Pub Date : 2022-07-18DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10098
Pradeep A. Singh
In June 2021, the Republic of Nauru invoked a treaty provision known as the ‘two-year rule’ at the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Effectively, this provision requires the Council of the ISA to complete the elaboration and adoption of the necessary regulations within two years if requested by a Member State whose national intends to apply for the approval of a plan of work for the exploitation of seabed minerals in the Area. If the Council is unable to complete the elaboration of the regulations within the prescribed time and an exploitation application is submitted, the Council would still have to ‘consider’ and ‘provisionally approve’ the same despite the absence of the exploitation regulations. This article undertakes a detailed analysis of the two-year rule, particularly underscoring its legal consequences and implications, as the ISA pushes forward in developing exploitation regulations in the light of its invocation.
{"title":"The Invocation of the ‘Two-Year Rule’ at the International Seabed Authority: Legal Consequences and Implications","authors":"Pradeep A. Singh","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10098","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In June 2021, the Republic of Nauru invoked a treaty provision known as the ‘two-year rule’ at the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Effectively, this provision requires the Council of the ISA to complete the elaboration and adoption of the necessary regulations within two years if requested by a Member State whose national intends to apply for the approval of a plan of work for the exploitation of seabed minerals in the Area. If the Council is unable to complete the elaboration of the regulations within the prescribed time and an exploitation application is submitted, the Council would still have to ‘consider’ and ‘provisionally approve’ the same despite the absence of the exploitation regulations. This article undertakes a detailed analysis of the two-year rule, particularly underscoring its legal consequences and implications, as the ISA pushes forward in developing exploitation regulations in the light of its invocation.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48724363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-13DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10099
Luciana Fernandes Coelho
Fitness for purpose of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) in the twenty-first century has been at the core of legal and political discussions. Such an inquiry is pertinent for small island developing States (SIDS), which have experienced first-hand the consequences of anthropogenic disturbances on the ocean. This study examines whether the provisions governing marine scientific research (MSR) in the LOSC provide mechanisms to strengthen SIDS scientific and technological capacities. It is suggested that the framework governing MSR seeks to promote fair and equitable benefit sharing and has rules enabling the time element therein. Accordingly, the consent regimes for MSR, rules on international cooperation, and the framework for the transfer of marine technology could serve the end of enhancing SIDS capacities. This interpretation shifts the avenues of inquiry from a descriptive to an empirical perspective.
{"title":"Marine Scientific Research and Small Island Developing States in the Twenty-First Century: Appraising the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea","authors":"Luciana Fernandes Coelho","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10099","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Fitness for purpose of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) in the twenty-first century has been at the core of legal and political discussions. Such an inquiry is pertinent for small island developing States (SIDS), which have experienced first-hand the consequences of anthropogenic disturbances on the ocean. This study examines whether the provisions governing marine scientific research (MSR) in the LOSC provide mechanisms to strengthen SIDS scientific and technological capacities. It is suggested that the framework governing MSR seeks to promote fair and equitable benefit sharing and has rules enabling the time element therein. Accordingly, the consent regimes for MSR, rules on international cooperation, and the framework for the transfer of marine technology could serve the end of enhancing SIDS capacities. This interpretation shifts the avenues of inquiry from a descriptive to an empirical perspective.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48601984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-29DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10097
Ríán Derrig
This article examines the possibility of autonomous inspection robots being used to undertake inspection tasks conducted on the basis of port State jurisdiction in European Union (EU) Member States’ ports. A brief overview of technical research concerning such robots is offered. The article then outlines the EU legal framework concerning port State jurisdiction, and contextualises this legal landscape by recalling the history of attempts at the EU and international level to regulate in response to maritime disasters since the 1980s. Based on a close reading of the Port State Control Directive, alongside analysis of the aims pursued and policy options proposed in the context of the European Commission’s significant ongoing work on a review of this instrument, it is clear that the adoption of autonomous inspection technologies could offer significant benefits, permitting more efficient completion of existing inspection tasks and potentially changing what is and is not considered feasible in inspection scenarios.
