Pub Date : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_091
P. Boudreau
There are many competing ways for modern audiences to receive information and news of interest and importance to them. Researchers publish in scientific literature. Politicians and managers receive briefing notes from staff. The general population continues to receive information from radio, television, newspapers, and journals. In 1998, in the foreword to Elisabeth Mann Borgese’s book The Oceanic Circle, Ruud Lubbers wrote, “The new information and communication technology gives enormous possibilities to connect people and to empower people. Therefore the world is not any longer only a total of the nation-states; it is also about participatory democracy globally, and global sovereignty of peoples.” This statement predates the widespread development and use of the Internet and in particular the twenty-first century phenomena referred to as ‘social media’. I ask here whether we are in a position to see social media as addressing the possibilities envisaged by the Club of Rome in 1998. At face value, social media is free to access, easy for individuals to contribute to and potentially more engaging than traditional sources, as it can be finetuned to the specific interest of the reader. But there is a question about this relatively new phenomenon: Is it a help or a distraction in regards to exposing and engaging the general public to the benefits and challenges facing our coasts and oceans? What roles might it play in responsible ocean governance? One of the first issues concerning this question is the definition of social media. As a relatively new and quickly changing technology, it is difficult to strictly restrict the topic to present day online applications. Social media truly began to be a global communication tool with the launch and subsequent growth of Facebook, which started in 2004. Other common present-day tools include: 1) LinkedIn—launched in 2003 2) YouTube—launched in 2005 3) Twitter—launched in 2006 4) WhatsApp—launched in 2009 5) Instagram—launched 2010 6) Snapchat—launched 2011
{"title":"Social Media and Twenty-First Century Public Engagement","authors":"P. Boudreau","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_091","url":null,"abstract":"There are many competing ways for modern audiences to receive information and news of interest and importance to them. Researchers publish in scientific literature. Politicians and managers receive briefing notes from staff. The general population continues to receive information from radio, television, newspapers, and journals. In 1998, in the foreword to Elisabeth Mann Borgese’s book The Oceanic Circle, Ruud Lubbers wrote, “The new information and communication technology gives enormous possibilities to connect people and to empower people. Therefore the world is not any longer only a total of the nation-states; it is also about participatory democracy globally, and global sovereignty of peoples.” This statement predates the widespread development and use of the Internet and in particular the twenty-first century phenomena referred to as ‘social media’. I ask here whether we are in a position to see social media as addressing the possibilities envisaged by the Club of Rome in 1998. At face value, social media is free to access, easy for individuals to contribute to and potentially more engaging than traditional sources, as it can be finetuned to the specific interest of the reader. But there is a question about this relatively new phenomenon: Is it a help or a distraction in regards to exposing and engaging the general public to the benefits and challenges facing our coasts and oceans? What roles might it play in responsible ocean governance? One of the first issues concerning this question is the definition of social media. As a relatively new and quickly changing technology, it is difficult to strictly restrict the topic to present day online applications. Social media truly began to be a global communication tool with the launch and subsequent growth of Facebook, which started in 2004. Other common present-day tools include: 1) LinkedIn—launched in 2003 2) YouTube—launched in 2005 3) Twitter—launched in 2006 4) WhatsApp—launched in 2009 5) Instagram—launched 2010 6) Snapchat—launched 2011","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"143 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124548040","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_048
Maxine C. Westhead
The topic of marine protected areas (mpas) is complex and multi-faceted. This essay attempts to summarize contemporary issues in the field of marine conservation and draws on recent Canadian experience. To set the stage, here are some current global facts and figures related to mpas from ProtectedPlanet. net, managed by the United Nations Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, as of November 2017: – Over 23 million km2 (6.35 percent) of the ocean is covered by over 15,000 mpas, a ten-fold increase since 2000 when the area covered by mpas was approximately 0.7 percent or 2 million km2. – mpa coverage has increased by approximately 14 million km2 since 2010, driven in a large part by the expansion of existing sites, and the creation of very large new sites (100,000 km2 and