Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2185712
D. Jung
Abstract This article examines how flag states, port states, and the shipping industry have attempted to fulfill their obligations to carry out mandatory ship surveys and certification in response to challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and provides guidance for future pandemics. Although the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions do not have procedures to deal with the impacts of global pandemics on ship surveys and certification, the IMO has provided guidance via circular letters, taking a pragmatic and practical approach. Several flag states extended the validity of certificates by taking either a case-by-case or a blanket approach within the statutory maximum of three months. With regard to the extension beyond the statutory period of three months, flag states should consider requests using an evidence-based assessment on a case-by-case basis. Classification societies play an important role in the extension of the validity of certificates by providing their technical expertise and recommendations. Port state control serves as a safety net in the event that flag states do not comply with their obligations. In this regard, cooperation between flag states, port states, and classification societies is key to managing survey and certification during a pandemic. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated an accelerated need for the development of remote surveys. It has also illustrated a need to develop guidance on remote surveys under exceptional circumstances in order to respond to future pandemics.
{"title":"Ship Surveys and Certification During Global Health Pandemics; Challenges and Opportunities Presented by COVID-19","authors":"D. Jung","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2185712","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2185712","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines how flag states, port states, and the shipping industry have attempted to fulfill their obligations to carry out mandatory ship surveys and certification in response to challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and provides guidance for future pandemics. Although the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions do not have procedures to deal with the impacts of global pandemics on ship surveys and certification, the IMO has provided guidance via circular letters, taking a pragmatic and practical approach. Several flag states extended the validity of certificates by taking either a case-by-case or a blanket approach within the statutory maximum of three months. With regard to the extension beyond the statutory period of three months, flag states should consider requests using an evidence-based assessment on a case-by-case basis. Classification societies play an important role in the extension of the validity of certificates by providing their technical expertise and recommendations. Port state control serves as a safety net in the event that flag states do not comply with their obligations. In this regard, cooperation between flag states, port states, and classification societies is key to managing survey and certification during a pandemic. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated an accelerated need for the development of remote surveys. It has also illustrated a need to develop guidance on remote surveys under exceptional circumstances in order to respond to future pandemics.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85201757","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 : 2022-10-17DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2116137
Marcin Kałduński
Abstract The extension of coastal states’ jurisdiction over seas in the twentieth century significantly increased the maritime area of overlapping entitlements. The Baltic Sea is a textbook example of such competing claims. In principle, the two main avenues for a coastal state to resolve its dispute are to either conclude a delimitation agreement or lodge the case with an international court or tribunal. This article analyzes the Delimitation Agreement between Denmark and Poland concerning the Baltic Sea south of the island of Bornholm. The states were divided as to how to apportion the maritime zone of 3,500 km2, where the economic zones of Denmark and Poland had not been delimited for several dozen years. The agreed single maritime boundary split the disputed area into unequal parts. The settlement of the maritime dispute coincided temporally with Poland and Denmark’s plans to build a natural gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, which probably prompted the two states to put an end to their maritime boundary dispute. The law of the sea provides that the delimitation of maritime zones between states with opposite or adjacent coasts is effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable solution. The purpose of this article is to show that (energy) security issues may prompt a resolution of a maritime boundary dispute, and to analyze the Polish–Danish Agreement in the light of the principles governing the maritime delimitation.
{"title":"Resolving Maritime Delimitation Disputes by Agreement: The Danish–Polish Boundary in the Area of the Island of Bornholm","authors":"Marcin Kałduński","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2116137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2116137","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The extension of coastal states’ jurisdiction over seas in the twentieth century significantly increased the maritime area of overlapping entitlements. The Baltic Sea is a textbook example of such competing claims. In principle, the two main avenues for a coastal state to resolve its dispute are to either conclude a delimitation agreement or lodge the case with an international court or tribunal. This article analyzes the Delimitation Agreement between Denmark and Poland concerning the Baltic Sea south of the island of Bornholm. The states were divided as to how to apportion the maritime zone of 3,500 km2, where the economic zones of Denmark and Poland had not been delimited for several dozen years. The agreed single maritime boundary split the disputed area into unequal parts. The settlement of the maritime dispute coincided temporally with Poland and Denmark’s plans to build a natural gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, which probably prompted the two states to put an end to their maritime boundary dispute. The law of the sea provides that the delimitation of maritime zones between states with opposite or adjacent coasts is effected by agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable solution. The purpose of this article is to show that (energy) security issues may prompt a resolution of a maritime boundary dispute, and to analyze the Polish–Danish Agreement in the light of the principles governing the maritime delimitation.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89926946","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 : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2156414
Hu Zhang, Qiuwen Wang
Abstract Recent legal theories and state practice have tended to expand the conceptualization of maritime security beyond the traditional security field to encompass nontraditional security issues such as economic growth, environmental protection, and the optimal use of ocean resources. In this context, the conceptualization of maritime security in China has also undergone profound changes that have significantly influenced China’s revision of maritime traffic safety legislation. The objectives of this article are to examine the specific institutional changes in China’s new regulatory framework for maritime traffic safety, and to explore their potential implications. This article uses normative analysis to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the institutional developments in China’s new maritime traffic safety legislation, discusses how the evolution of the concept of maritime security has theoretically affected these institutional developments, and explores the potential implications of the new legislation for China’s navigational safety governance, maritime law enforcement, and cross-border maritime security cooperation.
