Pub Date : 2021-04-30DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.818
Ioana Bratu, A. Lodder, T. V. D. Linden
The introduction of advanced new technologies is transforming the space industry. Artificial intelligence is offering unprecedented possibilities for space-related activities because it enables space objects to gain autonomy. The increasing autonomy level of space objects does not come without legal implications. The lack of human control challenges existing liability frameworks. This paper reviews the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention as the main legal documents introducing the legal grounds for attributing liability in case of damages caused by autonomous space objects. Looking at the limitations of these legal frameworks in what concerns the attribution of liability, this paper identifies the conditions that could cause a liability gap. The amendment of the Liability Convention, the concept of “international responsibility” introduced by Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and several international law principles are analysed as potential solutions for preventing the liability gap and mitigating the risks posed by autonomous space objects.
{"title":"Autonomous Space Objects and International Space Law: Navigating the Liability Gap","authors":"Ioana Bratu, A. Lodder, T. V. D. Linden","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.818","url":null,"abstract":"The introduction of advanced new technologies is transforming the space industry. Artificial intelligence is offering unprecedented possibilities for space-related activities because it enables space objects to gain autonomy. The increasing autonomy level of space objects does not come without legal implications. The lack of human control challenges existing liability frameworks. This paper reviews the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention as the main legal documents introducing the legal grounds for attributing liability in case of damages caused by autonomous space objects. Looking at the limitations of these legal frameworks in what concerns the attribution of liability, this paper identifies the conditions that could cause a liability gap. The amendment of the Liability Convention, the concept of “international responsibility” introduced by Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and several international law principles are analysed as potential solutions for preventing the liability gap and mitigating the risks posed by autonomous space objects.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79536608","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 : 2021-04-30DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.817
A. José, P. Manchikanti
India is a party to the CBD, which came into force on 29 December 1993. It has three main objectives, namely the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. CBD envisages that the benefits accruing from commercial use of TK have to be shared with the people responsible for creating, refining and using this knowledge. Art 8(j) of the CBD provides for respecting, protecting and rewarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices (KIP) of local communities. Realizing the need to ensure that the holders of TK, which is not still in the public domain should be able to get the benefits arising from the use of such knowledge, an enabling provision has been made for protecting the TK in the Biodiversity Act, 2002. Indian Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 also deals indirectly with the protection of TK. The main objective of protection would be to obtain recognition and some compensation for the commercial use of TK outside the community or the society, which generated it, either by excluding the unauthorised use by third parties or by ensuring a right to remuneration (or benefit sharing) for such use.
{"title":"TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE – THE CHANGING SCENARIO IN INDIA","authors":"A. José, P. Manchikanti","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.817","url":null,"abstract":"India is a party to the CBD, which came into force on 29 December 1993. It has three main objectives, namely the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. CBD envisages that the benefits accruing from commercial use of TK have to be shared with the people responsible for creating, refining and using this knowledge. Art 8(j) of the CBD provides for respecting, protecting and rewarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices (KIP) of local communities. Realizing the need to ensure that the holders of TK, which is not still in the public domain should be able to get the benefits arising from the use of such knowledge, an enabling provision has been made for protecting the TK in the Biodiversity Act, 2002. Indian Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 also deals indirectly with the protection of TK. The main objective of protection would be to obtain recognition and some compensation for the commercial use of TK outside the community or the society, which generated it, either by excluding the unauthorised use by third parties or by ensuring a right to remuneration (or benefit sharing) for such use.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84620122","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 : 2021-04-29DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.814
Laina Rafianti, Aam Suryamah, Afrizal Musdah Eka Putra, Ahmad M. Ramli
After the UNESCO inscription of Angklung as Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2010, the responsibility of the angklung custodian is harder. Angklung is not only must exist as a living culture but must also develop. At first, the inscription of angklung is essential to ascertain cultural identity from Indonesia. Besides, intellectual property law contributes a vital key to protect the community and individuals who create copyrighted subject matter based on angklung. Double protection for angklung in cultural and intellectual property also provides double consequences. The problem is, the relation between those two related institutions is weak. Moreover, the mechanism of protection between communal and individual intellectual proper is overlapping. Although the discussion in the IGC GRTKF is still an ongoing debate, Indonesia has regulated national regulation on TCEs with its problems in implementing legislation. Otherwise, the demand to protect the utilization of Angklung is high in this rapid and massive digital economy era. This article aims to harmonize legal instruments in cultural and intellectual property subject matter to realize comprehensive protection for Angklung and determine the implementation step of protection and utilization of Angklung in the digital economy era after the inscription of the UNESCO. After mapping the legal instruments regarding culture and intellectual property, the researcher concluded that it needs a grounded implementing legislation besides the existing legal instruments. The government cannot achieve the protection alone without willpower and coordination with custodians, artists, and educational institutions in preserving and developing Angklung.
