Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1901342
R. Churchill
Abstract Fish aggregating devices (FADs) are widely used in artisanal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea and in tropical tuna fisheries. Thousands of FADs are lost or abandoned each year, with many causing environmental damage. This article examines whether such loss or abandonment contravenes international marine pollution law. It finds that abandonment probably constitutes “dumping” within the meaning of the international dumping regime and thus, depending on the material of which a FAD is made, is either prohibited or subject to a permit system, and that the nonaccidental loss of a FAD breaches Annex V of MARPOL. The article also considers what action may be taken against the flag states of vessels that have abandoned or lost FADs.
{"title":"Just a Harmless Fishing Fad—or Does the Use of FADs Contravene International Marine Pollution Law?","authors":"R. Churchill","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1901342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1901342","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fish aggregating devices (FADs) are widely used in artisanal fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea and in tropical tuna fisheries. Thousands of FADs are lost or abandoned each year, with many causing environmental damage. This article examines whether such loss or abandonment contravenes international marine pollution law. It finds that abandonment probably constitutes “dumping” within the meaning of the international dumping regime and thus, depending on the material of which a FAD is made, is either prohibited or subject to a permit system, and that the nonaccidental loss of a FAD breaches Annex V of MARPOL. The article also considers what action may be taken against the flag states of vessels that have abandoned or lost FADs.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82691041","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 : 2021-03-05DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1886448
Hayley Roberts
Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is heralded as a constitution for the oceans and, as part of this, provides for a compulsory dispute settlement procedure entailing binding decisions. However, case law and academic commentary have highlighted significant issues in definitively identifying other agreements that could preclude these compulsory procedures—a concept permitted by the Convention in certain circumstances. This article begins to explore this challenge by contending that the type of agreement plays a significant role in whether or not it could be determined to be an “exclusionary agreement.” In doing so, the article conducts a systematic interpretation of Articles 281 and 282 UNCLOS, underpinned by the application of relevant provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This provides a conclusive basis as to whether the status of an agreement as an “ad hoc agreement” (specific; adopted for the dispute) or an “existing agreement” (general; adopted prior to the dispute) holds any significance in the context of these articles.
{"title":"Identifying “Exclusionary Agreements”: Agreement Type as a Procedural Limitation in UNCLOS Dispute Settlement","authors":"Hayley Roberts","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1886448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1886448","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is heralded as a constitution for the oceans and, as part of this, provides for a compulsory dispute settlement procedure entailing binding decisions. However, case law and academic commentary have highlighted significant issues in definitively identifying other agreements that could preclude these compulsory procedures—a concept permitted by the Convention in certain circumstances. This article begins to explore this challenge by contending that the type of agreement plays a significant role in whether or not it could be determined to be an “exclusionary agreement.” In doing so, the article conducts a systematic interpretation of Articles 281 and 282 UNCLOS, underpinned by the application of relevant provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This provides a conclusive basis as to whether the status of an agreement as an “ad hoc agreement” (specific; adopted for the dispute) or an “existing agreement” (general; adopted prior to the dispute) holds any significance in the context of these articles.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82921458","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 : 2021-03-03DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2021.1886449
Ethan Beringen, Nengye Liu, M. Lim
Abstract To date, marine genetic resources (MGR) have proven to be the most controversial aspect of the package deal structure of the ongoing negotiations of a legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). This has led to a proliferation of scholarly work characterizing the debate on MGR along developed and developing state lines. By applying middle power international relations theory to the Australian delegation’s conduct in MGR negotiations, this article aims to challenge the developed/developing state narrative. As such, it advocates a more nuanced approach to understanding state motivation in multilateral treaty negotiations pertaining especially to complex issues such as MGR.
{"title":"Australia as a Middle Power: Challenging the Narrative of Developed/Developing States in International Negotiations Surrounding Marine Genetic Resources","authors":"Ethan Beringen, Nengye Liu, M. Lim","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2021.1886449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.1886449","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To date, marine genetic resources (MGR) have proven to be the most controversial aspect of the package deal structure of the ongoing negotiations of a legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). This has led to a proliferation of scholarly work characterizing the debate on MGR along developed and developing state lines. By applying middle power international relations theory to the Australian delegation’s conduct in MGR negotiations, this article aims to challenge the developed/developing state narrative. As such, it advocates a more nuanced approach to understanding state motivation in multilateral treaty negotiations pertaining especially to complex issues such as MGR.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83510393","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1835026
J. Solski
Abstract Article 234 is exceptional regarding its wording and placement in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as well as in its historical background. The Arctic provision has given rise to divergent interpretations regarding the conditions for invoking it, the limitations on the authority under Article 234, and its spatial scope of application. It has served as a justification for specific legislation adopted by Canada and Russia that has been opposed by the United States. The article, describes as a “textbook example of finding a compromise in international treaty negotiations,” was negotiated directly and privately, among these three states during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). This article describes the historical background to Article 234 and sheds new light on the negotiating process that led to the adoption of the provision.