{"title":"New Developments in China’s Maritime Traffic Safety Legislation: Theoretical Background, Institutional Changes, and Potential Implications","authors":"Hu Zhang, Qiuwen Wang","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2156414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2156414","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent legal theories and state practice have tended to expand the conceptualization of maritime security beyond the traditional security field to encompass nontraditional security issues such as economic growth, environmental protection, and the optimal use of ocean resources. In this context, the conceptualization of maritime security in China has also undergone profound changes that have significantly influenced China’s revision of maritime traffic safety legislation. The objectives of this article are to examine the specific institutional changes in China’s new regulatory framework for maritime traffic safety, and to explore their potential implications. This article uses normative analysis to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the institutional developments in China’s new maritime traffic safety legislation, discusses how the evolution of the concept of maritime security has theoretically affected these institutional developments, and explores the potential implications of the new legislation for China’s navigational safety governance, maritime law enforcement, and cross-border maritime security cooperation.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81373715","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 : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2148793
Zhong-hua Li, M. Seta
Abstract Private actors and their roles in conserving the marine environment have attracted increasing attention. Although classification societies were originally designed as industrial organizations developing internal standards on hull and machinery, their contributions to the marine environmental protection should not go ignored. As exemplified by the Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention, an international shipping instrument on ballast discharge for which the implementation process was subject to technological uncertainties, their contributions can be described in three ways: verification on behalf of states as “recognized organizations”; participation in International Maritime Organization (IMO) sessions; and establishment of their own standards. It is argued that these multiple functions reveal the competence of classification societies to tackle vessel-source pollution, and further, that their technical know-how and firsthand experience accumulated from shipping practice demonstrate their potential to address other complicated marine environmental issues where experience and compliance technologies are essential. However, the expanding focus of classification societies to marine environmental issues should proceed with caution. A much under-discussed point is the impact of classification rules and standards developed by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) on international shipping conventions as agreed by states. Though it cannot be said that classification societies are making their own vessel-source discharge standards independent from the IMO lawmaking process, the Unified Requirements on BWM system installation illustrate that obligations under international instruments could be de facto complemented by industrial standards, despite the fact that no provisions incorporating the latter are explicitly spelled out in the former. Given the noticeable lack of state consent throughout the private standard-setting process and the near-universal applicability of IACS standards, legitimacy concerns arise as to whether it is justified for classification societies to wield such an impact on the development of vessel-source pollution requirements, affecting both states and other maritime stakeholders. In this respect, a global administrative law perspective is taken to examine in what ways their legitimacy could be challenged.
{"title":"The Expanding Role of Classification Societies in Conserving the Marine Environment: The Case of the 2004 BWM Convention","authors":"Zhong-hua Li, M. Seta","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2148793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2148793","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Private actors and their roles in conserving the marine environment have attracted increasing attention. Although classification societies were originally designed as industrial organizations developing internal standards on hull and machinery, their contributions to the marine environmental protection should not go ignored. As exemplified by the Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention, an international shipping instrument on ballast discharge for which the implementation process was subject to technological uncertainties, their contributions can be described in three ways: verification on behalf of states as “recognized organizations”; participation in International Maritime Organization (IMO) sessions; and establishment of their own standards. It is argued that these multiple functions reveal the competence of classification societies to tackle vessel-source pollution, and further, that their technical know-how and firsthand experience accumulated from shipping practice demonstrate their potential to address other complicated marine environmental issues where experience and compliance technologies are essential. However, the expanding focus of classification societies to marine environmental issues should proceed with caution. A much under-discussed point is the impact of classification rules and standards developed by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) on international shipping conventions as agreed by states. Though it cannot be said that classification societies are making their own vessel-source discharge standards independent from the IMO lawmaking process, the Unified Requirements on BWM system installation illustrate that obligations under international instruments could be de facto complemented by industrial standards, despite the fact that no provisions incorporating the latter are explicitly spelled out in the former. Given the noticeable lack of state consent throughout the private standard-setting process and the near-universal applicability of IACS standards, legitimacy concerns arise as to whether it is justified for classification societies to wield such an impact on the development of vessel-source pollution requirements, affecting both states and other maritime stakeholders. In this respect, a global administrative law perspective is taken to examine in what ways their legitimacy could be challenged.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76912943","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 : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2159898
A. Pecoraro
Abstract The International Seabed Authority is the global international organization through which 167 member states organize and control deep seabed mining in the international seabed. In addition to allocating mining rights, the Authority elaborates, amends, and enforces rules applicable to extractive activities in the Area. However, its freedom of action vis-à-vis deep seabed mining operators is constrained by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):contractors enjoy security of tenure, and the Authority is bound to respect obligations of nondiscrimination, proportionality, and uniform treatment. Nevertheless, those safeguards must be interpreted and applied considering the Area’s specific legal status.