{"title":"SWING THE ANGKLUNG TUBE IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY ERA: BASED ON INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE","authors":"Laina Rafianti, Aam Suryamah, Afrizal Musdah Eka Putra, Ahmad M. Ramli","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.3.814","url":null,"abstract":"After the UNESCO inscription of Angklung as Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2010, the responsibility of the angklung custodian is harder. Angklung is not only must exist as a living culture but must also develop. At first, the inscription of angklung is essential to ascertain cultural identity from Indonesia. Besides, intellectual property law contributes a vital key to protect the community and individuals who create copyrighted subject matter based on angklung. Double protection for angklung in cultural and intellectual property also provides double consequences. The problem is, the relation between those two related institutions is weak. Moreover, the mechanism of protection between communal and individual intellectual proper is overlapping. Although the discussion in the IGC GRTKF is still an ongoing debate, Indonesia has regulated national regulation on TCEs with its problems in implementing legislation. Otherwise, the demand to protect the utilization of Angklung is high in this rapid and massive digital economy era. This article aims to harmonize legal instruments in cultural and intellectual property subject matter to realize comprehensive protection for Angklung and determine the implementation step of protection and utilization of Angklung in the digital economy era after the inscription of the UNESCO. After mapping the legal instruments regarding culture and intellectual property, the researcher concluded that it needs a grounded implementing legislation besides the existing legal instruments. The government cannot achieve the protection alone without willpower and coordination with custodians, artists, and educational institutions in preserving and developing Angklung.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79826105","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 : 2021-01-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.811
Desti Yuwastina
The statelessness of the Rohingya exacerbates the risk of trafficking in persons. Such risk gets bigger for the Rohingya to face during the coronavirus pandemic as safety restrictions and control are emboldened for health concerns. This paper is not to argue for the Rohingya to be or not to be nationally considered. It is due to that being nationally considered does not necessarily guarantee any persons free from trafficking in persons. Instead, this paper is to identify the root cause in order to construct the protection strategy. Thus, the international human rights are theoretically expressed in naturalistic views which are distinguished from positive rights that are inherently applied in Myanmar to bring out the identity conflict that has been the source of crisis between the minority and the majority. Also, a normative perspective of the research in this paper is expected of how international law should function, especially among the ASEAN member states. The ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children are incorporated as legal instruments throughout the identification of the root cause and the construction of the protection strategy for the Rohingya to investigate the trafficking in persons in the Rohingya crisis. It shows that statelessness and trafficking in persons are inseparable under the migration in the form of irregular movement. Furthermore, it is found that the root cause of trafficking in persons in the Rohingya crisis is the inefficiency of legal systems, because the provision cannot quite defend them.