larger). – The ten largest mpas contribute over 50 percent of the area covered by marine protected areas, and the 20 largest mpas contribute 70 percent of the total. This is in stark contrast to the median size of mpas globally at less than 5 km2. – The recent accelerated designation of mpas globally is focused on exclusive economic zones (eezs at 39 percent of the global ocean), with only 0.25 percent of the high seas currently covered by mpas. It is well understood that mpas are not a panacea for the many problems facing our oceans and are limited in what they can achieve. There are very real and serious threats that mpas alone cannot solve such as ocean acidification, climate change, and pollution and plastics. What mpas can do, though, is allow ocean space to ‘rest’. Given a chance to recover either unencumbered by human interference through no-take mpas, or with limited human interference through sustainable use mpas, these areas can be left to flourish and better support overall ecosystem resilience. Within existing mpas, active management, monitoring, and reporting are critical elements for success. Proper management of mpas once they are designated and ensuring that they do not become ‘paper parks’ are also critical. Other key factors for mpa effectiveness are funding, compliance, and
{"title":"Marine Protected Areas: Ensuring Effective Conservation while Pursuing Global Targets","authors":"Maxine C. Westhead","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_048","url":null,"abstract":"The topic of marine protected areas (mpas) is complex and multi-faceted. This essay attempts to summarize contemporary issues in the field of marine conservation and draws on recent Canadian experience. To set the stage, here are some current global facts and figures related to mpas from ProtectedPlanet. net, managed by the United Nations Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, as of November 2017: – Over 23 million km2 (6.35 percent) of the ocean is covered by over 15,000 mpas, a ten-fold increase since 2000 when the area covered by mpas was approximately 0.7 percent or 2 million km2. – mpa coverage has increased by approximately 14 million km2 since 2010, driven in a large part by the expansion of existing sites, and the creation of very large new sites (100,000 km2 and larger). – The ten largest mpas contribute over 50 percent of the area covered by marine protected areas, and the 20 largest mpas contribute 70 percent of the total. This is in stark contrast to the median size of mpas globally at less than 5 km2. – The recent accelerated designation of mpas globally is focused on exclusive economic zones (eezs at 39 percent of the global ocean), with only 0.25 percent of the high seas currently covered by mpas. It is well understood that mpas are not a panacea for the many problems facing our oceans and are limited in what they can achieve. There are very real and serious threats that mpas alone cannot solve such as ocean acidification, climate change, and pollution and plastics. What mpas can do, though, is allow ocean space to ‘rest’. Given a chance to recover either unencumbered by human interference through no-take mpas, or with limited human interference through sustainable use mpas, these areas can be left to flourish and better support overall ecosystem resilience. Within existing mpas, active management, monitoring, and reporting are critical elements for success. Proper management of mpas once they are designated and ensuring that they do not become ‘paper parks’ are also critical. Other key factors for mpa effectiveness are funding, compliance, and","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116807259","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_030
Robert J Huebert
In a volume dedicated to the memory Elisabeth Mann Borgese, it is it is fitting to reflect upon the impact that the focus of her life’s work has had on the international system. Those who have had the privilege of knowing her can attest to the power of her ideals and her vision for the future. Coming out of the ravages of the Second World War, she dedicated her life to making the world a better place. To that end, she concentrated on the study and promotion of the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (unclos). It was her core belief that the facilitation of an equitable sharing and sustainable utilization the world’s oceans would be a fundamental component of international co-operation and peace. Her commitment and drive in supporting the development of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the implementation of unclos was an important element of the treaty’s ultimate success. She is rightly referred to by many as the ‘mother’ of the Convention (alongside its ‘father’, Arvid Pardo, her good friend and colleague). thoughts and plans regarding ocean
