Pub Date : 2021-11-05DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1982428
C. Symmons
Abstract Ireland was one of the earliest states to proclaim, in 1959, straight baselines around parts of its coast. This exercise was fundamentally flawed because the linking points of the baselines specified by coordinates at the time had no chart data attached, so that, for example, the extent of the claimed Irish territorial sea (or other zones) could not then be accurately determined. This deficiency around the Irish coastline was belatedly rectified with respect to the straight baselines on the north, west, and south coasts by a statutory instrument of 2016. Furthurmore, the lack of published closing lines on the east coast respecting the three major bays was recently remedied by a statutory instrument of 2019 indicating the closing lines of the same. Despite these welcome clarifications, ambiguities and possible legal problems still relate to Irish baselines.
{"title":"Recent Developments Concerning Irish Straight Baselines and Bay Closing Lines","authors":"C. Symmons","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1982428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1982428","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ireland was one of the earliest states to proclaim, in 1959, straight baselines around parts of its coast. This exercise was fundamentally flawed because the linking points of the baselines specified by coordinates at the time had no chart data attached, so that, for example, the extent of the claimed Irish territorial sea (or other zones) could not then be accurately determined. This deficiency around the Irish coastline was belatedly rectified with respect to the straight baselines on the north, west, and south coasts by a statutory instrument of 2016. Furthurmore, the lack of published closing lines on the east coast respecting the three major bays was recently remedied by a statutory instrument of 2019 indicating the closing lines of the same. Despite these welcome clarifications, ambiguities and possible legal problems still relate to Irish baselines.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76609752","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 : 2021-10-29DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1991866
J. Solski
Abstract Article 234 of UNCLOS is in many ways exceptional, but it is not unique in the sense that it grants to the coastal state “complete” legislative power. Arguably, “complete” coastal state jurisdiction exists in the territorial sea for the purposes enumerated in Article 21(1), allowing coastal states to adopt ship reporting systems, pilotage, and other routing measures unilaterally. The analysis of state practice reveals that states often decide to engage the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in different ways, even when such a course of action is not mandatory. This article advocates for meaningful deliberation as both a suitable method of meeting Article 234’s due regard standard, and a practice that can be expected from a steward.
{"title":"The ‘Due Regard’ of Article 234 of UNCLOS: Lessons From Regulating Innocent Passage in the Territorial Sea","authors":"J. Solski","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1991866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1991866","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Article 234 of UNCLOS is in many ways exceptional, but it is not unique in the sense that it grants to the coastal state “complete” legislative power. Arguably, “complete” coastal state jurisdiction exists in the territorial sea for the purposes enumerated in Article 21(1), allowing coastal states to adopt ship reporting systems, pilotage, and other routing measures unilaterally. The analysis of state practice reveals that states often decide to engage the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in different ways, even when such a course of action is not mandatory. This article advocates for meaningful deliberation as both a suitable method of meeting Article 234’s due regard standard, and a practice that can be expected from a steward.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75781212","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 : 2021-09-09DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1958450
Gabriela A. Oanta
Abstract This article analyzes fisheries relations between the European Union and the Falkland Islands from a legal perspective, paying special attention to the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on the fishing carried out in this British Overseas Territory. Following a brief overview of the fishing conducted in these controversial waters and internationally disputed maritime zones, it examines European Union–Falkland Islands fisheries relations, first until 31 December 2020, and second in the wake of Brexit, with particular emphasis on those measures (mitigation and treaty based) that the European Union might take now that the United Kingdom is no longer a member.
{"title":"European Union–Falkland Islands Fisheries Relations Post Brexit","authors":"Gabriela A. Oanta","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1958450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1958450","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes fisheries relations between the European Union and the Falkland Islands from a legal perspective, paying special attention to the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on the fishing carried out in this British Overseas Territory. Following a brief overview of the fishing conducted in these controversial waters and internationally disputed maritime zones, it examines European Union–Falkland Islands fisheries relations, first until 31 December 2020, and second in the wake of Brexit, with particular emphasis on those measures (mitigation and treaty based) that the European Union might take now that the United Kingdom is no longer a member.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80512963","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 : 2021-09-09DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1963571
N. Bankes
Abstract Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a system for compulsory and binding dispute resolution. Article 288(2) of UNCLOS allows the dispute resolution system of Part XV to be used by the parties to another international agreement in accordance with the terms of that other agreement, as long as that agreement is related to the purposes of UNCLOS. This article examines the treaty practice under Article 288(2) to assess how those other agreements (which are mostly regional fisheries management organization agreements) provide for access to Part XV. The article examines these agreements within the following analytical framework: (1) Are these agreements related to the purposes of UNCLOS? (2) What jurisdiction, ratione materiae, do the agreements confer on the court or tribunal? (3) How do the agreements provide for submission? (4) How do the agreements deal with applicable law issues? (5) How do the agreements deal with the availability of provisional measures?