{"title":"The Regulatory Powers of the International Seabed Authority: Security of Tenure and Its Limits","authors":"A. Pecoraro","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2159898","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2159898","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The International Seabed Authority is the global international organization through which 167 member states organize and control deep seabed mining in the international seabed. In addition to allocating mining rights, the Authority elaborates, amends, and enforces rules applicable to extractive activities in the Area. However, its freedom of action vis-à-vis deep seabed mining operators is constrained by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):contractors enjoy security of tenure, and the Authority is bound to respect obligations of nondiscrimination, proportionality, and uniform treatment. Nevertheless, those safeguards must be interpreted and applied considering the Area’s specific legal status.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87649287","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 : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2147306
Linda Finska, Ludmila Ivanova, I. Jakobsen, Heidi Rapp Nilsen, A. Normann, J. Solski
Abstract This article aims to map and provide an overview of international, regional, and national law applicable to marine waste in the Barents Sea, and to analyze fishing industry actors’ practices and perceptions of marine waste. We identify gaps between the law and its implementation, enforcement, and practice. The legal framework for marine plastic pollution in the Barents Sea and the Arctic is fragmented and not harmonized. Insufficient waste management facilities and regulations are likely to hinder compliance with existing regulations. There is an urgent need to upgrade the waste management infrastructure for the fishing industry in Norway and in northwest Russia.
{"title":"Waste Management on Fishing Vessels and in Fishing Harbors in the Barents Sea: Gaps in Law, Implementation and Practice","authors":"Linda Finska, Ludmila Ivanova, I. Jakobsen, Heidi Rapp Nilsen, A. Normann, J. Solski","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2147306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2147306","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article aims to map and provide an overview of international, regional, and national law applicable to marine waste in the Barents Sea, and to analyze fishing industry actors’ practices and perceptions of marine waste. We identify gaps between the law and its implementation, enforcement, and practice. The legal framework for marine plastic pollution in the Barents Sea and the Arctic is fragmented and not harmonized. Insufficient waste management facilities and regulations are likely to hinder compliance with existing regulations. There is an urgent need to upgrade the waste management infrastructure for the fishing industry in Norway and in northwest Russia.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88587938","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 : 2022-09-12DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2112000
Natalie Klein
Abstract The Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea was officially launched on 1 March 2022. The document was produced by the nongovernmental organization Human Rights at Sea, and responds to an undoubted need to prevent human rights violations at sea and to provide redress to victims of such abuses. Connecting the international human rights regime with the law of the sea has been one of many challenges to respond to this issue. This article explores the content of the Geneva Declaration and its alignment with existing law of the sea. Beyond the jurisdictional complexities presented, it is important to consider how this informal instrument holds relevance for international lawmaking. While there are obstacles, the Geneva Declaration creates a needed opportunity to bring attention to and clarity around the legal protections of human rights at sea.
{"title":"Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea: An Endeavor to Connect Law of the Sea and International Human Rights Law","authors":"Natalie Klein","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2112000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2112000","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea was officially launched on 1 March 2022. The document was produced by the nongovernmental organization Human Rights at Sea, and responds to an undoubted need to prevent human rights violations at sea and to provide redress to victims of such abuses. Connecting the international human rights regime with the law of the sea has been one of many challenges to respond to this issue. This article explores the content of the Geneva Declaration and its alignment with existing law of the sea. Beyond the jurisdictional complexities presented, it is important to consider how this informal instrument holds relevance for international lawmaking. While there are obstacles, the Geneva Declaration creates a needed opportunity to bring attention to and clarity around the legal protections of human rights at sea.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85531377","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 : 2022-08-22DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2105766
Sandrine W. De Herdt
Abstract The lack of transparency in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf constitutes a major issue for both submitting and third states. In this respect, a careful reader of the reports of UNCLOS Meeting of the States Parties would not fail to discern the constant calls for transparency in the work of this body. While much has already been said on the transparency/confidentiality issues in the work of the Commission, new issues have emerged, such as the question of transparency in the internal relationship between the Commission and its subcommission. Prompted by this observation, this article discusses the process of implementing Article 76 of UNCLOS through the prism of transparency, opacity, and confidentiality, with a particular focus on the instances of disagreements between the subcommission and the Commission in plenary.
