Pub Date : 2020-10-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.804
Jeremia Humolong Prasetya
Rapid technological changes in the shipping industry offer advantages and present serious challenges to maritime security and safety. This is how we should respond to the emerging development of unmanned vessels, all the more so because the existing international legal framework was not developed to accommodate their operation at sea. Similarly, the International Maritime Organization has taken this seriously by forming groups to assess such operations’ compatibility with existing maritime conventions. One of the biggest challenges that unmanned vessels pose to the international legal framework concerns the sea manning requirement. This requirement is explicitly stipulated in the Law of the Sea Convention and elaborated in some conventions within International Maritime Organizations’ purview. Against this backdrop, this article attempts to answer whether the unmanned vessels operation is in contravention of international law, particularly provisions on the sea manning element of a ship. To that end, this article will (i) elaborate on the flag state obligations in Article 94 of the Law of the Sea Convention, (ii) explain and identify the Generally Accepted International Rules and Procedures concerning sea manning, and (iii) describe the efforts of the International Maritime Organization in addressing this phenomenon.
{"title":"THE OPERATION OF UNMANNED VESSEL IN LIGHT OF ARTICLE 94 OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION: SEAMANNING REQUIREMENT","authors":"Jeremia Humolong Prasetya","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.804","url":null,"abstract":"Rapid technological changes in the shipping industry offer advantages and present serious challenges to maritime security and safety. This is how we should respond to the emerging development of unmanned vessels, all the more so because the existing international legal framework was not developed to accommodate their operation at sea. Similarly, the International Maritime Organization has taken this seriously by forming groups to assess such operations’ compatibility with existing maritime conventions. One of the biggest challenges that unmanned vessels pose to the international legal framework concerns the sea manning requirement. This requirement is explicitly stipulated in the Law of the Sea Convention and elaborated in some conventions within International Maritime Organizations’ purview. Against this backdrop, this article attempts to answer whether the unmanned vessels operation is in contravention of international law, particularly provisions on the sea manning element of a ship. To that end, this article will (i) elaborate on the flag state obligations in Article 94 of the Law of the Sea Convention, (ii) explain and identify the Generally Accepted International Rules and Procedures concerning sea manning, and (iii) describe the efforts of the International Maritime Organization in addressing this phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87520181","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 : 2020-10-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.801
Faudzan Farhana
The rules of maritime delimitation are of paramount importance in the law of the sea because coastal states will not be able to effectively exercise their legal uses of the sea without definite boundary. However, as customary law, Articles 15, 74 and 83 of UNCLOS did not provide much guidance in any particular delimitation case. Meanwhile, concluded bilateral agreements had not created enough practice of law to qualify as customary law. Thus, it is left to the international tribunals to form the delimitation rules. However, cases decided by the international tribunals show a lack of consistency in applying two main methods based on relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Both equidistance and the equitable principle has been used on plenty of occasions, as well as other criteria. This study aims to examine whether the approach of international tribunals to maritime delimitation cases has become more predictable and consistent during 2009-2019. Limited to the cases decided by the ICJ, ITLOS, and PCA, the study found that there is no significant deviation from the application of Article 15 UNCLOS within the proceedings of the cases. However, the unpredictability of the decision in the Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire case shows that the Court is more focus on the consistency of methodology than principle matter. In applying Article 74 and 83 UNCLOS, the Tribunals also put more effort into ensuring a consistent methodology. However, plenty of discretion also available for the Tribunals. Although such discretion is crucial, it needs to utilise carefully to maintain the consistency and predictability of the law. Without the consistent interpretation and predictable translation of UNCLOS from the International Tribunals, it is impossible to preserve the Law of Maritime Delimitation.