{"title":"Elisabeth Mann Borgese, UNCLOS, and the Arctic: The Power of Normative Thinking and Her Legacy","authors":"Robert J Huebert","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_030","url":null,"abstract":"In a volume dedicated to the memory Elisabeth Mann Borgese, it is it is fitting to reflect upon the impact that the focus of her life’s work has had on the international system. Those who have had the privilege of knowing her can attest to the power of her ideals and her vision for the future. Coming out of the ravages of the Second World War, she dedicated her life to making the world a better place. To that end, she concentrated on the study and promotion of the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (unclos). It was her core belief that the facilitation of an equitable sharing and sustainable utilization the world’s oceans would be a fundamental component of international co-operation and peace. Her commitment and drive in supporting the development of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the implementation of unclos was an important element of the treaty’s ultimate success. She is rightly referred to by many as the ‘mother’ of the Convention (alongside its ‘father’, Arvid Pardo, her good friend and colleague). thoughts and plans regarding ocean","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128486434","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_012
A. Hanson
I first met Elisabeth Mann Borgese after joining Dalhousie University in the late 1970s, and we were colleagues and friends until her untimely passing. We shared many common interests concerning oceans, environment, and international development. Often I participated in International Ocean InstituteCanada (IOI-Canada) programs. Like so many others I felt challenged by her remarkable range of interests, her passion for pacem in maribus, and her prescience regarding many aspects of ocean governance and uses such as mariculture. I certainly agreed with her deep commitment to developing nations, especially for peaceful and sustainable ocean use. She brought integrative views and understanding about the law of the sea, and how its full application could link people from all parts of the world in common cause. But in 1982 the ocean situation was very different from today. Nowadays we talk about a technologically sophisticated and vastly expanded global ‘Blue Economy’, with hopes that it may be doubled in the years ahead. However, there is a level of crisis in ocean use that worsens decade by decade. Threats are now regional and global. I am sure that Elisabeth would agree that the future health of the ocean will require much more attention to green development, environmental protection, and innovation in global governance. Indeed, for problems such as ocean acidification, impacts of plastics and other wastes, and from intensive coastal development, there is no single framework for addressing sustainable use. Chapter 14 of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals provides a helpful start, but the legal framework for integrated approaches to marine sustainable use is not fully provided by the current law of the sea, or even by the combination of the many accords that in one way or another affect ocean use. I have had the good fortune to work closely with environment and development authorities and scientists in three major ocean countries, namely, Canada, Indonesia, and China, plus carrying out ocean-related activities in a
我在20世纪70年代末加入达尔豪斯大学(Dalhousie University)后第一次见到伊丽莎白·曼·博格塞(Elisabeth Mann Borgese)，在她英年早逝之前，我们一直是同事和朋友。我们在海洋、环境、国际发展等领域有许多共同利益。我经常参加加拿大国际海洋研究所(IOI-Canada)的项目。和其他许多人一样，我对她广泛的兴趣、对海洋和平的热情以及对海洋治理和利用(如海水养殖)的许多方面的先见之明感到挑战。我当然同意她对发展中国家的坚定承诺，特别是对和平和可持续利用海洋的承诺。她带来了关于海洋法的综合观点和理解，以及海洋法的充分应用如何将世界各地的人们联系在一起共同事业。但1982年的海洋情况与今天大不相同。如今，我们谈论的是一个技术成熟、规模庞大的全球“蓝色经济”，并希望在未来几年内增长一倍。然而，海洋利用的危机程度每十年都在恶化。现在的威胁是地区性和全球性的。我相信伊丽莎白也会同意，未来的海洋健康需要更多地关注绿色发展、环境保护和全球治理创新。事实上，对于海洋酸化、塑料和其他废物的影响以及沿海密集开发等问题，没有一个单一的框架来解决可持续利用问题。《联合国2030年可持续发展目标》第14章提供了一个有益的开端，但目前的海洋法并没有为海洋可持续利用的综合方法提供充分的法律框架，甚至连以这种或那种方式影响海洋利用的许多协定的组合也没有。我有幸与加拿大、印度尼西亚和中国这三个主要海洋国家的环境与发展当局和科学家密切合作，并在中国开展了与海洋有关的活动
{"title":"The Ocean and China’s Drive for an Ecological Civilization","authors":"A. Hanson","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_012","url":null,"abstract":"I first met Elisabeth Mann Borgese after joining Dalhousie University in the late 1970s, and we were colleagues and friends until her untimely passing. We shared many common interests concerning oceans, environment, and international development. Often I participated in International Ocean InstituteCanada (IOI-Canada) programs. Like so many others I felt challenged by her remarkable range of interests, her passion for pacem in maribus, and her prescience regarding many aspects of ocean governance and uses such as mariculture. I certainly agreed with her deep commitment to developing nations, especially for peaceful and sustainable ocean use. She brought integrative views and understanding about the law of the sea, and how its full application could link people from all parts of the world in common cause. But in 1982 the ocean situation was very different from today. Nowadays we talk about a technologically sophisticated and vastly expanded global ‘Blue Economy’, with hopes that it may be doubled in the years ahead. However, there is a level of crisis in ocean use that worsens decade by decade. Threats are now regional and global. I am sure that Elisabeth would agree that the future health of the ocean will require much more attention to green development, environmental protection, and innovation in global governance. Indeed, for problems such as ocean acidification, impacts of plastics and other wastes, and from intensive coastal development, there is no single framework for addressing sustainable use. Chapter 14 of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals provides a helpful start, but the legal framework for integrated approaches to marine sustainable use is not fully provided by the current law of the sea, or even by the combination of the many accords that in one way or another affect ocean use. I have had the good fortune to work closely with environment and development authorities and scientists in three major ocean countries, namely, Canada, Indonesia, and China, plus carrying out ocean-related activities in a","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125098929","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_027