{"title":"THE ROOT CAUSE OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS FOR THE PROTECTION STRATEGY IN THE ROHINGYA CRISIS","authors":"Desti Yuwastina","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.811","url":null,"abstract":"The statelessness of the Rohingya exacerbates the risk of trafficking in persons. Such risk gets bigger for the Rohingya to face during the coronavirus pandemic as safety restrictions and control are emboldened for health concerns. This paper is not to argue for the Rohingya to be or not to be nationally considered. It is due to that being nationally considered does not necessarily guarantee any persons free from trafficking in persons. Instead, this paper is to identify the root cause in order to construct the protection strategy. Thus, the international human rights are theoretically expressed in naturalistic views which are distinguished from positive rights that are inherently applied in Myanmar to bring out the identity conflict that has been the source of crisis between the minority and the majority. Also, a normative perspective of the research in this paper is expected of how international law should function, especially among the ASEAN member states. The ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children are incorporated as legal instruments throughout the identification of the root cause and the construction of the protection strategy for the Rohingya to investigate the trafficking in persons in the Rohingya crisis. It shows that statelessness and trafficking in persons are inseparable under the migration in the form of irregular movement. Furthermore, it is found that the root cause of trafficking in persons in the Rohingya crisis is the inefficiency of legal systems, because the provision cannot quite defend them.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89466357","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 : 2021-01-31DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.810
Joy Henri Mangapul, Idris Idris, C. Dewi
Coastal states possess sovereign rights and jurisdiction within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction against foreign vessels conducting violations within the EEZ. However, certain ships are granted sovereign immunity and thus are not subject to coastal state’s jurisdiction. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) only stipulated that injuries to the coastal state caused by activities conducted by a sovereign immune vessel will engage that vessel’s flag state responsibility. Indonesia had witnessed numerous violations within its EEZ, especially in waters around Natuna Islands. These violations are conducted by Chinese fishing vessels, which were escorted by China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels. Consequently violations by Chinese vessels would hamper Indonesia’s exercise of enforcement jurisdiction against Chinese fishermen caught committing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUUF), thus violating Indonesia’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This article discusses to what extent sovereign immunity applies to non-commercial government vessels, and whether they can be subjected to coastal state jurisdiction, should they hamper the exercise of coastal state’s enforcement jurisdiction within its EEZ. The article applies normative legal research by utilizing applicable regulations, theories, and existing practices. Sovereign immune vessels are required to pay due regard to other states, including coastal state. Activities constituting ‘abuse of rights’ jeopardizing coastal state’s exercise of enforcement jurisdiction will result in their flag state responsibility being invoked by the coastal state. This article recommends peaceful settlement of dispute through bilateral means, or multilateral means in the spirit of the 2002 Declaration of Conduct by pursuing a regional fisheries agreement.
{"title":"SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF NON-COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND DUE REGARD: CHINA COAST GUARD IN THE NATUNAS","authors":"Joy Henri Mangapul, Idris Idris, C. Dewi","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.810","url":null,"abstract":"Coastal states possess sovereign rights and jurisdiction within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction against foreign vessels conducting violations within the EEZ. However, certain ships are granted sovereign immunity and thus are not subject to coastal state’s jurisdiction. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) only stipulated that injuries to the coastal state caused by activities conducted by a sovereign immune vessel will engage that vessel’s flag state responsibility. Indonesia had witnessed numerous violations within its EEZ, especially in waters around Natuna Islands. These violations are conducted by Chinese fishing vessels, which were escorted by China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels. Consequently violations by Chinese vessels would hamper Indonesia’s exercise of enforcement jurisdiction against Chinese fishermen caught committing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUUF), thus violating Indonesia’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This article discusses to what extent sovereign immunity applies to non-commercial government vessels, and whether they can be subjected to coastal state jurisdiction, should they hamper the exercise of coastal state’s enforcement jurisdiction within its EEZ. The article applies normative legal research by utilizing applicable regulations, theories, and existing practices. Sovereign immune vessels are required to pay due regard to other states, including coastal state. Activities constituting ‘abuse of rights’ jeopardizing coastal state’s exercise of enforcement jurisdiction will result in their flag state responsibility being invoked by the coastal state. This article recommends peaceful settlement of dispute through bilateral means, or multilateral means in the spirit of the 2002 Declaration of Conduct by pursuing a regional fisheries agreement.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83748279","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 : 2021-01-30DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.809
Maria Maya Lestari
The Right, Archipelagic Sea Lanes, and Passage are a new concept in international law of the sea, which only exists and applies to archipelagic states. This concept was born as a result of world recognition of the existence of an archipelagic state. Indonesia is the only archipelagic state in the world to apply this concept. Therefore, using doctrinal research will be studied of definition, historical background, and law regarding the concept of the archipelagic sea lanes, which has been approved by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982). This paper also describes all states’ rights to cross the archipelagic sea, archipelagic sea lanes passage as a lane, passage as an activity to get through from one and another part of the high seas, or exclusive economic zone.