{"title":"Consistency and Predictability in International Tribunals Decision on Maritime Delimitation Cases From 2009 to 2019","authors":"Faudzan Farhana","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.801","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.801","url":null,"abstract":"The rules of maritime delimitation are of paramount importance in the law of the sea because coastal states will not be able to effectively exercise their legal uses of the sea without definite boundary. However, as customary law, Articles 15, 74 and 83 of UNCLOS did not provide much guidance in any particular delimitation case. Meanwhile, concluded bilateral agreements had not created enough practice of law to qualify as customary law. Thus, it is left to the international tribunals to form the delimitation rules. However, cases decided by the international tribunals show a lack of consistency in applying two main methods based on relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Both equidistance and the equitable principle has been used on plenty of occasions, as well as other criteria. This study aims to examine whether the approach of international tribunals to maritime delimitation cases has become more predictable and consistent during 2009-2019. Limited to the cases decided by the ICJ, ITLOS, and PCA, the study found that there is no significant deviation from the application of Article 15 UNCLOS within the proceedings of the cases. However, the unpredictability of the decision in the Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire case shows that the Court is more focus on the consistency of methodology than principle matter. In applying Article 74 and 83 UNCLOS, the Tribunals also put more effort into ensuring a consistent methodology. However, plenty of discretion also available for the Tribunals. Although such discretion is crucial, it needs to utilise carefully to maintain the consistency and predictability of the law. Without the consistent interpretation and predictable translation of UNCLOS from the International Tribunals, it is impossible to preserve the Law of Maritime Delimitation.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72929796","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 : 2020-10-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.802
S. Basir, S. Aziz
The delimitation of maritime areas between neighbors is of vital importance as it provides stable and long-lasting relations. Maritime boundary delimitation has been enriching the international law with a new chapter that has developed steadily in proportion with the related challenges and expectations. However, many maritime boundaries in the world are not delimited. This implies that disputes relating to maritime delimitation have many issues in future. In this case, State shall have to negotiate among them or to use dispute resolution mechanism. Under Article 74 and Article 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for the delimitation of the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the economic exclusive zone. However, maritime delimitation disputes reveal that these provisions hardly occupy the central place they are expected to. This paper examines the issue of undelimited maritime areas where involved the Article 74(3) and Article 83(3) of UNCLOS and of vital importance in that it provides for stable and long-lasting relations among States.
{"title":"Undelimited Maritime Areas: Obligations of States Under Article 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS","authors":"S. Basir, S. Aziz","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.802","url":null,"abstract":"The delimitation of maritime areas between neighbors is of vital importance as it provides stable and long-lasting relations. Maritime boundary delimitation has been enriching the international law with a new chapter that has developed steadily in proportion with the related challenges and expectations. However, many maritime boundaries in the world are not delimited. This implies that disputes relating to maritime delimitation have many issues in future. In this case, State shall have to negotiate among them or to use dispute resolution mechanism. Under Article 74 and Article 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides for the delimitation of the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the economic exclusive zone. However, maritime delimitation disputes reveal that these provisions hardly occupy the central place they are expected to. This paper examines the issue of undelimited maritime areas where involved the Article 74(3) and Article 83(3) of UNCLOS and of vital importance in that it provides for stable and long-lasting relations among States.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86880665","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 : 2020-10-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.805
Yunus Husein, M. Aziz
Indonesia has not yet concluded its maritime boundaries with neighbouring countries. Incidents often occur including Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) Fishing conducted by fishers from neighboring countries. In fact, their actions are sometimes backed by their /coast guard. Maritime delimitation is the final goal that must be achieved to provide legal certainty over the territory and Exclusive Economic Zone of Indonesia and its neighbours. However, achieving that goal is never been easy. Article 74(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 determines joint or provisional arrangements between disputing countries as temporary solution before reaching agreement on delimitation in EEZ. Indonesia must utilize and optimize this provision in order to combat the IUU Fishing, to protect fisheries resources and to support in achieving maritime boundary delimitation. The state already has the relevant legal and institutional framework to implement the provisional arrangement and, once, had a provisional arrangement with Australia decades ago although in the field of hydrocarbon. The arrangement was deemed as the most prominent one at that time. The experience of other countries in implementing of provisional arrangement in combating IIU Fishing, protecting the resources and achieving maritime delimitation might encourage Indonesia to utilize and optimize provisional arrangements in disputed areas.