Galo Carrera
The most important modern theoretical contribution made to ocean boundary-making is the recognition that establishing maritime boundaries and outer limits of national maritime spaces has a functional role.1 Under this theory, boundaries and limits are not regarded as separate jurisdictional or geometric entities, but rather they are important elements for sustainable development of the oceans. The theory of ocean boundary-making has been the subject of intense interdisciplinary research.2 The value of the contributions made by any particular discipline towards the delimitation of a maritime boundary is largely measured by its ability to support more effective ocean governance. Contemporary international practice recognizes the fundamentally interdisciplinary nature of the delimitation of maritime spaces. The roles of technical and scientific experts has evolved from simple technical tasks of depicting a geometric line or area on a nautical chart to developing a wide set of creative boundary scenarios and proposals. The boundary scenarios are developed in view of all the legal, historic, economic, strategic, technical, and scientific data and information available for the particular maritime region and are depicted in a variety of formats. Flexibility to accommodate any intrinsically special and relevant circumstances of each maritime boundary seems to be one of the key factors for success. This essay cannot provide a full description of the evolution of ocean boundary-making methodologies. Instead it highlights the evolution of the scientific methodology employed in the delimitation of international maritime spaces, which comprises two components: the determination of the outer limits of
{"title":"The Evolution of Scientific and Technical Methodologies in the Delimitation of Maritime Spaces","authors":"Galo Carrera","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_027","url":null,"abstract":"The most important modern theoretical contribution made to ocean boundary-making is the recognition that establishing maritime boundaries and outer limits of national maritime spaces has a functional role.1 Under this theory, boundaries and limits are not regarded as separate jurisdictional or geometric entities, but rather they are important elements for sustainable development of the oceans. The theory of ocean boundary-making has been the subject of intense interdisciplinary research.2 The value of the contributions made by any particular discipline towards the delimitation of a maritime boundary is largely measured by its ability to support more effective ocean governance. Contemporary international practice recognizes the fundamentally interdisciplinary nature of the delimitation of maritime spaces. The roles of technical and scientific experts has evolved from simple technical tasks of depicting a geometric line or area on a nautical chart to developing a wide set of creative boundary scenarios and proposals. The boundary scenarios are developed in view of all the legal, historic, economic, strategic, technical, and scientific data and information available for the particular maritime region and are depicted in a variety of formats. Flexibility to accommodate any intrinsically special and relevant circumstances of each maritime boundary seems to be one of the key factors for success. This essay cannot provide a full description of the evolution of ocean boundary-making methodologies. Instead it highlights the evolution of the scientific methodology employed in the delimitation of international maritime spaces, which comprises two components: the determination of the outer limits of","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134116158","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_080
A. Knight