{"title":"Transparency in the Process of Implementing Article 76 of the UNCLOS: Peering Inside","authors":"Sandrine W. De Herdt","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2105766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2105766","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The lack of transparency in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf constitutes a major issue for both submitting and third states. In this respect, a careful reader of the reports of UNCLOS Meeting of the States Parties would not fail to discern the constant calls for transparency in the work of this body. While much has already been said on the transparency/confidentiality issues in the work of the Commission, new issues have emerged, such as the question of transparency in the internal relationship between the Commission and its subcommission. Prompted by this observation, this article discusses the process of implementing Article 76 of UNCLOS through the prism of transparency, opacity, and confidentiality, with a particular focus on the instances of disagreements between the subcommission and the Commission in plenary.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85788869","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 : 2022-08-21DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2107965
H. Kim, Anne Thida Norodom
Abstract The aim of this article is to clarify the meaning and scope of Article 300 (good faith and abuse of rights) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Uncertainty about the meaning of Article 300 raises doubts about its raison d’être. It is insufficient to rely on the means of interpretation of treaties under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law to understand Article 300 of UNCLOS. Therefore, this article analyzes relevant international cases brought before international courts and tribunals (ICTs) established under Part XV, Section 2 of UNCLOS to scrutinize the interpretation and application of Article 300. The first task of this article is to identify how ICTs have understood the structure of this provision and its character. After this general observation, this article answers the following questions: (1) Which state bears the burden of proof to invoke Article 300? (2) What conditions/steps fulfill Article 300’s invocation? (3) In which circumstances do courts uphold or reject allegations that Article 300 has been breached? This article’s findings allow for an appraisal of international judges’ interpretations of the meaning and purpose of Article 300.
{"title":"An Appraisal of Article 300 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea","authors":"H. Kim, Anne Thida Norodom","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2107965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2107965","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this article is to clarify the meaning and scope of Article 300 (good faith and abuse of rights) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Uncertainty about the meaning of Article 300 raises doubts about its raison d’être. It is insufficient to rely on the means of interpretation of treaties under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law to understand Article 300 of UNCLOS. Therefore, this article analyzes relevant international cases brought before international courts and tribunals (ICTs) established under Part XV, Section 2 of UNCLOS to scrutinize the interpretation and application of Article 300. The first task of this article is to identify how ICTs have understood the structure of this provision and its character. After this general observation, this article answers the following questions: (1) Which state bears the burden of proof to invoke Article 300? (2) What conditions/steps fulfill Article 300’s invocation? (3) In which circumstances do courts uphold or reject allegations that Article 300 has been breached? This article’s findings allow for an appraisal of international judges’ interpretations of the meaning and purpose of Article 300.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90717999","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 : 2022-08-18DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2106329
R. Barnes
Abstract On 31 October 2021, an agreement was signed between Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu that established a commission with the power to request an advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Since ITLOS’s advisory jurisdiction has been tested in only one case, I explain and evaluate the procedural obstacles facing this commission, as well as the potential questions it might submit to ITLOS. The analysis draws upon the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice to indicate how ITLOS could articulate and apply its jurisdiction in an advisory case. I conclude that although there appear to be few insurmountable obstacles to securing ITLOS’s jurisdiction, care must be taken by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law to ensure that the questions presented to ITLOS are carefully drafted so that ITLOS has no concerns over the judicial propriety of giving an advisory opinion.
{"title":"An Advisory Opinion on Climate Change Obligations Under International Law: A Realistic Prospect?","authors":"R. Barnes","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2106329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2106329","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On 31 October 2021, an agreement was signed between Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu that established a commission with the power to request an advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Since ITLOS’s advisory jurisdiction has been tested in only one case, I explain and evaluate the procedural obstacles facing this commission, as well as the potential questions it might submit to ITLOS. The analysis draws upon the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice to indicate how ITLOS could articulate and apply its jurisdiction in an advisory case. I conclude that although there appear to be few insurmountable obstacles to securing ITLOS’s jurisdiction, care must be taken by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law to ensure that the questions presented to ITLOS are carefully drafted so that ITLOS has no concerns over the judicial propriety of giving an advisory opinion.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82295703","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：