{"title":"THE NECESSITY TO REFORM INDONESIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON PROVISIONAL ARRANGEMENT TO COMBAT IUU FISHING","authors":"Yunus Husein, M. Aziz","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.805","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.805","url":null,"abstract":"Indonesia has not yet concluded its maritime boundaries with neighbouring countries. Incidents often occur including Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) Fishing conducted by fishers from neighboring countries. In fact, their actions are sometimes backed by their /coast guard. Maritime delimitation is the final goal that must be achieved to provide legal certainty over the territory and Exclusive Economic Zone of Indonesia and its neighbours. However, achieving that goal is never been easy. Article 74(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 determines joint or provisional arrangements between disputing countries as temporary solution before reaching agreement on delimitation in EEZ. Indonesia must utilize and optimize this provision in order to combat the IUU Fishing, to protect fisheries resources and to support in achieving maritime boundary delimitation. The state already has the relevant legal and institutional framework to implement the provisional arrangement and, once, had a provisional arrangement with Australia decades ago although in the field of hydrocarbon. The arrangement was deemed as the most prominent one at that time. The experience of other countries in implementing of provisional arrangement in combating IIU Fishing, protecting the resources and achieving maritime delimitation might encourage Indonesia to utilize and optimize provisional arrangements in disputed areas.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83778016","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 : 2020-10-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.800
Laisa Branco de Almeida
The deep seabed has one of the most enriched biodiverse places on Earth. Scientists have found some essential biomedical breakthroughs derived from hydrothermal vents involved in treating disease outbreaks among seabed minerals. Futuristic as it may sound, new pharmaceutical discoveries pressure the International Seabed Authority (ISA) into strengthening its global rules on mining exploitation beyond areas of national jurisdiction (ABNJ). This paper presents a general evaluation of the existing legal system of deep seabed mining. It highlights that, increasingly, pharmaceutical companies are shifting to ABNJ seabed areas for exploitation, pressuring the international order for a more coherent and effective mining exploitation system for the next decade. The analysis of international legal frameworks for the Law of the Sea is notable. However, there are still substantial gaps in deep seabed mining’s global governance, expected to commence soon, as ISA rushes to approve a new international mining code. The result supports a transparent mining exploitation process in ABNJ, facilitating cooperation between sectors and between countries, fostering equitable sharing, and preserving the fragile ecosystem.
{"title":"OCEAN LAW IN TIMES OF HEALTH EMERGENCY: DEEP SEABED MINING CONTRIBUTIONS AND ITS FEAR OF OVEREXPLOITATION","authors":"Laisa Branco de Almeida","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.800","url":null,"abstract":"The deep seabed has one of the most enriched biodiverse places on Earth. Scientists have found some essential biomedical breakthroughs derived from hydrothermal vents involved in treating disease outbreaks among seabed minerals. Futuristic as it may sound, new pharmaceutical discoveries pressure the International Seabed Authority (ISA) into strengthening its global rules on mining exploitation beyond areas of national jurisdiction (ABNJ). This paper presents a general evaluation of the existing legal system of deep seabed mining. It highlights that, increasingly, pharmaceutical companies are shifting to ABNJ seabed areas for exploitation, pressuring the international order for a more coherent and effective mining exploitation system for the next decade. The analysis of international legal frameworks for the Law of the Sea is notable. However, there are still substantial gaps in deep seabed mining’s global governance, expected to commence soon, as ISA rushes to approve a new international mining code. The result supports a transparent mining exploitation process in ABNJ, facilitating cooperation between sectors and between countries, fostering equitable sharing, and preserving the fragile ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79225995","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 : 2020-07-31DOI: 10.17304/ijil.vol17.4.798
Yurika Ishiii
{"title":"The Myth of the Integrity and Universality of Law of the Sea: Incidents at Sea by Non-Parties of UNCLOS","authors":"Yurika Ishiii","doi":"10.17304/ijil.vol17.4.798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol17.4.798","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83736081","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 : 2020-07-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.797
D. Puspitawati, S. Hadiyantina, Fransisca Ayulistya Susanto, N. Aprianti
This paper aims to analyze Indonesian laws regarding law enforcement in Indonesian waters. Specifically, it analyzes the authority of Badan Keamanan Laut (BAKAMLA) and Indonesian Sea and Coast Guard under the Indonesian Act Number 32 the Year 2014 on the Ocean Affairs Act and Indonesian Act Number 17 the Year 2008 on Navigation Act, respectively. It is argued that the state’s sovereignty over the ocean differs from the state’s sovereignty over the land territory. This is because according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982), the state’s ocean territory is divided into various maritime zones, over which different regimes applied. It is submitted that the farther ocean space is from the land territory, the sovereignty of the coastal state is lessened. Thus, different treatment, especially concerning law enforcement is needed this paper recommends a model for law enforcement at sea, which considers different regimes over different maritime zones as provided within the UNCLOS 1982. It is submitted that while it is fine to have more than one institution having the authority of law enforcement at sea, the extent of such authorization should be clarified.
