Pub Date : 2023-11-08DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2273288
Apostolos Tsiouvalas, Jan Jakub Solski
In the legal conceptualization of space, cartography has always been a fundamental tool narrating, representing, generating, or even (re)claiming territory. In this article, we examine the relationship between cartography and international law by looking at different cartographic representations of the area covering the disputed “Northwest Passage” (NWP). In an attempt to discuss how mapping may spring from different ontological assumptions of space among sovereign states and Indigenous communities, this article is devoted to investigations concerning different forms of law–space entanglements drawn from 12 different maps pertinent to the NWP, aiming to critically reconsider the very essence of law applicable to the region. The article supports the argument that approaching the juridical architecture of the Arctic from a pluralistic perspective that also accounts for non-Western visions of space may help as a valuable conceptual lens to rethink “territory” and revisit existing legal realities.
{"title":"‘One Map to Rule Them All’? Revisiting Legalities Through Cartographic Representations of the Northwest Passage","authors":"Apostolos Tsiouvalas, Jan Jakub Solski","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2273288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2273288","url":null,"abstract":"In the legal conceptualization of space, cartography has always been a fundamental tool narrating, representing, generating, or even (re)claiming territory. In this article, we examine the relationship between cartography and international law by looking at different cartographic representations of the area covering the disputed “Northwest Passage” (NWP). In an attempt to discuss how mapping may spring from different ontological assumptions of space among sovereign states and Indigenous communities, this article is devoted to investigations concerning different forms of law–space entanglements drawn from 12 different maps pertinent to the NWP, aiming to critically reconsider the very essence of law applicable to the region. The article supports the argument that approaching the juridical architecture of the Arctic from a pluralistic perspective that also accounts for non-Western visions of space may help as a valuable conceptual lens to rethink “territory” and revisit existing legal realities.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135341741","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 : 2023-10-29DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2271393
H. J. Woker
{"title":"Challenging the Notion of a “Single Continental Shelf”","authors":"H. J. Woker","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2271393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2271393","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"71 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136135221","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 : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2213451
Mohit Gupta, S. Shanthakumar
Abstract Abandonment is a significant challenge that seafarers face today. The number of seafarer abandonment instances has increased between 2020 and 2021, and dealing with this issue has become a major concern for policymakers. In 2021, in total, 1,399 seafarers on 94 vessels were abandoned. The 2006 Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) was amended in 2014 to include provisions for protecting abandoned seafarers. Newly inserted provisions established a financial security system for assisting seafarers in a seafarer abandonment situation. Although today the MLC incorporates this mechanism to protect abandoned seafarers, the issue of abandonment of seafarers continues to persist, and the time consumed in resolving these cases is sometimes very long. This article assesses the effectiveness of the financial security system under the MLC in granting protection to abandoned seafarers. It highlights the current regime's flaws and how the regime can be improved.
{"title":"Assessment of the Legal Regime for Protecting Abandoned Seafarers: A Study in Light of the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention","authors":"Mohit Gupta, S. Shanthakumar","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2213451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2213451","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Abandonment is a significant challenge that seafarers face today. The number of seafarer abandonment instances has increased between 2020 and 2021, and dealing with this issue has become a major concern for policymakers. In 2021, in total, 1,399 seafarers on 94 vessels were abandoned. The 2006 Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) was amended in 2014 to include provisions for protecting abandoned seafarers. Newly inserted provisions established a financial security system for assisting seafarers in a seafarer abandonment situation. Although today the MLC incorporates this mechanism to protect abandoned seafarers, the issue of abandonment of seafarers continues to persist, and the time consumed in resolving these cases is sometimes very long. This article assesses the effectiveness of the financial security system under the MLC in granting protection to abandoned seafarers. It highlights the current regime's flaws and how the regime can be improved.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"181 - 199"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87915591","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 : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2190940
J. Solski
Abstract Owing to a shift from the culture of compliance to the culture of benchmarking, the Polar Code process of ensuring safe operation and environmental protection in Polar waters is still ongoing. The risk and goal-based approaches embedded in significant parts of the Polar Code invite different stakeholders to participate in the development of Arctic shipping governance. The methodology used in the process, such as POLARIS, may serve as a common baseline, but its utility relies on further updates and validation. The reliability of decision-support systems depends largely on whether different stakeholders embrace the system and share their experiences to facilitate systematic updates. This article compares the approaches of the two major coastal states, Canada and Russia, to POLARIS as reflected in their coastal state systems of shipping control in the Canadian Arctic Waters and the Russian Northern Sea Route (NSR). Considering that much Arctic shipping occurs within the Canadian Arctic and the NSR, their regulatory approaches may affect POLARIS’s popularity, acceptance, and, eventually, success in providing a common regulatory baseline.
