| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
169289
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) expressly allocates jurisdiction in regard to several activities that are conducted in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), it does not do so for bunkering and ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers. This article sheds light on different types of bunkering operations, as well as on the often-overlooked practice of STS oil transfers. It suggests that in the case of bunkering, the allocation of jurisdiction as between coastal and flag states depends on the activity of the vessel being bunkered. In the case of STS oil transfers, it concludes that jurisdictional competence needs to be determined in line with Article 59 of the LOSC. The article also examines relevant state practice and contends that the LOSC’s ambiguity is no license to unfettered coastal state regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160923
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article discusses the insufficient consideration of the role of state practice in the interpretation and implementation of Article 121(3) of the UNCLOS by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Case. The article argues that the Tribunal's view on the “threshold” established and its conclusion that there was no evidence that an agreement existed based upon state practice on the interpretation of Article 121(3) are open to question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
159409
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the conclusion in the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Case that straight baselines may not be used to enclose off-shore archipelagos unless they meet the criteria set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the Law of the Sea Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
108226
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper we reflect on a contested land occupation in Cape Town, the informal settlement of Zille Raine Heights in the city's southern suburbs, to explore the settlement's struggle to gain a legal right to land and the state's attempts to remove it. In occupying land and defending their right to a decent place in the city, Zille Raine Heights and other settlements like it challenge the state in precise ways. This paper explores the provisional and unstable ways in which land occupiers and the state access and defend resources such as land, and in the process, engage in a politics of occupation together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
163090
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since 2003, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has grown from a small collection of like-minded states into a widely accepted, and increasingly institutionalized, counterproliferation effort. However, while the PSI has evolved, the literature around it has stagnated—and disserves ongoing debate by adopting a framework that is both ahistorical and binary. Building on the author’s 2007 paper, this article assesses the past 15 years’ critiques, and argues that the PSI paradoxically reinforces our prevailingly mare liberum regime at the same time that it challenges established navigational freedoms such as the right of innocent passage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
160925
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) permits state parties to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 200 nautical miles from their coast. Coastal states have exclusive jurisdiction over resources within the EEZ, but navigational and other high seas freedoms continue to exist. A significant number of states have, however, enacted legislation that departs from the LOSC, interfering with the navigational rights and freedoms of other states. This article analzses this development with a specific focus on the Arctic. It investigates the powers of Arctic coastal states to regulate shipping in the EEZ and thereby navigation in the Arctic Ocean. It adds to the existing literature by providing an analysis of state practice, suggesting that despite uncertainty concerning the interpretation of the LOSC Article 234 and the right to exercise legislative jurisdiction over ice-covered waters, a not insignificant number of states have claimed jurisdiction in their own EEZ beyond the rights granted in the LOSC, and are therefore not in a position to object to extensive jurisdictional claims in the Arctic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|