators insist that they are too dangerous to be held within the United States. Under current law the detainees cannot continue to be held unless they are charged with crimes; yet the existing military commission system is unsustainable, and many detainees allegedly are impossible to prosecute in traditional courts without jeopardizing classified information. These immediate issues are also symptoms of a more basic problem – the concept of a "global war on terror." Clear thinking about solutions to Guantánamo cannot begin in the absence of clear thinking about the legitimacy of the global war paradigm. The immediate need to address Guantánamo and the broader imperative to find a sustainable framework for the future can both be met by a straightforward principle – the unqualified acceptance of pre-9/11 rules of international law and domestic due process. The difficulties attributed to that traditional approach are not wholly imaginary, but they have been misunderstood and shamelessly exaggerated. Familiar rules and institutions, properly managed, possess ample resources to cope with the challenges of modern terrorism.
{"title":"Unraveling Guantánamo: Detention, Trials and the \"Global War\" Paradigm","authors":"Stephen J. Schulhofer","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1100","url":null,"abstract":"Closing Guantánamo presents a daunting challenge, both politically and practically. The detainees cannot be transferred readily to other locations abroad, and yet many commentators insist that they are too dangerous to be held within the United States. Under current law the detainees cannot continue to be held unless they are charged with crimes; yet the existing military commission system is unsustainable, and many detainees allegedly are impossible to prosecute in traditional courts without jeopardizing classified information. These immediate issues are also symptoms of a more basic problem – the concept of a \"global war on terror.\" Clear thinking about solutions to Guantánamo cannot begin in the absence of clear thinking about the legitimacy of the global war paradigm. The immediate need to address Guantánamo and the broader imperative to find a sustainable framework for the future can both be met by a straightforward principle – the unqualified acceptance of pre-9/11 rules of international law and domestic due process. The difficulties attributed to that traditional approach are not wholly imaginary, but they have been misunderstood and shamelessly exaggerated. Familiar rules and institutions, properly managed, possess ample resources to cope with the challenges of modern terrorism.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1100","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68565208","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}
The first part of the paper examines the significant extension in coastal State jurisdiction offshore and outlines progress in the delimitation of maritime boundaries worldwide. Some of the problems associated with lack of maritime boundary delimitation and the resultant large zones of overlapping maritime claims are then highlighted. Progress in the cooperative management of ocean resources through maritime joint development zones is then reviewed.
{"title":"Blurring the Lines? Maritime Joint Development and the Cooperative Management of Ocean Resources","authors":"C. Schofield","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1103","url":null,"abstract":"The first part of the paper examines the significant extension in coastal State jurisdiction offshore and outlines progress in the delimitation of maritime boundaries worldwide. Some of the problems associated with lack of maritime boundary delimitation and the resultant large zones of overlapping maritime claims are then highlighted. Progress in the cooperative management of ocean resources through maritime joint development zones is then reviewed.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1103","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68565851","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}
North Korea is one of the signatory States which have not yet ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although the Convention is not binding upon North Korea, it should be noted that, as prescribed in Article 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it bears the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Convention on the Law of the Sea may provide us with significant guidelines in assessing the North Korean perspectives as expressed in its literature. The review in this paper will show us how well North Korea takes advantage of the relevant provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the conflicts with its neighboring States to accomplish the goals of its marine policy. After reviewing issues such as the Baseline System and Historic Bays, the Territorial Sea and its Navigational Regimes, the Military Boundary Zone, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf Regimes, the Navigational Regime in Straits used for International Navigation, and also perceptions regarding the High Seas Regime and regarding Maritime Delimitation, this research suggests the incompatibility of North Korea's perspectives on the law of the sea with general international law and the 1982 UN Convention, based mainly upon its establishment of excessive straight baselines and military boundary zones. The fact that the precise locations of its baselines have not been made public may be a serious threat to maritime safety as well. It is recommended that the best way to safeguard the rights of North Korea to use its territorial sea, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone is to ratify the 1982 UN Convention and to abolish its military boundary zones.
{"title":"North Korea and the Law of the Sea","authors":"Chang-hoon Shin, Seokwoo Lee","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1109","url":null,"abstract":"North Korea is one of the signatory States which have not yet ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although the Convention is not binding upon North Korea, it should be noted that, as prescribed in Article 18 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it bears the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of the Convention. Therefore, the Convention on the Law of the Sea may provide us with significant guidelines in assessing the North Korean perspectives as expressed in its literature. The review in this paper will show us how well North Korea takes advantage of the relevant provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the conflicts with its neighboring States to accomplish the goals of its marine policy. After reviewing issues such as the Baseline System and Historic Bays, the Territorial Sea and its Navigational Regimes, the Military Boundary Zone, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf Regimes, the Navigational Regime in Straits used for International Navigation, and also perceptions regarding the High Seas Regime and regarding Maritime Delimitation, this research suggests the incompatibility of North Korea's perspectives on the law of the sea with general international law and the 1982 UN Convention, based mainly upon its establishment of excessive straight baselines and military boundary zones. The fact that the precise locations of its baselines have not been made public may be a serious threat to maritime safety as well. It is recommended that the best way to safeguard the rights of North Korea to use its territorial sea, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone is to ratify the 1982 UN Convention and to abolish its military boundary zones.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1109","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68566130","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}
The difficulties encountered in accomplishing the drastic greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the Earth's climate system have led to incipient interest in geoengineering. Geoengineering proposals, such as the release of sulfur into the stratosphere in order to block sunlight, might serve as an emergency option should emissions reductions efforts fail, or even as a nonemergency policy alternative to emission reductions. This article examines the largely unexplored issue of geoengineering governance, namely, questions regarding who should decide whether geoengineering research or deployment should go forward, how such decisions should be made, and what mechanisms should be in place to address the risk of deployment by rogue actors. The article recommends that the international community begin to address geoengineering governance promptly through the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the bodies established by that agreement, and that geoengineering governance be treated as a series of adaptive management decisions to be reviewed periodically. Such an approach will allow the incorporation of new information into the decisionmaking process and promote the development of consensus and international norms with respect to geoengineering techniques.