{"title":"The Polar Code Process and Sovereignty Bargains: Comparing the Approaches of Canada and Russia to POLARIS","authors":"J. Solski","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2190940","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2190940","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Owing to a shift from the culture of compliance to the culture of benchmarking, the Polar Code process of ensuring safe operation and environmental protection in Polar waters is still ongoing. The risk and goal-based approaches embedded in significant parts of the Polar Code invite different stakeholders to participate in the development of Arctic shipping governance. The methodology used in the process, such as POLARIS, may serve as a common baseline, but its utility relies on further updates and validation. The reliability of decision-support systems depends largely on whether different stakeholders embrace the system and share their experiences to facilitate systematic updates. This article compares the approaches of the two major coastal states, Canada and Russia, to POLARIS as reflected in their coastal state systems of shipping control in the Canadian Arctic Waters and the Russian Northern Sea Route (NSR). Considering that much Arctic shipping occurs within the Canadian Arctic and the NSR, their regulatory approaches may affect POLARIS’s popularity, acceptance, and, eventually, success in providing a common regulatory baseline.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"111 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72698879","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 : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2211781
Iva Parlov
Abstract The recent maiden voyage of the Yara Birkeland witnessed yet another development in autonomy that is transforming the maritime sector. Marine autonomous surface ships (MASS) are claimed to bring many opportunities to society at large, not least in terms of operational efficiency and safety of the crew, fewer emissions, and greener shipping. On the assumption that MASS will prove safe enough to ply our seas and oceans, this article investigates the flexibility and ability of the existing International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations on ships’ routing, ship reporting, and vessel traffic service (VTS) to respond to the technological developments, allowing for the operation of both remotely controlled ships without seafarers on board and fully autonomous ships. It argues that the regulations in question are largely supportive of autonomy. Challenges, however, exist when it comes to the employment of fully autonomous ships and the effective use of VTS.
{"title":"Can the International Regulatory Framework on Ships’ Routing, Ship Reporting, and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Accommodate Marine Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)?","authors":"Iva Parlov","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2211781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2211781","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The recent maiden voyage of the Yara Birkeland witnessed yet another development in autonomy that is transforming the maritime sector. Marine autonomous surface ships (MASS) are claimed to bring many opportunities to society at large, not least in terms of operational efficiency and safety of the crew, fewer emissions, and greener shipping. On the assumption that MASS will prove safe enough to ply our seas and oceans, this article investigates the flexibility and ability of the existing International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations on ships’ routing, ship reporting, and vessel traffic service (VTS) to respond to the technological developments, allowing for the operation of both remotely controlled ships without seafarers on board and fully autonomous ships. It argues that the regulations in question are largely supportive of autonomy. Challenges, however, exist when it comes to the employment of fully autonomous ships and the effective use of VTS.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"163 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74616182","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 : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218
Apostolos Tsiouvalas, J. Evans
Abstract Although exclusive common pool resource management regimes have locally been applied since time immemorial in many coastal and fjord areas, in the legal conceptualization of space, the oceans and their living resources were traditionally treated as a “global commons.” The idea of restricting access to coastal oceanic resources and delegating their governance to state instruments has become increasingly popular since the middle of the previous century when political economy models predicted the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. While state jurisdictions overall continue to preserve the idea of common access to marine living resources for a state’s people, the rapid privatization of marine living resources and the subsequent development of aquaculture over the last few decades, often confront this understanding, leading to enclosure of a delineated maritime area that was initially intended to be accessible to the public. Enclosing the sea for the purpose of aquaculture development leads to a semantic change in property institutions that govern coastal areas and provides for a form of enclosure of the commons in key locations designated for marine aquaculture development. This article explores the concept of “ocean commons” and debates how the enclosure of common areas for the purposes of aquaculture development may collide with Indigenous and local conceptions of common pool resource management. The article applies this theoretical investigation on two examples from Canada and Norway, and suggests that rethinking aquaculture development in coastal waters through the lens of “ocean commons” may provide a guiding ethos for revisiting current approaches of access to the sea and ensuring the harmonious coexistence between aquaculture development and local/Indigenous traditional activities.