{"title":"The Jurisdiction of the Dispute Settlement Bodies of the Law of the Sea Convention With Respect to Other Treaties","authors":"N. Bankes","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1963571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1963571","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a system for compulsory and binding dispute resolution. Article 288(2) of UNCLOS allows the dispute resolution system of Part XV to be used by the parties to another international agreement in accordance with the terms of that other agreement, as long as that agreement is related to the purposes of UNCLOS. This article examines the treaty practice under Article 288(2) to assess how those other agreements (which are mostly regional fisheries management organization agreements) provide for access to Part XV. The article examines these agreements within the following analytical framework: (1) Are these agreements related to the purposes of UNCLOS? (2) What jurisdiction, ratione materiae, do the agreements confer on the court or tribunal? (3) How do the agreements provide for submission? (4) How do the agreements deal with applicable law issues? (5) How do the agreements deal with the availability of provisional measures?","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72694812","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 : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1959095
Vanessa Arellano Rodríguez
Abstract Renowned for its unique flora and fauna, the Galapagos Archipelago is also home to a growing population of more than 25,000 people. Despite receiving approximately 200,000 tourists each year, and having governmental and nongovernmental offices, two airports, and various other human developments, the Archipelago’s telecommunications remain largely dependent on satellites. The absence of submarine telecommunication cables has not gone unnoticed, and the Archipelago is currently in the spotlight for two potential submarine cable projects. Although the environmental impact of submarine cables is generally deemed to be minimal, the pressure that new anthropogenic activities may add to the Galapagos cannot be disregarded. Two important aspects warrant specific attention in this regard: The Galapagos Archipelago’s surrounding waters have been designated as a marine protected area (MPA) and also a particularly sensitive sea area (PSSA) by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Hence, using the Galapagos as a case study could serve as yardstick from which to assess the central question of this article: To what extent can coastal states regulate submarine cable operations for the protection and preservation of the marine environment?
{"title":"Submarine Cables and the Marine Environment: Bringing the First Submarine Cable to the Galapagos","authors":"Vanessa Arellano Rodríguez","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1959095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1959095","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Renowned for its unique flora and fauna, the Galapagos Archipelago is also home to a growing population of more than 25,000 people. Despite receiving approximately 200,000 tourists each year, and having governmental and nongovernmental offices, two airports, and various other human developments, the Archipelago’s telecommunications remain largely dependent on satellites. The absence of submarine telecommunication cables has not gone unnoticed, and the Archipelago is currently in the spotlight for two potential submarine cable projects. Although the environmental impact of submarine cables is generally deemed to be minimal, the pressure that new anthropogenic activities may add to the Galapagos cannot be disregarded. Two important aspects warrant specific attention in this regard: The Galapagos Archipelago’s surrounding waters have been designated as a marine protected area (MPA) and also a particularly sensitive sea area (PSSA) by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Hence, using the Galapagos as a case study could serve as yardstick from which to assess the central question of this article: To what extent can coastal states regulate submarine cable operations for the protection and preservation of the marine environment?","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74712160","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 : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1959772
Xuexia Liao
Abstract This article explores the plausibility of submitting disputes concerning activities in undelimited maritime areas to United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) compulsory procedures in order to invoke the state responsibility of the coastal state for breaching its obligations pending maritime delimitation. Key to this question is the establishment of an UNCLOS tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute. By examining the claims on the basis of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS, and of other UNCLOS provisions that are not in themselves excluded from UNCLOS compulsory dispute resolution procedures, this article discusses the respective strengths and weakness of the two avenues toward the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism.
{"title":"The Road Not Taken: Submission of Disputes Concerning Activities in Undelimited Maritime Areas to UNCLOS Compulsory Procedures","authors":"Xuexia Liao","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1959772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1959772","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the plausibility of submitting disputes concerning activities in undelimited maritime areas to United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) compulsory procedures in order to invoke the state responsibility of the coastal state for breaching its obligations pending maritime delimitation. Key to this question is the establishment of an UNCLOS tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute. By examining the claims on the basis of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS, and of other UNCLOS provisions that are not in themselves excluded from UNCLOS compulsory dispute resolution procedures, this article discusses the respective strengths and weakness of the two avenues toward the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83128231","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 : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1957242
Suksoo Kim
Abstract In recent years, the dispute over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands, which had been modestly managed with no significant challenge to Japan’s effective control, has developed into a new phase, with heightened tensions and a risk of clashes. A notable trend is that the intrusions of China Coast Guard ships into the Japanese contiguous zone and territorial sea off the Senkaku islands have become more frequent and their stay in these waters has become longer. China appears to have shifted its strategy from a regular presence in these waters to the exercise of law enforcement authority in sovereign waters.