{"title":"WHAT IS THE RIGHT, ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES AND PASSAGE? (ACCORDING TO UNCLOS 1982 AND PRACTICE)","authors":"Maria Maya Lestari","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.809","url":null,"abstract":"The Right, Archipelagic Sea Lanes, and Passage are a new concept in international law of the sea, which only exists and applies to archipelagic states. This concept was born as a result of world recognition of the existence of an archipelagic state. Indonesia is the only archipelagic state in the world to apply this concept. Therefore, using doctrinal research will be studied of definition, historical background, and law regarding the concept of the archipelagic sea lanes, which has been approved by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982). This paper also describes all states’ rights to cross the archipelagic sea, archipelagic sea lanes passage as a lane, passage as an activity to get through from one and another part of the high seas, or exclusive economic zone.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82167696","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 : 2021-01-30DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807
Leonardo Bernard
The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime under Part V of the LOS Convention grants coastal States the exclusive right to fisheries within 200 nautical miles (M) of their coasts. However, the EEZ seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Yet, is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ. China, for example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. This article seeks to explore this issue, by analysing the relationship between the EEZ regime and historic fishing rights, and identifying the circumstances where historic fishing rights can exist alongside the EEZ regime. The article will also distinguish between historic waters and historic fishing rights; as well as discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights.
{"title":"HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS AND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE","authors":"Leonardo Bernard","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807","url":null,"abstract":"The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime under Part V of the LOS Convention grants coastal States the exclusive right to fisheries within 200 nautical miles (M) of their coasts. However, the EEZ seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Yet, is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ. China, for example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. This article seeks to explore this issue, by analysing the relationship between the EEZ regime and historic fishing rights, and identifying the circumstances where historic fishing rights can exist alongside the EEZ regime. The article will also distinguish between historic waters and historic fishing rights; as well as discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85094990","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 : 2021-01-30DOI: 10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.808
Fatma Muthia Kinanti
The exploitation of seabed has been regulated in the international sea law regime, namely in UNCLOS 1982 and in its modification regulations, the 1994 Implementing Agreement. This regime regulates the sponsorship mechanism whereby companies wishing to carry out activities in the international seabed must cooperate with states participating in UNCLOS 1982. In addition to providing obligations to companies, the international sea law regime also imposes obligations on the sponsoring state. This obligation is related to the steps that the participating states must take to ensure that no violations or damage occur during the project. This article will discuss the legal relationship between the contractor and the sponsoring state, specifically the extent to which the sponsoring state is responsible for the activities of the sponsoring contractor in the ISBA region. To answer this question, the following will be examined: the provisions of the international maritime legal framework, UNCLOS 1982 and related international regulations and examine jurisprudence in related cases, especially in the Advisory Opinion provided by ITLOS in the cases of Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in ISBA (2010). It was found that the international legal framework regulates the state’s responsibility to ensure that no violations or damage occur during these activities. The Advisory Opinion then provided specific restrictions on the extent to which the “responsibility to ensure” must be carried out by the state and whether the state may be liable to pay losses due to damage caused by the activities.
