Pub Date : 2022-08-17DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2103478
Haoran Cui, Yubing Shi
Abstract In recent years, the maritime militia and their activities in the South China Sea have attracted mounting attention from the international community. To date, only China and Vietnam have established rules relating to maritime militia. The maritime militia systems in both China and Vietnam result from national traditional militia systems and are extended reflections of the “People’s War” ideology in the field of modern defense. They are similar in aspects such as their definitions and nature, type of activities and scope, and leadership. Also, both militias play an affiliated role in their protection of maritime rights and military systems. Nonetheless, there are distinct differences between the legislation of maritime militia in China and Vietnam, particularly in relation to the political role they play, welfare and treatment, and punishment mechanisms. Through the comparison of the legislation on maritime militia in China and Vietnam, this article aims to define the legal status of maritime militia and to propose approaches to improving China’s legislation on maritime militia.
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of the Legislation on Maritime Militia Between China and Vietnam","authors":"Haoran Cui, Yubing Shi","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2103478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2103478","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, the maritime militia and their activities in the South China Sea have attracted mounting attention from the international community. To date, only China and Vietnam have established rules relating to maritime militia. The maritime militia systems in both China and Vietnam result from national traditional militia systems and are extended reflections of the “People’s War” ideology in the field of modern defense. They are similar in aspects such as their definitions and nature, type of activities and scope, and leadership. Also, both militias play an affiliated role in their protection of maritime rights and military systems. Nonetheless, there are distinct differences between the legislation of maritime militia in China and Vietnam, particularly in relation to the political role they play, welfare and treatment, and punishment mechanisms. Through the comparison of the legislation on maritime militia in China and Vietnam, this article aims to define the legal status of maritime militia and to propose approaches to improving China’s legislation on maritime militia.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"147 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89570565","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 : 2022-07-20DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2096158
Alexander Lott, Shin Kawagishi
Abstract The Strait of Hormuz has great significance for the world economy as an oil chokepoint. Yet in recent years, international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz has been repeatedly hampered and subject to discriminatory navigational restrictions and attacks. Such measures have been mostly aimed at oil tankers. This article examines the maritime incidents that occurred in the Strait of Hormuz in 2019: mine attacks against oil tankers and the arrest of an oil tanker by the Iranian armed forces. This study approaches these incidents from the perspectives of the law of the sea and from jus ad bellum.
{"title":"The Legal Regime of the Strait of Hormuz and Attacks Against Oil Tankers: Law of the Sea and Law on the Use of Force Perspectives","authors":"Alexander Lott, Shin Kawagishi","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2096158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2096158","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Strait of Hormuz has great significance for the world economy as an oil chokepoint. Yet in recent years, international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz has been repeatedly hampered and subject to discriminatory navigational restrictions and attacks. Such measures have been mostly aimed at oil tankers. This article examines the maritime incidents that occurred in the Strait of Hormuz in 2019: mine attacks against oil tankers and the arrest of an oil tanker by the Iranian armed forces. This study approaches these incidents from the perspectives of the law of the sea and from jus ad bellum.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"123 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80312472","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 : 2022-05-28DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2071783
José Manuel Sobrino-Heredia
Abstract This article analyzes piracy and banditry in the Gulf of Guinea, which in the last two decades have increased and which threaten freedom of navigation and fishing activities in the area. The situation is exacerbated by the absence of minimally effective maritime security in the region, in contrast to other areas of the world such as the Indian Ocean. Coastal states in the region are trying to cooperate to combat piracy and armed robbery in these waters. However, such initiatives are not a sufficient response to the scale of violence at sea. Therefore, actors outside the region, such as the European Union, have initiated action aimed at supporting these efforts and contributing to improving maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea. These initiatives have been channeled through a strategy that includes the coordinated maritime presence of naval forces in this maritime area.