Historically, the power to regulate merchant ships resided with the nation where the ship was registered. When seaborne trade was geographically limited, this method of control was somewhat effective. With the expansion of the European empires, the ability of nations to regulate ships flying their flag was diminished by distance, and they would appoint consuls, or merchants, to represent them in distant ports, and they would advise masters on commercial matters, and on local ship-repair facilities. Lloyd’s of London, which, as insurers, had a financial interest in arranging reliable repairs to damaged ships, began in the 1740s, to hire shipwrights to represent their interests in overseas ports, and to appoint surveyors at major ports along the trade routes of the British Empire. Other nations, such as France, Germany, Norway, and the United States adopted this system, which worked fairly well for 200 years. However, in 1967, the Arab-Israeli War resulted in the closure of the Suez Canal, lengthening oil supply-lines of the Western industrial nations, as ships were forced to travel from the Middle East using the longer route past the southern tip of Africa. As a result, freight rates increased dramatically, prompting the ordering of hundreds of ships to take advantage of these increased rates. When the Suez Canal re-opened in 1975, too many ships were chasing too few cargoes, and freight rates plummeted. Many shipowners went bankrupt, and those who survived had to drastically cut their costs. Most of a shipowner’s costs are ‘hard costs’ (mortgage, insurance, fuel, spare parts) over which there is little control. The only ‘soft costs’ are registration and crewing. Many shipowners removed their ships from the high-cost industrial nations, and re-registered them with lower-cost ‘flags of convenience’ (FoC). By registering with a FoC, the shipowner was able to replace the highwage unionized workforce of industrialized nations with crew from nations with low wages. This labor outsourcing came at a hidden cost as many of the ‘new’ crews were inexperienced, and inadequately trained. This led to several accidents, many involving serious oil-pollution, such as Torrey Canyon (1967) and Argo Merchant (1976), and an awareness that safety standards in merchant shipping were in serious decline. In a related development, the classification
从历史上看，管理商船的权力属于船舶注册地的国家。当海上贸易在地理上受到限制时，这种控制方法多少有些效果。随着欧洲帝国的扩张，各国管理悬挂本国国旗的船只的能力因距离而减弱，他们会任命执政官或商人，在遥远的港口代表他们，他们会就商业事务和当地的船舶维修设施向船长提供建议。作为保险公司，伦敦劳合社(Lloyd’s of London)在为受损船只安排可靠的维修方面有经济利益，它从18世纪40年代开始雇佣造船工人代表其在海外港口的利益，并在大英帝国贸易路线沿线的主要港口任命测定员。其他国家，如法国、德国、挪威和美国都采用了这种制度，这种制度运行了200年。然而，1967年，阿以战争导致苏伊士运河关闭，延长了西方工业国家的石油供应线，因为船只被迫从中东出发，使用经过非洲南端的更长的路线。结果，运费大幅上涨，促使数百艘船只订购，以利用这些上涨的运费。当苏伊士运河于1975年重新开放时，太多的船只追逐太少的货物，运费暴跌。许多船东破产了，那些幸存下来的船东不得不大幅削减成本。船东的大部分成本都是难以控制的“硬成本”(抵押贷款、保险、燃料、备件)。唯一的“软成本”是注册和船员。许多船东将他们的船从高成本的工业国家移走，并以低成本的“方便旗”(FoC)重新注册。通过在FoC注册，船东能够用来自低工资国家的船员取代工业化国家的高工资工会劳动力。这种劳务外包带来了隐性成本，因为许多“新”员工缺乏经验，也没有接受过充分的培训。这导致了几起事故，其中许多涉及严重的石油污染，如多利峡谷(1967年)和阿尔戈商人(1976年)，人们意识到商船的安全标准正在严重下降。在一个相关的发展中，分类
{"title":"Port State Control: An Important Concept in the Safety of Life at Sea, the Protection of the Marine Environment, and of Goods in Transit","authors":"A. Knight","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_080","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, the power to regulate merchant ships resided with the nation where the ship was registered. When seaborne trade was geographically limited, this method of control was somewhat effective. With the expansion of the European empires, the ability of nations to regulate ships flying their flag was diminished by distance, and they would appoint consuls, or merchants, to represent them in distant ports, and they would advise masters on commercial matters, and on local ship-repair facilities. Lloyd’s of London, which, as insurers, had a financial interest in arranging reliable repairs to damaged ships, began in the 1740s, to hire shipwrights to represent their interests in overseas ports, and to appoint surveyors at major ports along the trade routes of the British Empire. Other nations, such as France, Germany, Norway, and the United States adopted this system, which worked fairly well for 200 years. However, in 1967, the Arab-Israeli War resulted in the closure of the Suez Canal, lengthening oil supply-lines of the Western industrial nations, as ships were forced to travel from the Middle East using the longer route past the southern tip of Africa. As a result, freight rates increased dramatically, prompting the ordering of hundreds of ships to take advantage of these increased rates. When the Suez Canal re-opened in 1975, too many ships were chasing too few cargoes, and freight rates plummeted. Many shipowners went bankrupt, and those who survived had to drastically cut their costs. Most of a shipowner’s costs are ‘hard costs’ (mortgage, insurance, fuel, spare parts) over which there is little control. The only ‘soft costs’ are registration and crewing. Many shipowners removed their ships from the high-cost industrial nations, and re-registered them with lower-cost ‘flags of convenience’ (FoC). By registering with a FoC, the shipowner was able to replace the highwage unionized workforce of industrialized nations with crew from nations with low wages. This labor outsourcing came at a hidden cost as many of the ‘new’ crews were inexperienced, and inadequately trained. This led to several accidents, many involving serious oil-pollution, such as Torrey Canyon (1967) and Argo Merchant (1976), and an awareness that safety standards in merchant shipping were in serious decline. In a related development, the classification","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133099399","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_093
Nayha Acharya
