Pub Date : 2020-08-06DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1869446
Wen-Lung Yang
Abstract The physical security of submarine cables is under multiple sources of threats from private activities, but the law of the sea does not provide sufficient jurisdiction for the coastal state to regulate these threats. International investment law, however, provides cable investors with the possibility of invoking the full protection and security (FPS) standard against the cable-landing state in international arbitration. This standard requires the cable-landing state to take all reasonable measures to protect the physical security of submarine cables from physical damage, but its application is subject to some limits.
{"title":"Protecting Submarine Cables From Physical Damage Under Investment Law","authors":"Wen-Lung Yang","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1869446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1869446","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The physical security of submarine cables is under multiple sources of threats from private activities, but the law of the sea does not provide sufficient jurisdiction for the coastal state to regulate these threats. International investment law, however, provides cable investors with the possibility of invoking the full protection and security (FPS) standard against the cable-landing state in international arbitration. This standard requires the cable-landing state to take all reasonable measures to protect the physical security of submarine cables from physical damage, but its application is subject to some limits.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73267829","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 : 2020-07-29DOI: 10.1080/00908329109545949
C. Joyner, S. Frew
Abstract The discharge and dumping of plastic debris into the world's oceans has become an increasingly serious form of marine pollution in recent years. To counter such practices, a number of international agreements containing specific prohibitions against dumping plastics into the marine environment have been promulgated. The 1972 London Dumping Convention, Annex V to the MARPOL Convention, and the 1978 MARPOL Protocol cite plastic pollution as unlawful in international waters. Though not yet in force, particular provisions mandating protection and preservation of the marine environment in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention abo add considerable legal sway. Six special agreements of the UN Regional Seas Programme and three other relevant regional instruments contribute to banning pollution by dumping plastic substances in designated ocean areas. Given the large number of states that have legally committed themselves to being bound by one or more of these international agreements, a firm normative founda...
{"title":"Plastic pollution in the marine environment","authors":"C. Joyner, S. Frew","doi":"10.1080/00908329109545949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908329109545949","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The discharge and dumping of plastic debris into the world's oceans has become an increasingly serious form of marine pollution in recent years. To counter such practices, a number of international agreements containing specific prohibitions against dumping plastics into the marine environment have been promulgated. The 1972 London Dumping Convention, Annex V to the MARPOL Convention, and the 1978 MARPOL Protocol cite plastic pollution as unlawful in international waters. Though not yet in force, particular provisions mandating protection and preservation of the marine environment in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention abo add considerable legal sway. Six special agreements of the UN Regional Seas Programme and three other relevant regional instruments contribute to banning pollution by dumping plastic substances in designated ocean areas. Given the large number of states that have legally committed themselves to being bound by one or more of these international agreements, a firm normative founda...","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00908329109545949","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41758116","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 : 2020-07-12DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1783098
Sandrine W. De Herdt
It is clear from the plain words of the Article 76, paragraph 10, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that the questions involving the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautic...
《联合国海洋法公约》第76条第10款的明确规定，涉及200海里以外大陆架外部界限的问题……
{"title":"The Relationship Between the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 nm and the Delineation of Its Outer Limits","authors":"Sandrine W. De Herdt","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1783098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1783098","url":null,"abstract":"It is clear from the plain words of the Article 76, paragraph 10, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that the questions involving the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautic...","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00908320.2020.1783098","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58956682","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 : 2020-07-08DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1781383
P. Schneider
Abstract The article applies social movement theory to piracy and terrorism as a common conceptual roof, contextualizing and theorizing these phenomena. The cases of Nigeria and Somalia were chosen because pirate and terrorist groups are or have been active in the maritime domain in both countries, posing a problem for the international shipping community. In addition, these cases are special insofar as pirate and terrorist groups in these countries have used powerful narratives to underpin an attitude of social protest to legitimize their violence. The article critically examines whether the characteristics and modes of social movement theory apply to these cases and outlines the possible benefits and limits. It further includes perspectives from other conceptual frameworks from philosophy, sociology, and psychology. The analysis concludes that the concepts can add to our understanding of the phenomena of maritime violence. It helps us to view these groups not merely as risk factors and addressees of security governance but through the lens of social protest and the mechanisms and dynamics outlined by social movement theory.