{"title":"The European Union as a Maritime Security Actor in the Gulf of Guinea: From Its Strategy and Action Plan to the New Concept of “Coordinated Maritime Presences”","authors":"José Manuel Sobrino-Heredia","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2071783","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2071783","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes piracy and banditry in the Gulf of Guinea, which in the last two decades have increased and which threaten freedom of navigation and fishing activities in the area. The situation is exacerbated by the absence of minimally effective maritime security in the region, in contrast to other areas of the world such as the Indian Ocean. Coastal states in the region are trying to cooperate to combat piracy and armed robbery in these waters. However, such initiatives are not a sufficient response to the scale of violence at sea. Therefore, actors outside the region, such as the European Union, have initiated action aimed at supporting these efforts and contributing to improving maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea. These initiatives have been channeled through a strategy that includes the coordinated maritime presence of naval forces in this maritime area.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"83 6 1","pages":"105 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80074418","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 : 2022-05-11DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2068704
Yen-Chiang Chang
Abstract The development of sea power theory has undergone a transformation in the contemporary context. The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative, as proposed by China, is promoted as an effort to establish a cooperative development model. This approach would also seem to be consistent with the essence of modern sea power and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative. This article argues that in order to establish a viable legal cooperative framework, “hard power” cooperation and “soft power” cooperation models should be introduced, on the basis of current international treaties and customary law, and with reference to international experience.
{"title":"Toward Better Maritime Cooperation—A Proposal from the Chinese Perspective","authors":"Yen-Chiang Chang","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2068704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2068704","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The development of sea power theory has undergone a transformation in the contemporary context. The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative, as proposed by China, is promoted as an effort to establish a cooperative development model. This approach would also seem to be consistent with the essence of modern sea power and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative. This article argues that in order to establish a viable legal cooperative framework, “hard power” cooperation and “soft power” cooperation models should be introduced, on the basis of current international treaties and customary law, and with reference to international experience.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"53 1","pages":"85 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81272141","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: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2033143
Frances Anggadi
Abstract In August 2021, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders issued the Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level Rise (PIF Declaration), declaring their intention that their maritime zones, and rights and entitlements flowing from those zones, would be maintained notwithstanding the effects of sea-level rise. This article offers a commentary on the PIF Declaration in the context of scholarly debate on sea-level rise implications for baselines and maritime zones, and in light of its historical lineage. The PIF Declaration’s significance lies in giving prominence to a package of state practice, comprising the establishment of maritime zones using fixed methods, their notification to the international community, and their maintenance over time. The article examines evidence of such practice among PIF members, and considers how such practice advances the PIF Declaration’s claim that the preservation of maritime zones may be achieved through the interpretation and application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
{"title":"Establishment, Notification, and Maintenance: The Package of State Practice at the Heart of the Pacific Islands Forum Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones","authors":"Frances Anggadi","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2033143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2033143","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In August 2021, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders issued the Declaration on Preserving Maritime Zones in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level Rise (PIF Declaration), declaring their intention that their maritime zones, and rights and entitlements flowing from those zones, would be maintained notwithstanding the effects of sea-level rise. This article offers a commentary on the PIF Declaration in the context of scholarly debate on sea-level rise implications for baselines and maritime zones, and in light of its historical lineage. The PIF Declaration’s significance lies in giving prominence to a package of state practice, comprising the establishment of maritime zones using fixed methods, their notification to the international community, and their maintenance over time. The article examines evidence of such practice among PIF members, and considers how such practice advances the PIF Declaration’s claim that the preservation of maritime zones may be achieved through the interpretation and application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"44 1","pages":"19 - 36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78729319","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: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2035287
Nengye Liu, A. Proelss, V. Schatz
Abstract This article examines the concepts of “research fishing” and “directed fishing” under the Ross Sea region Marine Protected Area (RSrMPA) with specific regard to MPAs as a conservation tool, drawing comparisons with related concepts contained in two other agreements, namely, the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and the 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOF Agreement). It first reviews the negotiation processes of the RSrMPA, focusing on debates between so called “fishing states” and “conservation states,” as well as the political compromise that led to the establishment of the RSrMPA. Second, it takes a detailed look at the regulation of “research fishing” and “directed fishing,” which may be conducted in the RSrMPA and the three zones into which it is divided. Third, it analyzes how “scientific research activities” and “exploratory fishing” are regulated in the CAOF Agreement. Thereafter, this article examines the role of the concept of whaling “for purposes of scientific research” under the ICRW. It concludes with an assessment of differences and similarities between the analyzed regulatory instruments, which identifies recommended lessons for the design of Conservation and Management Measures establishing MPAs that both reflect the precautionary approach and strike a balance between conservation and utilization.