Oceans have immeasurable value. They are replete with natural resources and food sources; they enable transportation and recreation; they regulate earth’s climate. In sum, they make invaluable contributions to our physical, economic, and political well-being. And wherever there is something valuable, there are disputes over how that value should be maintained, grown, owned, and distributed. Internationally, disputes over maritime boundaries, access routes, drilling rights, and resource exploration are prolific. A sizeable bulk of international litigation is generated by ocean disputes. In the domestic context, disagreement among stakeholders as to environmental quality and pollution, natural resource management and conservation, geo-engineering, and oceanbased research and technology, are just some arenas of ocean-related disputes. Given the inevitability of such conflicts, it is prudent to consider how we ought to resolve our disputes when they arise. In this essay, I offer some reflections on the utility of informal dispute resolution through cooperative negotiation as a means of resolving ocean-based disputes responsibly and peacefully. I note at the outset, though, that formal processes of dispute resolution, that is adjudication through a court or tribunal, are necessary for effective governance.1 Formal processes produce binding outcomes and set legal precedents, their outcomes are public, and the procedural safeguards that characterize formal dispute resolution can help prevent abuses of natural justice and ensure the rule of law. Without formal dispute resolution mechanisms in place if needed, negotiated outcomes are less likely to be fair and equitable— absent any formal oversight, a more powerful party can easily force an agreement
{"title":"Towards Ocean Peace: Resolving Disputes Cooperatively and Empathetically through Negotiation","authors":"Nayha Acharya","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_093","url":null,"abstract":"Oceans have immeasurable value. They are replete with natural resources and food sources; they enable transportation and recreation; they regulate earth’s climate. In sum, they make invaluable contributions to our physical, economic, and political well-being. And wherever there is something valuable, there are disputes over how that value should be maintained, grown, owned, and distributed. Internationally, disputes over maritime boundaries, access routes, drilling rights, and resource exploration are prolific. A sizeable bulk of international litigation is generated by ocean disputes. In the domestic context, disagreement among stakeholders as to environmental quality and pollution, natural resource management and conservation, geo-engineering, and oceanbased research and technology, are just some arenas of ocean-related disputes. Given the inevitability of such conflicts, it is prudent to consider how we ought to resolve our disputes when they arise. In this essay, I offer some reflections on the utility of informal dispute resolution through cooperative negotiation as a means of resolving ocean-based disputes responsibly and peacefully. I note at the outset, though, that formal processes of dispute resolution, that is adjudication through a court or tribunal, are necessary for effective governance.1 Formal processes produce binding outcomes and set legal precedents, their outcomes are public, and the procedural safeguards that characterize formal dispute resolution can help prevent abuses of natural justice and ensure the rule of law. Without formal dispute resolution mechanisms in place if needed, negotiated outcomes are less likely to be fair and equitable— absent any formal oversight, a more powerful party can easily force an agreement","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115495124","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_045
S. Coffen-Smout
The concept of coastal and marine spatial planning (cmsp) originates from the 1970s term ‘sea-use management and planning’ to address growing problems of multiple ocean-use conflicts.1 A comprehensive approach to the governance of maritime affairs was proposed by academics, including controlling human use interactions and related data requirements. It recognized the challenges of developing integrated management frameworks and data and information systems for decision-making. The post-2006 concept of cmsp developed at a unesco workshop that year adopted pivotal ecosystem approaches to management as the basis for its implementation.2 While interpretations of cmsp vary globally, it is generally defined as “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process.”3 In fact, cmsp processes are as important as the plan itself in building trust, understanding, and political acceptance. cmsp has become an international tool for ocean space management,