{"title":"The Genesis of Article 234 of the UNCLOS","authors":"J. Solski","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1835026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1835026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Article 234 is exceptional regarding its wording and placement in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as well as in its historical background. The Arctic provision has given rise to divergent interpretations regarding the conditions for invoking it, the limitations on the authority under Article 234, and its spatial scope of application. It has served as a justification for specific legislation adopted by Canada and Russia that has been opposed by the United States. The article, describes as a “textbook example of finding a compromise in international treaty negotiations,” was negotiated directly and privately, among these three states during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). This article describes the historical background to Article 234 and sheds new light on the negotiating process that led to the adoption of the provision.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83739496","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1845436
Haohan Shen
Abstract The obligations of state sponsorship in the exploration and exploitation of the resources in the international seabed area require states parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to control the exploration and exploitation activities of contractors through domestic legislation and the adoption of relevant administrative measures, and to ensure that contractors comply with UNCLOS and international regulations, rules, and procedures promulgated by the International Seabed Authority. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Exploration and Exploitation of Resources in the Deep Seabed Area (DSM Law) was adopted on 26 February 2016. It is the first important legislative step that China has taken to fulfill its obligation as a sponsoring state. Given the fact that a number of the provisions in China’s DSM Law are phrased in rather general terms, the next step that China should take is to develop a comprehensive domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining under the DSM Law. Part I of this article provides an overview of China’s developing domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining. Part II proposes three principles that should be enshrined in China’s developing domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining, and Part III articulates the legal norms that underpin China’s developing domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining. Part IV delivers a critical review of current normative instruments issued under the DSM Law and proposes suggestions to revise one particular instrument, the Permit Measures, as adopted under the DSM Law.
{"title":"Developing China’s Legal Regime for International Deep Seabed Mining—The Present and Future","authors":"Haohan Shen","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1845436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1845436","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The obligations of state sponsorship in the exploration and exploitation of the resources in the international seabed area require states parties to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to control the exploration and exploitation activities of contractors through domestic legislation and the adoption of relevant administrative measures, and to ensure that contractors comply with UNCLOS and international regulations, rules, and procedures promulgated by the International Seabed Authority. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Exploration and Exploitation of Resources in the Deep Seabed Area (DSM Law) was adopted on 26 February 2016. It is the first important legislative step that China has taken to fulfill its obligation as a sponsoring state. Given the fact that a number of the provisions in China’s DSM Law are phrased in rather general terms, the next step that China should take is to develop a comprehensive domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining under the DSM Law. Part I of this article provides an overview of China’s developing domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining. Part II proposes three principles that should be enshrined in China’s developing domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining, and Part III articulates the legal norms that underpin China’s developing domestic legal regime for deep seabed mining. Part IV delivers a critical review of current normative instruments issued under the DSM Law and proposes suggestions to revise one particular instrument, the Permit Measures, as adopted under the DSM Law.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78606707","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1852841
Jinyuan Su
Abstract Adjacency, notwithstanding its status as a basis for generating maritime entitlements, has no place as a principle under the existing law of the sea. To endow it with such status in the negotiation of an agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is likely to upset the delicate balance between the rights of coastal states and those of the international community, which is essential to the widespread acceptance of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This article argues that the access regime for marine genetic resources (MGRs) straddling the boundary between areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and areas within national jurisdiction (AWNJ) should be location based, and adjacent coastal states should not be accorded preferential rights in the distribution of benefits. However, due regard should be paid to the rights and legitimate interests of adjacent coastal states when transboundary impacts may result from measures adopted for and activities conducted in ABNJ, including those that directly affect MGRs straddling the boundary between ABNJ and AWNJ. At the procedural level, coastal states should be allowed to participate, primarily through prior notification and consultation, in the adoption of area-based management tools (ABMTs) in ABNJ and the conduct of environmental impact assessment (EIA) with respect to activities therein.