{"title":"From “Common Pools” to “Fish Pools”: Shifting Property Institutions in Traditional Waters of Norway and Canada","authors":"Apostolos Tsiouvalas, J. Evans","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although exclusive common pool resource management regimes have locally been applied since time immemorial in many coastal and fjord areas, in the legal conceptualization of space, the oceans and their living resources were traditionally treated as a “global commons.” The idea of restricting access to coastal oceanic resources and delegating their governance to state instruments has become increasingly popular since the middle of the previous century when political economy models predicted the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. While state jurisdictions overall continue to preserve the idea of common access to marine living resources for a state’s people, the rapid privatization of marine living resources and the subsequent development of aquaculture over the last few decades, often confront this understanding, leading to enclosure of a delineated maritime area that was initially intended to be accessible to the public. Enclosing the sea for the purpose of aquaculture development leads to a semantic change in property institutions that govern coastal areas and provides for a form of enclosure of the commons in key locations designated for marine aquaculture development. This article explores the concept of “ocean commons” and debates how the enclosure of common areas for the purposes of aquaculture development may collide with Indigenous and local conceptions of common pool resource management. The article applies this theoretical investigation on two examples from Canada and Norway, and suggests that rethinking aquaculture development in coastal waters through the lens of “ocean commons” may provide a guiding ethos for revisiting current approaches of access to the sea and ensuring the harmonious coexistence between aquaculture development and local/Indigenous traditional activities.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"47 1","pages":"135 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82595892","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 : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2224116
Elizabeth Macpherson, E. Jorgensen, A. Paul, H. Rennie, K. Fisher, Julia Talbot-Jones, J. Hewitt, Andrew E. F. Allison, Jill Banwell, Alexandra Parkinson
Abstract Ecosystem-based approaches to marine management, which integrate marine law and policy across sectors, communities, and scales, are increasingly advocated for in international policy debates and scholarly literature. We highlight critical and timely opportunities in Aotearoa New Zealand’s evolving legal context to support an ecosystem-based approach across fisheries regulation, biodiversity conservation, environmental effects management, and Indigenous or customary rights. Given the scale of proposed law reform affecting the ocean in Aotearoa New Zealand, there are important global lessons to be elucidated from (and for) the Aotearoa New Zealand experience, revealing the potential for law to center the health of ocean ecosystems and related people in integrated marine decision making.
{"title":"Designing Law and Policy for the Health and Resilience of Marine and Coastal Ecosystems—Lessons From (and for) Aotearoa New Zealand","authors":"Elizabeth Macpherson, E. Jorgensen, A. Paul, H. Rennie, K. Fisher, Julia Talbot-Jones, J. Hewitt, Andrew E. F. Allison, Jill Banwell, Alexandra Parkinson","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2224116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2224116","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ecosystem-based approaches to marine management, which integrate marine law and policy across sectors, communities, and scales, are increasingly advocated for in international policy debates and scholarly literature. We highlight critical and timely opportunities in Aotearoa New Zealand’s evolving legal context to support an ecosystem-based approach across fisheries regulation, biodiversity conservation, environmental effects management, and Indigenous or customary rights. Given the scale of proposed law reform affecting the ocean in Aotearoa New Zealand, there are important global lessons to be elucidated from (and for) the Aotearoa New Zealand experience, revealing the potential for law to center the health of ocean ecosystems and related people in integrated marine decision making.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"41 1","pages":"200 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84692169","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2182388
Huaigao Qi
Abstract China and South Korea resumed negotiations on delimiting their maritime boundary in 2015. The overlapping maritime area of China and South Korea requiring delimitation lie mainly in the South Yellow Sea (SYS). This article proceeds on the basis that the two states probably reached a preliminary agreement on the limits of the first-stage maritime delimitation area, in which there are no third-party interests involved. This article selects 37°N and 32°N as the northern and southern limits of the first-stage maritime delimitation area on the basis of public information available. This article proposes that China and South Korea can delimit a single maritime boundary for their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves by applying the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, and then following the three-stage approach. After applying the three-stage approach to this case, this author concludes that the adjusted equidistance line/potential delimitation line will probably move toward South Korea, departing from the provisional equidistance line. The potential delimitation line of EEZ/continental shelf between the two states probably extends generally south-southwest-southeast. This author calculates that the coastal length ratio between the two states is approximately 1:2.14 in favor of China and the ratio of the relevant baselines length is approximately 1:1.47 in favor of China. This author deduces that the ratio of the allocated relevant areas is approximately 1:1.17 in favor of China and the ratio of the allocated provisional measure zone (PMZ) of the 2000 China–ROK Fishery Agreement is approximately 1:1.44 in favor of China, both under the adjusted equidistance line scenario, measured by the WGS 1984 Web Mercator.