{"title":"Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Balancing the Ecosystem Approach and the Sustainable Blue Economy","authors":"S. Coffen-Smout","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_045","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of coastal and marine spatial planning (cmsp) originates from the 1970s term ‘sea-use management and planning’ to address growing problems of multiple ocean-use conflicts.1 A comprehensive approach to the governance of maritime affairs was proposed by academics, including controlling human use interactions and related data requirements. It recognized the challenges of developing integrated management frameworks and data and information systems for decision-making. The post-2006 concept of cmsp developed at a unesco workshop that year adopted pivotal ecosystem approaches to management as the basis for its implementation.2 While interpretations of cmsp vary globally, it is generally defined as “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that usually have been specified through a political process.”3 In fact, cmsp processes are as important as the plan itself in building trust, understanding, and political acceptance. cmsp has become an international tool for ocean space management,","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123886280","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_062
E. Ledua, J. Veitayaki
In small island developing states (sids), sustainable fisheries are the overriding goal of balancing fisheries management for important resources such as tuna and economic development.1 However, reports over time have shown that fisheries management in general has continued to fail, sometimes spectacularly. Key factors that have hindered the effectiveness of fisheries management in sids include the combined effects of small fisheries departments, degradation of supporting ecosystems, heavy exploitation, environmental degradation,2 uncertainties of scientific information, unpredictable variations in the growth of fish stocks, heightened economic development demands, and error in the implementation of management measures.3 Determining sids’ perspectives on what sustainability entails and ways of balancing tuna resource management and economic development is difficult but necessary, as it determines the long-term sustainable use of fisheries resources such as tuna. Four species of tuna—albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye (T. obesus), yellowfin (T. albacares), and skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis)—are important to Pacific sids due to their value, high abundance, and level of dependence. Tuna caught within national waters of fifteen Pacific sids that are members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (ffa) region contributed approximately 1.5 million metric tonnes (valued at US$2.8 billion) of about
{"title":"Balancing Sustainable Tuna Resource Management and Economic Development: Small Island Developing States Perspectives","authors":"E. Ledua, J. Veitayaki","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_062","url":null,"abstract":"In small island developing states (sids), sustainable fisheries are the overriding goal of balancing fisheries management for important resources such as tuna and economic development.1 However, reports over time have shown that fisheries management in general has continued to fail, sometimes spectacularly. Key factors that have hindered the effectiveness of fisheries management in sids include the combined effects of small fisheries departments, degradation of supporting ecosystems, heavy exploitation, environmental degradation,2 uncertainties of scientific information, unpredictable variations in the growth of fish stocks, heightened economic development demands, and error in the implementation of management measures.3 Determining sids’ perspectives on what sustainability entails and ways of balancing tuna resource management and economic development is difficult but necessary, as it determines the long-term sustainable use of fisheries resources such as tuna. Four species of tuna—albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye (T. obesus), yellowfin (T. albacares), and skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis)—are important to Pacific sids due to their value, high abundance, and level of dependence. Tuna caught within national waters of fifteen Pacific sids that are members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (ffa) region contributed approximately 1.5 million metric tonnes (valued at US$2.8 billion) of about","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121454626","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 : 2019-04-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004380271_031
P. Gautier
After 20 years of existence,1 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (‘the Tribunal’ or itlos) has established itself as a judicial institution for the settlement of sea-related disputes. This is evidenced by international practice. So far, 23 contentious cases and two advisory cases have been submitted to it,2 compared to 26 contentious cases also relating to the law of the sea, during the
{"title":"The ITLOS Experience in Dispute Resolution","authors":"P. Gautier","doi":"10.1163/9789004380271_031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_031","url":null,"abstract":"After 20 years of existence,1 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (‘the Tribunal’ or itlos) has established itself as a judicial institution for the settlement of sea-related disputes. This is evidenced by international practice. So far, 23 contentious cases and two advisory cases have been submitted to it,2 compared to 26 contentious cases also relating to the law of the sea, during the","PeriodicalId":423731,"journal":{"name":"The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123274823","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：