{"title":"The Adjacency Doctrine in the Negotiation of BBNJ: Creeping Jurisdiction or Legitimate Claim?","authors":"Jinyuan Su","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1852841","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1852841","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Adjacency, notwithstanding its status as a basis for generating maritime entitlements, has no place as a principle under the existing law of the sea. To endow it with such status in the negotiation of an agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is likely to upset the delicate balance between the rights of coastal states and those of the international community, which is essential to the widespread acceptance of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This article argues that the access regime for marine genetic resources (MGRs) straddling the boundary between areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and areas within national jurisdiction (AWNJ) should be location based, and adjacent coastal states should not be accorded preferential rights in the distribution of benefits. However, due regard should be paid to the rights and legitimate interests of adjacent coastal states when transboundary impacts may result from measures adopted for and activities conducted in ABNJ, including those that directly affect MGRs straddling the boundary between ABNJ and AWNJ. At the procedural level, coastal states should be allowed to participate, primarily through prior notification and consultation, in the adoption of area-based management tools (ABMTs) in ABNJ and the conduct of environmental impact assessment (EIA) with respect to activities therein.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82789074","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 : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1869445
Alexander Lott
Abstract This study explores the passage regimes of the Kerch Strait and its adjacent maritime areas in the context of current arbitration proceedings between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It ascertains that conflicting sovereignty claims over Crimea might lead to strait states and user states alike retaining their different approaches to the passage regime of the Kerch Strait. Thus, the regimes of transit passage and authorization-based passage might simultaneously be applied to the Kerch Strait under the domestic laws of the strait states, law of the sea, and general international law, particularly the obligation of nonrecognition. The law of the sea allows the reconciliation of such conflicting approaches and ensures legal certainty in the shipping lanes of the Kerch Strait if the coastal states agree on and respect a sui generis passage regime.
{"title":"The Passage Regimes of the Kerch Strait—To Each Their Own?","authors":"Alexander Lott","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1869445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1869445","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study explores the passage regimes of the Kerch Strait and its adjacent maritime areas in the context of current arbitration proceedings between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. It ascertains that conflicting sovereignty claims over Crimea might lead to strait states and user states alike retaining their different approaches to the passage regime of the Kerch Strait. Thus, the regimes of transit passage and authorization-based passage might simultaneously be applied to the Kerch Strait under the domestic laws of the strait states, law of the sea, and general international law, particularly the obligation of nonrecognition. The law of the sea allows the reconciliation of such conflicting approaches and ensures legal certainty in the shipping lanes of the Kerch Strait if the coastal states agree on and respect a sui generis passage regime.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83885927","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 : 2020-10-23DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1830506
Huaigao Qi
Abstract China and North Korea have delimited the boundary of their territorial seas by signing a 1962 Border Treaty and a 1964 Border Protocol, but the two states still need to delimit the boundary of their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves (CSs) in the North Yellow Sea (NYS). Considering the geographical characteristics of the two states’ coasts in the NYS, this article proposes that China and North Korea can delimit a single maritime boundary for the EEZ and the CS by applying the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, and then following a “three-stage approach.” The first stage is to construct a provisional equidistance line in the NYS; the second stage is to adjust the provisional equidistance line in light of relevant circumstances, such as the partial effect of Nan Tuozi in light of its distance from the coast of the continent; and the third stage is to apply the disproportionality test to the maritime area allocated to the two states in the NYS. After applying the “three-stage approach” to this case, the author concludes that the potential delimitation line of EEZ/CS between the two states extends generally south-southwest through seven segments for a distance of about 196 km (106 nm). Since 2018, tensions appear to have declined on the Korean Peninsula, and this may provide an opportunity for China and North Korea to start their maritime boundary delimitation negotiation in the near future.