{"title":"Law Enforcement at Indonesian Waters: Bakamla vs. Sea and Coast Guard","authors":"D. Puspitawati, S. Hadiyantina, Fransisca Ayulistya Susanto, N. Aprianti","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.797","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to analyze Indonesian laws regarding law enforcement in Indonesian waters. Specifically, it analyzes the authority of Badan Keamanan Laut (BAKAMLA) and Indonesian Sea and Coast Guard under the Indonesian Act Number 32 the Year 2014 on the Ocean Affairs Act and Indonesian Act Number 17 the Year 2008 on Navigation Act, respectively. It is argued that the state’s sovereignty over the ocean differs from the state’s sovereignty over the land territory. This is because according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982), the state’s ocean territory is divided into various maritime zones, over which different regimes applied. It is submitted that the farther ocean space is from the land territory, the sovereignty of the coastal state is lessened. Thus, different treatment, especially concerning law enforcement is needed this paper recommends a model for law enforcement at sea, which considers different regimes over different maritime zones as provided within the UNCLOS 1982. It is submitted that while it is fine to have more than one institution having the authority of law enforcement at sea, the extent of such authorization should be clarified.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90850161","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 : 2020-07-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.796
Pete Pedrozo
{"title":"Maintaining Freedom of Navigation and Overflight in the Exclusive Economic Zone and on the High Seas","authors":"Pete Pedrozo","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.796","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89358476","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 : 2020-07-01DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.795
D. Letts
Attempts to achieve a comprehensive codification of the law of the sea were eventually successful with the entry into force of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Australia played a key role in the negotiations that led to the finalization of the 1982 Convention and this involvement has shaped the manner in which Australia has subsequently dealt with law of the sea issues. This paper reviews aspects of Australian practice as the 1982 Convention was being negotiated and then considers Australian state practice by examining three case studies that have particular significance for Australia and Indonesia: the Indonesian archipelagic sea lanes designation; the MV Tampa incident and the maritime boundary conciliation between Australia and Timor Leste. The paper concludes with some observations regarding how Australia’s approach to the law of the sea has evolved.
{"title":"Law the Development of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: An Australian Perspective","authors":"D. Letts","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.795","url":null,"abstract":"Attempts to achieve a comprehensive codification of the law of the sea were eventually successful with the entry into force of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Australia played a key role in the negotiations that led to the finalization of the 1982 Convention and this involvement has shaped the manner in which Australia has subsequently dealt with law of the sea issues. This paper reviews aspects of Australian practice as the 1982 Convention was being negotiated and then considers Australian state practice by examining three case studies that have particular significance for Australia and Indonesia: the Indonesian archipelagic sea lanes designation; the MV Tampa incident and the maritime boundary conciliation between Australia and Timor Leste. The paper concludes with some observations regarding how Australia’s approach to the law of the sea has evolved.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81096642","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 : 2020-07-01DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.794
Kentaro Furuya
The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was introduced with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the vast waters extending from the baselines to 200 nautical miles, the Convention allows coastal States to enjoy sovereign rights over―fishing resources but has created delimitation issues with neighboring States. Law enforcement is vital to maintain fishery order for sustainable utilization of resources in EEZs, even in the contested maritime zones. Therefore, in this paper, the mechanism of law enforcement in the complicated contested maritime zone is described, taking the Japan-China Fisheries Agreement as an example of a possible practical solution.
{"title":"Law Enforcement over Fishery Activities in Contested EEZs","authors":"Kentaro Furuya","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL17.4.794","url":null,"abstract":"The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was introduced with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the vast waters extending from the baselines to 200 nautical miles, the Convention allows coastal States to enjoy sovereign rights over―fishing resources but has created delimitation issues with neighboring States. Law enforcement is vital to maintain fishery order for sustainable utilization of resources in EEZs, even in the contested maritime zones. Therefore, in this paper, the mechanism of law enforcement in the complicated contested maritime zone is described, taking the Japan-China Fisheries Agreement as an example of a possible practical solution.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78330926","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：