{"title":"Regulating Exceptions for Research and Exploratory Fishing in Southern Ocean Marine Protected Areas: A Comparative Analysis on Balancing Conservation and Commercial Use","authors":"Nengye Liu, A. Proelss, V. Schatz","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2035287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2035287","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the concepts of “research fishing” and “directed fishing” under the Ross Sea region Marine Protected Area (RSrMPA) with specific regard to MPAs as a conservation tool, drawing comparisons with related concepts contained in two other agreements, namely, the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and the 2018 Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOF Agreement). It first reviews the negotiation processes of the RSrMPA, focusing on debates between so called “fishing states” and “conservation states,” as well as the political compromise that led to the establishment of the RSrMPA. Second, it takes a detailed look at the regulation of “research fishing” and “directed fishing,” which may be conducted in the RSrMPA and the three zones into which it is divided. Third, it analyzes how “scientific research activities” and “exploratory fishing” are regulated in the CAOF Agreement. Thereafter, this article examines the role of the concept of whaling “for purposes of scientific research” under the ICRW. It concludes with an assessment of differences and similarities between the analyzed regulatory instruments, which identifies recommended lessons for the design of Conservation and Management Measures establishing MPAs that both reflect the precautionary approach and strike a balance between conservation and utilization.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"16 1","pages":"60 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86220616","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2036276
Junghwan Choi, Sangil Lee
Abstract This study proposes a legal framework for the successful operation of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). It discusses the legal status of a remote operator of MASS, and the possibility of granting them status as a ship employee or master. This research argues that the status of seafarer or deemed seafarer should be required for R-level MASS, and the status of master or deemed master with the right to command in matters relating to ship operation be conferred for RU- and A-level MASS. The study presents an expanded notion of seafarers by extending the combination of ship and human elements—concerning seafarers in existing international maritime conventions—to deem remote operators of MASS ship employees. Further, it suggested that remote operators be regarded as a human element by perpetuating the notion of the master, retaining their status as the final entity of responsibility for the ship, even if the cutting-edge information and communication technology (ICT)-based commercialization of MASS is realized.
{"title":"Legal Status of the Remote Operator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) Under Maritime Law","authors":"Junghwan Choi, Sangil Lee","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2036276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2036276","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study proposes a legal framework for the successful operation of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS). It discusses the legal status of a remote operator of MASS, and the possibility of granting them status as a ship employee or master. This research argues that the status of seafarer or deemed seafarer should be required for R-level MASS, and the status of master or deemed master with the right to command in matters relating to ship operation be conferred for RU- and A-level MASS. The study presents an expanded notion of seafarers by extending the combination of ship and human elements—concerning seafarers in existing international maritime conventions—to deem remote operators of MASS ship employees. Further, it suggested that remote operators be regarded as a human element by perpetuating the notion of the master, retaining their status as the final entity of responsibility for the ship, even if the cutting-edge information and communication technology (ICT)-based commercialization of MASS is realized.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"102 1","pages":"445 - 462"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89281449","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 : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2034555
Nian-Jiao Peng, C. Ngeow
Abstract This article investigates and examines the efficacy of the multilateral and bilateral modalities or mechanisms in managing the South China Sea dispute between China and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) claimant states. There are three multilateral modalities in the management and control of the South China Sea dispute: the “ASEAN + China,” “ASEAN + X” and “ASEAN-X” modalities. At the bilateral level, mechanisms have developed between China and the Philippines, China and Vietnam, and China and Malaysia. It is argued in this article that the “ASEAN + China” modality remains the most realistic multilateral arrangement currently, while the alternative options of “ASEAN + X” and “ASEAN-X” might be feasible in the long term. Meanwhile, while bilateral mechanisms have fostered trust building and pragmatic maritime cooperation in the South China Sea, they are facing a number of challenges.