{"title":"RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATES SPONSORING PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO CONDUCT ACTIVITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AREA","authors":"Fatma Muthia Kinanti","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.808","url":null,"abstract":"The exploitation of seabed has been regulated in the international sea law regime, namely in UNCLOS 1982 and in its modification regulations, the 1994 Implementing Agreement. This regime regulates the sponsorship mechanism whereby companies wishing to carry out activities in the international seabed must cooperate with states participating in UNCLOS 1982. In addition to providing obligations to companies, the international sea law regime also imposes obligations on the sponsoring state. This obligation is related to the steps that the participating states must take to ensure that no violations or damage occur during the project. This article will discuss the legal relationship between the contractor and the sponsoring state, specifically the extent to which the sponsoring state is responsible for the activities of the sponsoring contractor in the ISBA region. To answer this question, the following will be examined: the provisions of the international maritime legal framework, UNCLOS 1982 and related international regulations and examine jurisprudence in related cases, especially in the Advisory Opinion provided by ITLOS in the cases of Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in ISBA (2010). It was found that the international legal framework regulates the state’s responsibility to ensure that no violations or damage occur during these activities. The Advisory Opinion then provided specific restrictions on the extent to which the “responsibility to ensure” must be carried out by the state and whether the state may be liable to pay losses due to damage caused by the activities.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"61-62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79353230","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 : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.17304/ijil.vol18.2.812
A. Mitchell, Elizabeth Sheargold
Four behavioural risk factors for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are tobacco use, physical inactivity, harmful use of alcohol, and unhealthy diet. In general, the liberalisation of trade increases the availability and lowers the cost of goods, which may create concerns with respect to harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol. Governments can address NCD risk factors through a range of regulatory responses, but as these regulations may lower or restrict trade in the relevant goods, they must be designed in accordance with international trade agreements. In this article, we argue that although poorly-designed regulatory responses to NCD risk factors may be inconsistent with international trade agreements, they include sufficient flexibility to accommodate evidence-backed measures that are well-adapted to their public health purposes. Specifically, in shaping regulatory responses to NCD risk factors, governments should bear in mind international trade rules, which include obligations not to discriminate against imported like products, and not to restrict trade, intellectual property rights or foreign investment more than necessary for public health purposes.
{"title":"INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR NONCOMMUNICABLE DISEASES","authors":"A. Mitchell, Elizabeth Sheargold","doi":"10.17304/ijil.vol18.2.812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol18.2.812","url":null,"abstract":"Four behavioural risk factors for noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are tobacco use, physical inactivity, harmful use of alcohol, and unhealthy diet. In general, the liberalisation of trade increases the availability and lowers the cost of goods, which may create concerns with respect to harmful products such as tobacco and alcohol. Governments can address NCD risk factors through a range of regulatory responses, but as these regulations may lower or restrict trade in the relevant goods, they must be designed in accordance with international trade agreements. In this article, we argue that although poorly-designed regulatory responses to NCD risk factors may be inconsistent with international trade agreements, they include sufficient flexibility to accommodate evidence-backed measures that are well-adapted to their public health purposes. Specifically, in shaping regulatory responses to NCD risk factors, governments should bear in mind international trade rules, which include obligations not to discriminate against imported like products, and not to restrict trade, intellectual property rights or foreign investment more than necessary for public health purposes.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90446888","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.VOL18.1.803
Y. Dewi, A. Afriansyah, A. R. Darmawan
Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing (IUU Fishing) has grown significantly in the last few decades. This practice certainly has and will undermine global fisheries resources even further. As a result, the international community needs to establish measures to prevent the IUUF through international agreements. Presently, the international communities have formed various organizations, both regional and international (regional fisheries management organizations or RFMO), which shows its attention to the need for sustainable fisheries resources management and to prevent any illegal IUU fishing activity. Therefore, every country is currently seeking the law enforcement model to secure its maritime jurisdictions from any IUUF activity. However, each country has a separate law enforcement model, adjusting to their geographical and geopolitics condition. This article will examine the law enforcement model’s comparison in several countries and seek the best law enforcement model and a lesson learned for Indonesia.
{"title":"COMPARATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT MODEL AT SEA: LESSON LEARNED FOR INDONESIA","authors":"Y. Dewi, A. Afriansyah, A. R. Darmawan","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.1.803","url":null,"abstract":"Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing (IUU Fishing) has grown significantly in the last few decades. This practice certainly has and will undermine global fisheries resources even further. As a result, the international community needs to establish measures to prevent the IUUF through international agreements. Presently, the international communities have formed various organizations, both regional and international (regional fisheries management organizations or RFMO), which shows its attention to the need for sustainable fisheries resources management and to prevent any illegal IUU fishing activity. Therefore, every country is currently seeking the law enforcement model to secure its maritime jurisdictions from any IUUF activity. However, each country has a separate law enforcement model, adjusting to their geographical and geopolitics condition. This article will examine the law enforcement model’s comparison in several countries and seek the best law enforcement model and a lesson learned for Indonesia.","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":"86388654","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：