{"title":"Inspecting Ships Autonomously under Port State Jurisdiction: Towards Sustainability and Biodiversity in the EU","authors":"Ríán Derrig","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10097","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article examines the possibility of autonomous inspection robots being used to undertake inspection tasks conducted on the basis of port State jurisdiction in European Union (EU) Member States’ ports. A brief overview of technical research concerning such robots is offered. The article then outlines the EU legal framework concerning port State jurisdiction, and contextualises this legal landscape by recalling the history of attempts at the EU and international level to regulate in response to maritime disasters since the 1980s. Based on a close reading of the Port State Control Directive, alongside analysis of the aims pursued and policy options proposed in the context of the European Commission’s significant ongoing work on a review of this instrument, it is clear that the adoption of autonomous inspection technologies could offer significant benefits, permitting more efficient completion of existing inspection tasks and potentially changing what is and is not considered feasible in inspection scenarios.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44150648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-30DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10096
Zhen Sun
{"title":"Establishing the Legal Order for the Ocean: Reflections from the Negotiators","authors":"Zhen Sun","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10096","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41312493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-27DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10095
Xudong Zhang, Yen-Chiang Chang
{"title":"Routledge Handbook of the South China Sea, edited by Keyuan Zou","authors":"Xudong Zhang, Yen-Chiang Chang","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10095","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45175949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-22DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10094
Massimo Lando, Jessica Joly Hébert
On 12 October 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) issued its judgment on the merits in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya). The judgment raises questions of significance in respect of two issues upon which this comment elaborates. First, the Court failed to distinguish adequately between the notions of acquiescence and tacit agreement, which were at the basis of Kenya’s claim for an agreed boundary running along a parallel of latitude. Second, in drawing the boundary as requested by Somalia, the Court departed from its usual approach concerning the adjustment of the provisional equidistance line established in the first stage of its three-stage delimitation process.
{"title":"How to Complicate a Simple Case: The Judgment on the Merits in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya)","authors":"Massimo Lando, Jessica Joly Hébert","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10094","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000On 12 October 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) issued its judgment on the merits in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya). The judgment raises questions of significance in respect of two issues upon which this comment elaborates. First, the Court failed to distinguish adequately between the notions of acquiescence and tacit agreement, which were at the basis of Kenya’s claim for an agreed boundary running along a parallel of latitude. Second, in drawing the boundary as requested by Somalia, the Court departed from its usual approach concerning the adjustment of the provisional equidistance line established in the first stage of its three-stage delimitation process.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46287753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10093
S. Widagdo, Syahriza Alkohir Anggoro
Marine plastic pollution (MPP) is one of the major global environmental threats in the Anthropocene era that requires a coordinated legal response from local to international levels. This article explores how the Indonesian legal and institutional framework deals with MPP. Despite the diversity of existing instruments, Indonesia has not adopted all the necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control MPP from land and marine sources. Although progress at the national level to date has been relatively slow, some local authorities have recently taken the initiative to establish single-use plastics regulations, which offer promising prospects for MPP treatment in the future. Indonesia can only change its status as the second largest MPP contributor after China through a special law targeting plastic waste based on the life cycle of plastics and supported by consistent implementation.
{"title":"Combating Ocean Debris: Marine Plastic Pollution and Waste Regulation in Indonesia","authors":"S. Widagdo, Syahriza Alkohir Anggoro","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10093","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Marine plastic pollution (MPP) is one of the major global environmental threats in the Anthropocene era that requires a coordinated legal response from local to international levels. This article explores how the Indonesian legal and institutional framework deals with MPP. Despite the diversity of existing instruments, Indonesia has not adopted all the necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control MPP from land and marine sources. Although progress at the national level to date has been relatively slow, some local authorities have recently taken the initiative to establish single-use plastics regulations, which offer promising prospects for MPP treatment in the future. Indonesia can only change its status as the second largest MPP contributor after China through a special law targeting plastic waste based on the life cycle of plastics and supported by consistent implementation.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49248519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-28DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10091
N. Craik, Kristine Gu
Whereas environmental impact assessment (EIA) is broadly accepted as a legal requirement for managing the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), there has been a greater reluctance by States to adopt strategic environmental assessment (SEA) requirements. This suggests the legal basis for SEA is different and less firmly established in international law than EIA. This article examines the distinct legal and policy roles of SEA in managing ABNJ, which then informs our understanding of its legal basis. We argue, unlike EIA’s close association with due diligence obligations to prevent harm, SEA is better understood as a legal mechanism for the implementation of the principle of integration. Recognised as central to marine governance, integration has normative dimensions that must be addressed by States. SEA, we argue, is well-suited to this task. This article addresses SEA for ABNJ generally, but attention is paid to negotiations regarding marine biodiversity of ABNJ.
