Pub Date : 2019-03-23DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1582606
Andreas Østhagen, Andreas Raspotnik
Abstract Why is the European Union (EU) pursuing a relatively minor issue over the right to catch snow crab in the Barents Sea? The issue has highlighted an underlying disagreement between Norway and the EU over the status of the maritime zones around the archipelago of Svalbard, stemming from the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty. Is the EU using the snow crab to challenge Norway’s Svalbard regime? The answer is that the EU is a multifaceted animal, where special interests can hijack the machinery and bring issues to the table, given the right circumstances. This article outlines these circumstances, as well as the evolution and the sources of the dispute over the snow crab, as it relates to not only economic interests, but international politics as well as law.
{"title":"Why Is the European Union Challenging Norway Over Snow Crab? Svalbard, Special Interests, and Arctic Governance","authors":"Andreas Østhagen, Andreas Raspotnik","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582606","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why is the European Union (EU) pursuing a relatively minor issue over the right to catch snow crab in the Barents Sea? The issue has highlighted an underlying disagreement between Norway and the EU over the status of the maritime zones around the archipelago of Svalbard, stemming from the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty. Is the EU using the snow crab to challenge Norway’s Svalbard regime? The answer is that the EU is a multifaceted animal, where special interests can hijack the machinery and bring issues to the table, given the right circumstances. This article outlines these circumstances, as well as the evolution and the sources of the dispute over the snow crab, as it relates to not only economic interests, but international politics as well as law.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87343306","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 : 2019-03-23DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1582609
Bingying Dong, Ling Zhu
Abstract The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (the HNS Convention) has not entered into force. In China, a two-tier compensation regime has been established for vessel-source oil pollution damage, but this regime does not address damage in connection with the carriage of HNS by sea. This article examines the Chinese law approach to civil liability and compensation for damage in this respect, and discusses whether there is an adequate framework in place to address issues that may arise.
{"title":"Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection With the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances: Chinese Perspective","authors":"Bingying Dong, Ling Zhu","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582609","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (the HNS Convention) has not entered into force. In China, a two-tier compensation regime has been established for vessel-source oil pollution damage, but this regime does not address damage in connection with the carriage of HNS by sea. This article examines the Chinese law approach to civil liability and compensation for damage in this respect, and discusses whether there is an adequate framework in place to address issues that may arise.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84920120","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 : 2019-03-23DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593
Henrik Ringbom
Abstract The article seeks to contribute to the development of a conceptual framework for the ongoing regulatory discussions on autonomous ships at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It elaborates on the distinction between the level of autonomy and the level of manning and highlights the sliding scale that features in both. Certain building blocks that are needed for regulating autonomous ships are identified, followed by an assessment of how key existing IMO rules deal with the challenges and an analysis of available precedents. The conclusion is that the on-going exercise is unique, almost without precedent, and that the work that has just started at IMO, so far at least, fails to address the most important—and complex—regulatory challenges.
{"title":"Regulating Autonomous Ships—Concepts, Challenges and Precedents","authors":"Henrik Ringbom","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582593","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article seeks to contribute to the development of a conceptual framework for the ongoing regulatory discussions on autonomous ships at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It elaborates on the distinction between the level of autonomy and the level of manning and highlights the sliding scale that features in both. Certain building blocks that are needed for regulating autonomous ships are identified, followed by an assessment of how key existing IMO rules deal with the challenges and an analysis of available precedents. The conclusion is that the on-going exercise is unique, almost without precedent, and that the work that has just started at IMO, so far at least, fails to address the most important—and complex—regulatory challenges.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74577625","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 : 2019-03-23DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2019.1582669
Øystein Jensen
Abstract This article analyzes a little-noticed aspect of the international legal controversy pertaining to Svalbard’s maritime zones. It concerns where and by which method Norway should draw the boundaries between Svalbard’s continental shelf and the 200-mile zone, on the one hand, and other maritime zones subject to Norwegian jurisdiction, on the other. The assumption upon which the discussion rests is that the Spitsbergen Treaty signatories enjoy treaty rights in the maritime zones beyond Svalbard’s territorial waters. The law of the sea does not contain rules on the drawing of maritime boundaries between different parts of a state’s territory, but the rules on delimitation between states offer a strong analogy. In the search for an equitable solution, primacy should be given to geographical factors. The article argues that Norway could do more to enhance the openness regarding the Svalbard delimitation question since its outcome will be of significant interest to other states.