{"title":"When Protest Goes to Sea: Theorizing Maritime Violence by Applying Social Movement Theory to Terrorism and Piracy in the Cases of Nigeria and Somalia","authors":"P. Schneider","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1781383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1781383","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article applies social movement theory to piracy and terrorism as a common conceptual roof, contextualizing and theorizing these phenomena. The cases of Nigeria and Somalia were chosen because pirate and terrorist groups are or have been active in the maritime domain in both countries, posing a problem for the international shipping community. In addition, these cases are special insofar as pirate and terrorist groups in these countries have used powerful narratives to underpin an attitude of social protest to legitimize their violence. The article critically examines whether the characteristics and modes of social movement theory apply to these cases and outlines the possible benefits and limits. It further includes perspectives from other conceptual frameworks from philosophy, sociology, and psychology. The analysis concludes that the concepts can add to our understanding of the phenomena of maritime violence. It helps us to view these groups not merely as risk factors and addressees of security governance but through the lens of social protest and the mechanisms and dynamics outlined by social movement theory.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78915019","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 : 2020-06-29DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1781381
C. Schultheiss
Abstract After the tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration found that China is not entitled to claim maritime zones beyond the entitlements that the Law of the Sea provides for, the Philippines and China reentered into negotiations about the joint development of hydrocarbon resources and have come to an understanding on fisheries. Philippine lawyers have criticized these attempts as “waiving” or “compromising” the arbitral tribunal’s award and the Philippines’ claim. This article analyzes the consequences of the award for state obligations under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The article discusses whether and in what way joint development arrangements adopted despite the absence of China’s entitlement to the maritime area in question could prejudice or be factually detrimental to the Philippines’ claim.
{"title":"Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources in the South China Sea After the Philippines Versus China Arbitration?","authors":"C. Schultheiss","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1781381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1781381","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After the tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration found that China is not entitled to claim maritime zones beyond the entitlements that the Law of the Sea provides for, the Philippines and China reentered into negotiations about the joint development of hydrocarbon resources and have come to an understanding on fisheries. Philippine lawyers have criticized these attempts as “waiving” or “compromising” the arbitral tribunal’s award and the Philippines’ claim. This article analyzes the consequences of the award for state obligations under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The article discusses whether and in what way joint development arrangements adopted despite the absence of China’s entitlement to the maritime area in question could prejudice or be factually detrimental to the Philippines’ claim.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73665125","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 : 2020-05-20DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1736773
P. P. Nickels
abstract This article revisits marine bioprospecting in the Southern Ocean in the context of the efforts to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. After briefly introducing the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), this article examines the extent to which the ILBI will likely spatially overlap with the ATS. As the next step, it is highlighted that future provisions on marine genetic resources (MGRs) in the ILBI might substantively differ from the way the ATS currently regulates bioprospecting. Based on that, the final section reflects on how the ILBI will normatively and institutionally relate to the ATS.
{"title":"Revisiting Bioprospecting in the Southern Ocean in the Context of the BBNJ Negotiations","authors":"P. P. Nickels","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1736773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1736773","url":null,"abstract":"abstract This article revisits marine bioprospecting in the Southern Ocean in the context of the efforts to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. After briefly introducing the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), this article examines the extent to which the ILBI will likely spatially overlap with the ATS. As the next step, it is highlighted that future provisions on marine genetic resources (MGRs) in the ILBI might substantively differ from the way the ATS currently regulates bioprospecting. Based on that, the final section reflects on how the ILBI will normatively and institutionally relate to the ATS.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86723250","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 : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2020.1757215
N. Ioannides
Abstract State practice reveals that the main reason states conclude maritime delimitation agreements is their desire to reap the benefits accruing from offshore natural resources, especially hydrocarbons. However, international jurisprudence has not expressly taken nongeographical factors into consideration in delimitation cases, even though it has also not totally disregarded them. Since such factors individually have been in the judges’ minds, it is suggested that if a state is capable of proving that these factors indicate the existence of fundamental interests in an undelimited area, all of those should be contemplated in accumulation and form a distinct concept, namely, the “predominant interest.” In a nutshell, the concept analyzed in this article refers to the aggregation of a gamut of nongeographical factors that, although they have not been taken into consideration separately in delimitation cases, tend to evince the existence of fundamental interests, which form a broader one, namely, the “predominant interest.” This article proposes that the “predominant interest” concept could be utilized by international courts and tribunals in order to check the equitableness of a maritime boundary at the second stage of the delimitation process concerning the continental shelf/exclusive economic zone (EEZ), after relevant circumstances predicated on geographical factors have been examined. In any case, though, it is asserted that this concept should not be invoked so as to justify excessive claims. To the contrary, it should be applied in support of contentions made in good faith with a view to safeguarding the essential interests of a state.