中国和朝鲜通过1962年的《边界条约》和1964年的《边界议定书》划定了领海边界，但两国在北黄海(NYS)的专属经济区(eez)和大陆架(CSs)的边界仍然需要划定。考虑到两国在纽约州海岸的地理特征，本文提出中国和朝鲜可以采用等距/相关情况法，然后按照“三阶段法”划定专属经济区和CS的单一海洋边界。第一阶段是在纽约州建造一条临时等距线;第二阶段是根据相关情况调整暂定等距线，如南沱子因离大陆海岸较远而产生局部效应;第三阶段是对纽约州两州的海域分配进行不成比例检验。运用“三阶段法”对该案例进行分析后，作者得出结论:两国专属经济区/大陆架的潜在分界线大致为西南偏南，共七段，长度约为196 km (106 nm)。自2018年以来，朝鲜半岛紧张局势似乎有所缓和，这可能为中国和朝鲜在不久的将来启动海洋划界谈判提供了机会。
{"title":"Maritime Delimitation Between China and North Korea in the North Yellow Sea","authors":"Huaigao Qi","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1830506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1830506","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract China and North Korea have delimited the boundary of their territorial seas by signing a 1962 Border Treaty and a 1964 Border Protocol, but the two states still need to delimit the boundary of their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves (CSs) in the North Yellow Sea (NYS). Considering the geographical characteristics of the two states’ coasts in the NYS, this article proposes that China and North Korea can delimit a single maritime boundary for the EEZ and the CS by applying the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, and then following a “three-stage approach.” The first stage is to construct a provisional equidistance line in the NYS; the second stage is to adjust the provisional equidistance line in light of relevant circumstances, such as the partial effect of Nan Tuozi in light of its distance from the coast of the continent; and the third stage is to apply the disproportionality test to the maritime area allocated to the two states in the NYS. After applying the “three-stage approach” to this case, the author concludes that the potential delimitation line of EEZ/CS between the two states extends generally south-southwest through seven segments for a distance of about 196 km (106 nm). Since 2018, tensions appear to have declined on the Korean Peninsula, and this may provide an opportunity for China and North Korea to start their maritime boundary delimitation negotiation in the near future.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84965881","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 : 2020-10-06DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1820153
A. P. da Silva
Abstract This article examines the Brazilian interpretation and application of Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through analysis of the St. Peter and St. Paul insular features, historically considered as a group of rocks. Prior to the entry into force of UNCLOS, Brazil implemented a three-step process to change the legal status of these features in order to claim an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. More recently, Brazil has strengthened its basis of claim through the employment of straight baselines and the establishment of a large-scale marine protected area around St. Peter and St. Paul. It is argued that Brazil has used a flexible understanding of the human habitation requirement and relied on debatable state practice in order to maximize its maritime areas around these features.
{"title":"From Rocks to an Archipelago: The Brazilian Interpretation and Application of Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea With Respect to the St. Peter and St. Paul Insular Features","authors":"A. P. da Silva","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1820153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1820153","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the Brazilian interpretation and application of Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through analysis of the St. Peter and St. Paul insular features, historically considered as a group of rocks. Prior to the entry into force of UNCLOS, Brazil implemented a three-step process to change the legal status of these features in order to claim an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. More recently, Brazil has strengthened its basis of claim through the employment of straight baselines and the establishment of a large-scale marine protected area around St. Peter and St. Paul. It is argued that Brazil has used a flexible understanding of the human habitation requirement and relied on debatable state practice in order to maximize its maritime areas around these features.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72638755","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 : 2020-08-27DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1805166
Yuri Ishii
Abstract This article examines the development of case law concerning the criteria determining the relevant coasts and the relevant areas in delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. There is a discrepancy in the jurisprudence over whether the relevant area is determined by assessing the overlaps of “seaward extension,” “projections,” or “potential entitlement,” and this undermines the transparency of the process and the predictability of the result. There is also a debate over whether identification of the relevant area shall be based on “frontal” or “radial” projections. This article tracks this jurisprudence, questions why there is a discrepancy, and critically analyzes the consequences of these decisions in the light of the principle of equity.
{"title":"Relevant Coasts and Relevant Area in the Maritime Delimitation of the EEZ and Continental Shelf","authors":"Yuri Ishii","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1805166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1805166","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the development of case law concerning the criteria determining the relevant coasts and the relevant areas in delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. There is a discrepancy in the jurisprudence over whether the relevant area is determined by assessing the overlaps of “seaward extension,” “projections,” or “potential entitlement,” and this undermines the transparency of the process and the predictability of the result. There is also a debate over whether identification of the relevant area shall be based on “frontal” or “radial” projections. This article tracks this jurisprudence, questions why there is a discrepancy, and critically analyzes the consequences of these decisions in the light of the principle of equity.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74617418","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：