{"title":"Defining Seaward Boundaries in a Domestic Context: Norway and the Svalbard Archipelago","authors":"Øystein Jensen","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582669","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes a little-noticed aspect of the international legal controversy pertaining to Svalbard’s maritime zones. It concerns where and by which method Norway should draw the boundaries between Svalbard’s continental shelf and the 200-mile zone, on the one hand, and other maritime zones subject to Norwegian jurisdiction, on the other. The assumption upon which the discussion rests is that the Spitsbergen Treaty signatories enjoy treaty rights in the maritime zones beyond Svalbard’s territorial waters. The law of the sea does not contain rules on the drawing of maritime boundaries between different parts of a state’s territory, but the rules on delimitation between states offer a strong analogy. In the search for an equitable solution, primacy should be given to geographical factors. The article argues that Norway could do more to enhance the openness regarding the Svalbard delimitation question since its outcome will be of significant interest to other states.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84681527","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 : 2019-02-17DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2018.1548452
Hao Liu, F. Tronchetti
Abstract The deployment of high-altitude vehicles in near space with the purpose of providing Internet, communication, and other services represents the new frontier of aerospace activities. Near-space operations are attracting growing interest due to their mult-purpose nature and their anticipated high profitability. Despite such positive perceptions, near-space plans are, however, hampered by the uncertain international legal status of near space. Using the precedent of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), this article suggests a new categorization of the near space as the exclusive utilization space (EUS) and a set of rules to manage its utilization.
{"title":"Regulating Near-Space Activities: Using the Precedent of the Exclusive Economic Zone as a Model?","authors":"Hao Liu, F. Tronchetti","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2018.1548452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1548452","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The deployment of high-altitude vehicles in near space with the purpose of providing Internet, communication, and other services represents the new frontier of aerospace activities. Near-space operations are attracting growing interest due to their mult-purpose nature and their anticipated high profitability. Despite such positive perceptions, near-space plans are, however, hampered by the uncertain international legal status of near space. Using the precedent of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), this article suggests a new categorization of the near space as the exclusive utilization space (EUS) and a set of rules to manage its utilization.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89575423","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2018.1548425
Millicent McCreath, Zoe Scanlon
Abstract The final judgment in the maritime boundary delimitation case between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire was delivered by an ad hoc special chamber (the Chamber) of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 23 September 2017. The decision addressed important legal questions relating not only to maritime boundary delimitation but also to the balancing of various rights and interests at the provisional measures stage and international responsibility for unilateral resource exploitation activities in disputed zones pending delimitation. This article analyzes the decision of the Chamber with respect to its findings on tacit boundary agreements, delimitation methodology, and international responsibility.
{"title":"The Dispute Concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire: Implications for the Law of the Sea","authors":"Millicent McCreath, Zoe Scanlon","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2018.1548425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1548425","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The final judgment in the maritime boundary delimitation case between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire was delivered by an ad hoc special chamber (the Chamber) of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 23 September 2017. The decision addressed important legal questions relating not only to maritime boundary delimitation but also to the balancing of various rights and interests at the provisional measures stage and international responsibility for unilateral resource exploitation activities in disputed zones pending delimitation. This article analyzes the decision of the Chamber with respect to its findings on tacit boundary agreements, delimitation methodology, and international responsibility.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83778434","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2018.1511083
M. Gau
Abstract The interpretation of Article 121(3) of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was a key part of the Sino-Philippine Arbitration on the South China Sea Award issued in July 2016. This article uses the principles of treaty interpretation codified in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to evaluate the interpretation process. The Tribunal paid little attention to the text such as “rocks” in the plural form and overlooked the context of Article 121(3). The travaux préparatoires identified by the Tribunal was based on materials of doubtful weight.