{"title":"The “Predominant Interest” Concept in Maritime Boundary Delimitation","authors":"N. Ioannides","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2020.1757215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2020.1757215","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract State practice reveals that the main reason states conclude maritime delimitation agreements is their desire to reap the benefits accruing from offshore natural resources, especially hydrocarbons. However, international jurisprudence has not expressly taken nongeographical factors into consideration in delimitation cases, even though it has also not totally disregarded them. Since such factors individually have been in the judges’ minds, it is suggested that if a state is capable of proving that these factors indicate the existence of fundamental interests in an undelimited area, all of those should be contemplated in accumulation and form a distinct concept, namely, the “predominant interest.” In a nutshell, the concept analyzed in this article refers to the aggregation of a gamut of nongeographical factors that, although they have not been taken into consideration separately in delimitation cases, tend to evince the existence of fundamental interests, which form a broader one, namely, the “predominant interest.” This article proposes that the “predominant interest” concept could be utilized by international courts and tribunals in order to check the equitableness of a maritime boundary at the second stage of the delimitation process concerning the continental shelf/exclusive economic zone (EEZ), after relevant circumstances predicated on geographical factors have been examined. In any case, though, it is asserted that this concept should not be invoked so as to justify excessive claims. To the contrary, it should be applied in support of contentions made in good faith with a view to safeguarding the essential interests of a state.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75778766","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 : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1668614
Jianjun Gao
Abstract This article examines the practice of the international judicial and arbitral tribunals thus far in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, and indicates the trend reflected in the decisions. However, the article disagrees with the critical observation of the tribunals that the delimitation method for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should follow that within 200 nm. The delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm is essentially different from the single maritime delimitation within 200 nm, and various methods may be employed in order to achieve an equitable result in a particular case.
{"title":"The Delimitation Method for the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: A Reflection on the Judicial and Arbitral Decisions","authors":"Jianjun Gao","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1668614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1668614","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the practice of the international judicial and arbitral tribunals thus far in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, and indicates the trend reflected in the decisions. However, the article disagrees with the critical observation of the tribunals that the delimitation method for the continental shelf beyond 200 nm should follow that within 200 nm. The delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm is essentially different from the single maritime delimitation within 200 nm, and various methods may be employed in order to achieve an equitable result in a particular case.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81999171","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 : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1680491
Dorottya Bognar-Lahr
Abstract In the field of Arctic shipping, Canada and the Russian Federation have enacted extensive unilateral national regulations cognizant of Article 234, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. On the global level, both states have been important actors in negotiating the International Maritime Organization’s mandatory Polar Code, a legal instrument with implications for regulations at the national level. This article compares and contrasts the approaches, positions, and arguments of Canada and Russia especially regarding national systems to control navigation and vessel-source pollution. The results suggest different emphases stemming from the two states’ political and economic realities and capacities.
{"title":"In the Same Boat? A Comparative Analysis of the Approaches of Russia and Canada in the Negotiation of the IMO’s Mandatory Polar Code","authors":"Dorottya Bognar-Lahr","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1680491","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1680491","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the field of Arctic shipping, Canada and the Russian Federation have enacted extensive unilateral national regulations cognizant of Article 234, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. On the global level, both states have been important actors in negotiating the International Maritime Organization’s mandatory Polar Code, a legal instrument with implications for regulations at the national level. This article compares and contrasts the approaches, positions, and arguments of Canada and Russia especially regarding national systems to control navigation and vessel-source pollution. The results suggest different emphases stemming from the two states’ political and economic realities and capacities.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75925494","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 : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1655619
Lena Schøning
Abstract Through a normative lens, this article investigates integrated ocean management and the multiple concepts that it involves. Although international law provides legal authority to coastal states to manage their ocean area entitlements, no single legally binding norm specific to integrated ocean management exists. Nevertheless, by combining different internationally recognized sources, this article identifies and discusses two normative concepts applicable in coastal state integrated ocean management. These are (1) the framing of integrated ocean management as a management process and (2) the incorporation of environmental, economic, and social concerns into an ocean management policy.
{"title":"More or Less Integrated Ocean Management: Multiple Integrated Approaches and Two Norms","authors":"Lena Schøning","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1655619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1655619","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Through a normative lens, this article investigates integrated ocean management and the multiple concepts that it involves. Although international law provides legal authority to coastal states to manage their ocean area entitlements, no single legally binding norm specific to integrated ocean management exists. Nevertheless, by combining different internationally recognized sources, this article identifies and discusses two normative concepts applicable in coastal state integrated ocean management. These are (1) the framing of integrated ocean management as a management process and (2) the incorporation of environmental, economic, and social concerns into an ocean management policy.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73264471","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：