2015年，中韩两国恢复了海洋划界谈判。中韩两国需要划界的重叠海域主要在南黄海。本文基于两国可能就第一阶段海域划界范围达成了初步协议，其中不涉及第三方利益。本文在现有公开资料的基础上，选取北纬37°和北纬32°作为第一阶段海洋划界区的南北界限。本文提出，中韩两国可以采用等距/相关情况法划定专属经济区和大陆架的单一海洋边界，然后按照三阶段法进行划定。通过对该案例的三阶段分析，笔者认为调整后的等距线/潜在分界线可能会偏离暂定等距线，向韩国方向移动。两国专属经济区/大陆架的潜在分界线可能大致向南-西南-东南方向延伸。根据笔者的计算，两国的海岸线长度之比约为1:2.14，有利于中国;相关基线长度之比约为1:1.47，有利于中国。根据WGS 1984 Web Mercator的测算，在调整后的等距线情景下，分配给中国的相关区域的比例约为1:1.17,2000中韩渔业协定临时措施区(PMZ)的比例约为1:1.44。
{"title":"Maritime Delimitation Between China and South Korea in the South Yellow Sea","authors":"Huaigao Qi","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2182388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2182388","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract China and South Korea resumed negotiations on delimiting their maritime boundary in 2015. The overlapping maritime area of China and South Korea requiring delimitation lie mainly in the South Yellow Sea (SYS). This article proceeds on the basis that the two states probably reached a preliminary agreement on the limits of the first-stage maritime delimitation area, in which there are no third-party interests involved. This article selects 37°N and 32°N as the northern and southern limits of the first-stage maritime delimitation area on the basis of public information available. This article proposes that China and South Korea can delimit a single maritime boundary for their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves by applying the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, and then following the three-stage approach. After applying the three-stage approach to this case, this author concludes that the adjusted equidistance line/potential delimitation line will probably move toward South Korea, departing from the provisional equidistance line. The potential delimitation line of EEZ/continental shelf between the two states probably extends generally south-southwest-southeast. This author calculates that the coastal length ratio between the two states is approximately 1:2.14 in favor of China and the ratio of the relevant baselines length is approximately 1:1.47 in favor of China. This author deduces that the ratio of the allocated relevant areas is approximately 1:1.17 in favor of China and the ratio of the allocated provisional measure zone (PMZ) of the 2000 China–ROK Fishery Agreement is approximately 1:1.44 in favor of China, both under the adjusted equidistance line scenario, measured by the WGS 1984 Web Mercator.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"54 1","pages":"26 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87286462","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2182852
P.-E. Thévenin
Abstract This article analyzes the consequences of the recently declassified Soviet decree No. 331-112 of 27 April 1965 that established, inter alia, the status of the Soviet Arctic straits along the Northern Sea Route with respect to warships’ right of innocent passage. This article argues that the decree, read in conjunction with Article 5.2 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone and Article 8.2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, establishes a right of innocent passage through the majority of the Russian Arctic straits, which warships can enjoy. Furthermore, this article asserts that the decree calls into question the existence of a customary regime regulating navigation through the Arctic straits.
{"title":"Back to the USSR: The Consequences of the 1965 Soviet Decree No. 331-112 “On the Procedure for Navigation of Foreign Ships in the Straits Along the Track of the Northern Sea Route” on Today’s Navigation Through the Russian Arctic Straits","authors":"P.-E. Thévenin","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2182852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2182852","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes the consequences of the recently declassified Soviet decree No. 331-112 of 27 April 1965 that established, inter alia, the status of the Soviet Arctic straits along the Northern Sea Route with respect to warships’ right of innocent passage. This article argues that the decree, read in conjunction with Article 5.2 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone and Article 8.2 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, establishes a right of innocent passage through the majority of the Russian Arctic straits, which warships can enjoy. Furthermore, this article asserts that the decree calls into question the existence of a customary regime regulating navigation through the Arctic straits.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"2004 1","pages":"63 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82970119","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2175751
Xu Qi
Abstract In the 2021 Mauritius/Maldives (preliminary objections) case, the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rejected Maldives’ first and second preliminary objections to jurisdiction, which were based on the Monetary Gold principle. However, the Special Chamber’s reasoning regarding the Monetary Gold principle in this case is questionable. This article discusses the application of the principle in this case. After introducing the background to the maritime delimitation dispute between Mauritius and Maldives, this article explores the evolving jurisprudence of the Monetary Gold principle and its constitutive elements. It goes on to analyze the application of the Monetary Gold principle in the Mauritius/Maldives case and criticizes the Special Chamber’s approach, arguing that the Maldives’ first and second preliminary objections should have been upheld.
{"title":"Reviving the Monetary Gold Principle? A Case Note on the Judgment of Preliminary Objections in the Mauritius/Maldives Case","authors":"Xu Qi","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2175751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2175751","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the 2021 Mauritius/Maldives (preliminary objections) case, the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rejected Maldives’ first and second preliminary objections to jurisdiction, which were based on the Monetary Gold principle. However, the Special Chamber’s reasoning regarding the Monetary Gold principle in this case is questionable. This article discusses the application of the principle in this case. After introducing the background to the maritime delimitation dispute between Mauritius and Maldives, this article explores the evolving jurisprudence of the Monetary Gold principle and its constitutive elements. It goes on to analyze the application of the Monetary Gold principle in the Mauritius/Maldives case and criticizes the Special Chamber’s approach, arguing that the Maldives’ first and second preliminary objections should have been upheld.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"1 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82119901","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：