{"title":"Strategic Environmental Assessment in Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Implementing Integration","authors":"N. Craik, Kristine Gu","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10091","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Whereas environmental impact assessment (EIA) is broadly accepted as a legal requirement for managing the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), there has been a greater reluctance by States to adopt strategic environmental assessment (SEA) requirements. This suggests the legal basis for SEA is different and less firmly established in international law than EIA. This article examines the distinct legal and policy roles of SEA in managing ABNJ, which then informs our understanding of its legal basis. We argue, unlike EIA’s close association with due diligence obligations to prevent harm, SEA is better understood as a legal mechanism for the implementation of the principle of integration. Recognised as central to marine governance, integration has normative dimensions that must be addressed by States. SEA, we argue, is well-suited to this task. This article addresses SEA for ABNJ generally, but attention is paid to negotiations regarding marine biodiversity of ABNJ.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41857258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-28DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10090
M. Gau
In December 2019 Malaysia submitted information on the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 miles (OL) in the South China Sea (SCS) to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). According to Article 76(8) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Malaysia shall seek CLCS recommendations as the basis for establishing its OL. If notified of a land or maritime dispute, the CLCS shall not consider the submission unless consent is given by all disputants. As of 16 March 2022, the CLCS has received 28 note verbales (NVs) concerning Malaysia’s submission. Apart from those challenging the submission, there are 12 NVs invoking the 2016 SCS Arbitration award to oppose territorial and maritime claims by China in its NVs initially objecting the submission. This article reviews relevant CLCS rules and practice, analyses all 28 NVs, and examines the disputes reflected in the NVs.
{"title":"The Most Controversial Submission before the CLCS: With Reference to the 2019 Malaysia Submission","authors":"M. Gau","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10090","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In December 2019 Malaysia submitted information on the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 miles (OL) in the South China Sea (SCS) to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). According to Article 76(8) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Malaysia shall seek CLCS recommendations as the basis for establishing its OL. If notified of a land or maritime dispute, the CLCS shall not consider the submission unless consent is given by all disputants. As of 16 March 2022, the CLCS has received 28 note verbales (NVs) concerning Malaysia’s submission. Apart from those challenging the submission, there are 12 NVs invoking the 2016 SCS Arbitration award to oppose territorial and maritime claims by China in its NVs initially objecting the submission. This article reviews relevant CLCS rules and practice, analyses all 28 NVs, and examines the disputes reflected in the NVs.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41364332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-28DOI: 10.1163/15718085-bja10092
A. Afriansyah, A. R. Darmawan, A. Pramudianto
As the largest archipelagic State in the world, Indonesia has a very long coastline and is bordered by ten countries. Irrespective of its geographical condition, a genuine delimitation of its maritime boundaries is crucial for Indonesia. However, maritime boundary delimitation often takes considerable time. One problem that often arises during maritime boundary delimitation negotiations is determining the extent to which coastal States can enforce their national law in areas with undelimited maritime boundaries. This article analyses the national and international regulations, as well as Indonesian practice, of maritime law enforcement in areas with undelimited maritime boundaries and Indonesia‘s current practices in resolving maritime-related issues.
{"title":"Enforcing Law in Undelimited Maritime Areas: Indonesian Border Experience","authors":"A. Afriansyah, A. R. Darmawan, A. Pramudianto","doi":"10.1163/15718085-bja10092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10092","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As the largest archipelagic State in the world, Indonesia has a very long coastline and is bordered by ten countries. Irrespective of its geographical condition, a genuine delimitation of its maritime boundaries is crucial for Indonesia. However, maritime boundary delimitation often takes considerable time. One problem that often arises during maritime boundary delimitation negotiations is determining the extent to which coastal States can enforce their national law in areas with undelimited maritime boundaries. This article analyses the national and international regulations, as well as Indonesian practice, of maritime law enforcement in areas with undelimited maritime boundaries and Indonesia‘s current practices in resolving maritime-related issues.","PeriodicalId":45173,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49259782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：