{"title":"The Senkaku Islands Dispute Between Japan and China: A Note on Recent Trends","authors":"Suksoo Kim","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1957242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1957242","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, the dispute over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands, which had been modestly managed with no significant challenge to Japan’s effective control, has developed into a new phase, with heightened tensions and a risk of clashes. A notable trend is that the intrusions of China Coast Guard ships into the Japanese contiguous zone and territorial sea off the Senkaku islands have become more frequent and their stay in these waters has become longer. China appears to have shifted its strategy from a regular presence in these waters to the exercise of law enforcement authority in sovereign waters.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81451240","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 : 2021-07-01DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1913323
A. Tirrell, Elizabeth Mendenhall
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed additional weaknesses of the already troubling “flag of convenience” practices under international law; the passenger cruise industry was especially impacted. Most cruise ships under distress from the pandemic received little aid from their flag states, and many vessels were denied entry into ports of nonflag states (regardless of whether an outbreak had been documented onboard). States and vessels lacked clear guidance around their rights and responsibilities under the extraordinary circumstances, resulting in a less efficient response to a dangerous situation. This article reviews the current status of international law concerning port and flag state duties to distressed vessels, and suggests the creation of flag state medical liability to help clarify decision-making during future health crises.
{"title":"Cruise Ships, COVID-19, and Port/Flag State Obligations","authors":"A. Tirrell, Elizabeth Mendenhall","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1913323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1913323","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed additional weaknesses of the already troubling “flag of convenience” practices under international law; the passenger cruise industry was especially impacted. Most cruise ships under distress from the pandemic received little aid from their flag states, and many vessels were denied entry into ports of nonflag states (regardless of whether an outbreak had been documented onboard). States and vessels lacked clear guidance around their rights and responsibilities under the extraordinary circumstances, resulting in a less efficient response to a dangerous situation. This article reviews the current status of international law concerning port and flag state duties to distressed vessels, and suggests the creation of flag state medical liability to help clarify decision-making during future health crises.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80528163","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 : 2021-05-26DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1910158
P.-E. Thévenin
Abstract This article examines the role played by the Soviet Union during the negotiations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The author argues that since its transformation into a maritime power in the 1960s, the USSR defended a liberal conception of the law of the sea, similar to that promoted by the West with which it cooperated in order to resist attempts by developing states to increase coastal state sovereignty on the high seas and centralize exploitation of the deep seabed’s resources. To demonstrate its thesis and reassess the findings of the existing literature, this article draws upon the travaux préparatoires of the Law of the Sea Convention, as well as newly available fonds from the French Diplomatic archives.
{"title":"A Liberal Maritime Power as Any Other? The Soviet Union during the Negotiations of the Law of the Sea Convention","authors":"P.-E. Thévenin","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1910158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1910158","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the role played by the Soviet Union during the negotiations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The author argues that since its transformation into a maritime power in the 1960s, the USSR defended a liberal conception of the law of the sea, similar to that promoted by the West with which it cooperated in order to resist attempts by developing states to increase coastal state sovereignty on the high seas and centralize exploitation of the deep seabed’s resources. To demonstrate its thesis and reassess the findings of the existing literature, this article draws upon the travaux préparatoires of the Law of the Sea Convention, as well as newly available fonds from the French Diplomatic archives.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83294845","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 : 2021-05-11DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1917099
Reece Lewis
Abstract Coastal states create and modify maritime features. The law of the sea recognizes the existence of artificial islands, installations, and structures. It also defines islands and low-tide elevations as “naturally formed” areas of land. Thus far, however, these concepts have been ambiguously interpreted and applied. This article puts forward a clearer approach. It reemphasizes some of the fundamental principles of international law by demonstrating that a feature’s capability of sovereign appropriation should determine its legal treatment.
{"title":"The Artificial Construction and Modification of Maritime Features: Piling Pelion on Ossa","authors":"Reece Lewis","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1917099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1917099","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Coastal states create and modify maritime features. The law of the sea recognizes the existence of artificial islands, installations, and structures. It also defines islands and low-tide elevations as “naturally formed” areas of land. Thus far, however, these concepts have been ambiguously interpreted and applied. This article puts forward a clearer approach. It reemphasizes some of the fundamental principles of international law by demonstrating that a feature’s capability of sovereign appropriation should determine its legal treatment.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73458405","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：