{"title":"Managing the South China Sea Dispute: Multilateral and Bilateral Approaches","authors":"Nian-Jiao Peng, C. Ngeow","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2034555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2034555","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates and examines the efficacy of the multilateral and bilateral modalities or mechanisms in managing the South China Sea dispute between China and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) claimant states. There are three multilateral modalities in the management and control of the South China Sea dispute: the “ASEAN + China,” “ASEAN + X” and “ASEAN-X” modalities. At the bilateral level, mechanisms have developed between China and the Philippines, China and Vietnam, and China and Malaysia. It is argued in this article that the “ASEAN + China” modality remains the most realistic multilateral arrangement currently, while the alternative options of “ASEAN + X” and “ASEAN-X” might be feasible in the long term. Meanwhile, while bilateral mechanisms have fostered trust building and pragmatic maritime cooperation in the South China Sea, they are facing a number of challenges.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"30 1","pages":"37 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90513198","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 : 2022-02-17DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2022.2032501
V. Chandra, J. Morss
abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is credited for promoting order in the world’s oceans. This article evaluates UNCLOS in the context of maritime boundaries in areas of hydrocarbon potential. It uses a dataset of 109 maritime boundaries and finds that the most frequent maritime boundary resolution methodology was not a negotiated delimitation agreement, but a solution only indirectly referenced by UNCLOS: a Joint Development Area agreement with prescriptive resource sharing. This study also discovered that disputes that involve states that have chosen to opt out of compulsory dispute resolution procedures are more likely to remain unresolved than otherwise.
{"title":"UNCLOS and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Areas of Hydrocarbon Potential: Oil Under Troubled Waters?","authors":"V. Chandra, J. Morss","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2022.2032501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2022.2032501","url":null,"abstract":"abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is credited for promoting order in the world’s oceans. This article evaluates UNCLOS in the context of maritime boundaries in areas of hydrocarbon potential. It uses a dataset of 109 maritime boundaries and finds that the most frequent maritime boundary resolution methodology was not a negotiated delimitation agreement, but a solution only indirectly referenced by UNCLOS: a Joint Development Area agreement with prescriptive resource sharing. This study also discovered that disputes that involve states that have chosen to opt out of compulsory dispute resolution procedures are more likely to remain unresolved than otherwise.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"2 1","pages":"1 - 18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86484890","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.2011509
Lan N. Nguyen
Abstract As “the Constitution for the Ocean,” the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a general normative framework for the regulation of ocean space. The finer details and specific obligations contained in UNCLOS are elaborated through the use of various techniques and mechanisms—one of which is the “rule of reference.” The “rule of reference” is a technique that incorporates existing rules and standards contained in external instruments into UNCLOS. As such, the rule of reference raises interesting questions regarding the extent to which it allows UNCLOS to deal with challenges that are not—or not sufficiently regulated—under the Convention. Such an inquiry requires a balancing exercise between, on the one hand, the cardinal principle of state consent under international law and, on the other, the need for UNCLOS to grow and adapt to new challenges. This article seeks to address this balance through the application of the rule of reference to two current challenges to the oceans, namely, climate change and conservation of marine biodiversity, in order to identify the room available for and the limits of using the rule of reference to expand the environmental regulatory scope of UNCLOS.
{"title":"Expanding the Environmental Regulatory Scope of UNCLOS Through the Rule of Reference: Potentials and Limits","authors":"Lan N. Nguyen","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.2011509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.2011509","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As “the Constitution for the Ocean,” the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a general normative framework for the regulation of ocean space. The finer details and specific obligations contained in UNCLOS are elaborated through the use of various techniques and mechanisms—one of which is the “rule of reference.” The “rule of reference” is a technique that incorporates existing rules and standards contained in external instruments into UNCLOS. As such, the rule of reference raises interesting questions regarding the extent to which it allows UNCLOS to deal with challenges that are not—or not sufficiently regulated—under the Convention. Such an inquiry requires a balancing exercise between, on the one hand, the cardinal principle of state consent under international law and, on the other, the need for UNCLOS to grow and adapt to new challenges. This article seeks to address this balance through the application of the rule of reference to two current challenges to the oceans, namely, climate change and conservation of marine biodiversity, in order to identify the room available for and the limits of using the rule of reference to expand the environmental regulatory scope of UNCLOS.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":"303 1","pages":"419 - 444"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77024290","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：