{"title":"Geoengineering Governance","authors":"Albert C Lin","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1112","url":null,"abstract":"The difficulties encountered in accomplishing the drastic greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the Earth's climate system have led to incipient interest in geoengineering. Geoengineering proposals, such as the release of sulfur into the stratosphere in order to block sunlight, might serve as an emergency option should emissions reductions efforts fail, or even as a nonemergency policy alternative to emission reductions. This article examines the largely unexplored issue of geoengineering governance, namely, questions regarding who should decide whether geoengineering research or deployment should go forward, how such decisions should be made, and what mechanisms should be in place to address the risk of deployment by rogue actors. The article recommends that the international community begin to address geoengineering governance promptly through the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the bodies established by that agreement, and that geoengineering governance be treated as a series of adaptive management decisions to be reviewed periodically. Such an approach will allow the incorporation of new information into the decisionmaking process and promote the development of consensus and international norms with respect to geoengineering techniques.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1112","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68566289","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}
This article examines the longstanding political and legal obstacles to bilateral cooperation between the United States and Mexico and suggests that bilateral cooperation could be improved without antagonizing long-standing political tensions by creating one or more Transboundary Energy Security and Environmental Cooperation Areas (TESECA) in the GOM's maritime boundary region. Two areas, in particular, that straddle the maritime boundary are especially well suited. The first is known as the Perdido Foldbelt Region, where large quantities of hydrocarbons are known to exist in transboundary reservoirs. The second is the area beyond national jurisdiction known as the Western Gap, which is already governed by an international treaty between the two nations. Creating a TESECA in these areas will provide a valuable institutional forum for bilateral discussion and development of cooperative management opportunities for transboundary hydrocarbons as well as the protection of the marine environment.
{"title":"Establishing Transboundary Marine Energy Security and Environmental Cooperation Areas as a Method of Resolving Longstanding Political Disagreements and Improving Transboundary Resource Management in the Gulf of Mexico","authors":"R. Mclaughlin","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1102","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the longstanding political and legal obstacles to bilateral cooperation between the United States and Mexico and suggests that bilateral cooperation could be improved without antagonizing long-standing political tensions by creating one or more Transboundary Energy Security and Environmental Cooperation Areas (TESECA) in the GOM's maritime boundary region. Two areas, in particular, that straddle the maritime boundary are especially well suited. The first is known as the Perdido Foldbelt Region, where large quantities of hydrocarbons are known to exist in transboundary reservoirs. The second is the area beyond national jurisdiction known as the Western Gap, which is already governed by an international treaty between the two nations. Creating a TESECA in these areas will provide a valuable institutional forum for bilateral discussion and development of cooperative management opportunities for transboundary hydrocarbons as well as the protection of the marine environment.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68565544","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}
When evaluating new trends that have emerged since the conclusion of the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea in 1958, it is apparent that the use and acceptance by states of joint development or cooperative management agreements has increased dramatically during the last fifty years. More significantly, these agreements, related with the exploration, management and exploitation of common maritime natural resources, have become an effective mechanism for achieving peaceful resolution of maritime boundary disputes. As a result, joint development or cooperative management strategies have become a common component of modern maritime boundary delimitation treaties. Moreover, this study will show that Caribbean and Latin American States are in the forefront of this new trend.
{"title":"Joint Development Zones and other Cooperative Management Efforts Related to Transboundary Maritime Resources: A Caribbean and Latin American Model for Peaceful Resolution of Maritime Boundary Disputes","authors":"L. Rodríguez-Rivera","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1101","url":null,"abstract":"When evaluating new trends that have emerged since the conclusion of the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea in 1958, it is apparent that the use and acceptance by states of joint development or cooperative management agreements has increased dramatically during the last fifty years. More significantly, these agreements, related with the exploration, management and exploitation of common maritime natural resources, have become an effective mechanism for achieving peaceful resolution of maritime boundary disputes. As a result, joint development or cooperative management strategies have become a common component of modern maritime boundary delimitation treaties. Moreover, this study will show that Caribbean and Latin American States are in the forefront of this new trend.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1101","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68565459","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：