{"title":"The Interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS by the Tribunal for the South China Sea Arbitration: A Critique","authors":"M. Gau","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2018.1511083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1511083","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The interpretation of Article 121(3) of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was a key part of the Sino-Philippine Arbitration on the South China Sea Award issued in July 2016. This article uses the principles of treaty interpretation codified in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to evaluate the interpretation process. The Tribunal paid little attention to the text such as “rocks” in the plural form and overlooked the context of Article 121(3). The travaux préparatoires identified by the Tribunal was based on materials of doubtful weight.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86192873","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500
R. Veal, M. Tsimplis, Andrew Serdy
Abstract The number of unmanned maritime vehicles (UMVs) and their potential applications in the marine space are growing constantly. Because of their comparatively small size and limited operations, only modest attention has been paid to how they fit into the international legal framework. Many UMVs may not be considered to fall under the definition of "ship" so as to enjoy states' rights of navigation under UNCLOS. Therefore states, manufacturers, and investors remain uncertain about the rights and obligations regarding UMV operations in the various maritime zones. This article addresses these questions for a range of UMVs with differing levels of autonomy. It argues that the international legal framework delegates the question of whether a UMV is a ship or not to the flag state's national laws. The article suggests that such a determination will be binding on other states. With respect to UMVs that do not fall under the definition of ship, there is remaining uncertainty about whether any navigational rights in the jurisdictional zones of other states are available, while it is argued that such rights do exist in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. The article also considers the extent to which today's UMVs can comply with the international framework for ensuring safety at sea. For those UMVs falling under the definition of ship, compliance with the current regulatory framework for shipping is required and compliance will be more difficult as the level of UMV autonomy increases.
{"title":"The Legal Status and Operation of Unmanned Maritime Vehicles","authors":"R. Veal, M. Tsimplis, Andrew Serdy","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1502500","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The number of unmanned maritime vehicles (UMVs) and their potential applications in the marine space are growing constantly. Because of their comparatively small size and limited operations, only modest attention has been paid to how they fit into the international legal framework. Many UMVs may not be considered to fall under the definition of \"ship\" so as to enjoy states' rights of navigation under UNCLOS. Therefore states, manufacturers, and investors remain uncertain about the rights and obligations regarding UMV operations in the various maritime zones. This article addresses these questions for a range of UMVs with differing levels of autonomy. It argues that the international legal framework delegates the question of whether a UMV is a ship or not to the flag state's national laws. The article suggests that such a determination will be binding on other states. With respect to UMVs that do not fall under the definition of ship, there is remaining uncertainty about whether any navigational rights in the jurisdictional zones of other states are available, while it is argued that such rights do exist in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. The article also considers the extent to which today's UMVs can comply with the international framework for ensuring safety at sea. For those UMVs falling under the definition of ship, compliance with the current regulatory framework for shipping is required and compliance will be more difficult as the level of UMV autonomy increases.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78192139","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2018.1548420
H. Phan
Abstract This article investigates the effect of dispute settlement decisions under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and whether and how states, particularly great powers, comply with these decisions. State practice suggests that an overwhelming majority of the decisions by UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies have been implemented. Significantly, not only small states but also the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have complied with UNCLOS dispute settlement decisions even when they “lost” in the proceedings that were unilaterally initiated against them.
{"title":"International Courts and State Compliance: An Investigation of the Law of the Sea Cases","authors":"H. Phan","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2018.1548420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1548420","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates the effect of dispute settlement decisions under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and whether and how states, particularly great powers, comply with these decisions. State practice suggests that an overwhelming majority of the decisions by UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies have been implemented. Significantly, not only small states but also the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have complied with UNCLOS dispute settlement decisions even when they “lost” in the proceedings that were unilaterally initiated against them.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88979432","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 : 2018-10-01DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2018.1509509
F. Mørk
Abstract Seafloor highs can be grouped into three legal categories: (i) oceanic ridges; (ii) submarine ridges; and (iii) submarine elevations. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf recognizes that the foot of slope serves as the qualifier to distinguish oceanic ridges from the two other categories. The Commission established a view that the sole qualifier for a submarine ridge is its morphological continuity with the continental margin. A submarine elevation needs also to share geological characteristics with the rest of the continental margin. Recent recommendations suggest that the Commission may have complicated its view in this respect.
{"title":"Classification of Seafloor Highs in Accordance With Article 76 of UNCLOS—Consequences of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Recent Modifications of Its Interpretations","authors":"F. Mørk","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2018.1509509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2018.1509509","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Seafloor highs can be grouped into three legal categories: (i) oceanic ridges; (ii) submarine ridges; and (iii) submarine elevations. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf recognizes that the foot of slope serves as the qualifier to distinguish oceanic ridges from the two other categories. The Commission established a view that the sole qualifier for a submarine ridge is its morphological continuity with the continental margin. A submarine elevation needs also to share geological characteristics with the rest of the continental margin. Recent recommendations suggest that the Commission may have complicated its view in this respect.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84035327","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：