| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187408
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The aim of this article is to clarify the meaning and scope of Article 300 (good faith and abuse of rights) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Uncertainty about the meaning of Article 300 raises doubts about its raison d’être. It is insufficient to rely on the means of interpretation of treaties under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law to understand Article 300 of UNCLOS. Therefore, this article analyzes relevant international cases brought before international courts and tribunals (ICTs) established under Part XV, Section 2 of UNCLOS to scrutinize the interpretation and application of Article 300. The first task of this article is to identify how ICTs have understood the structure of this provision and its character. After this general observation, this article answers the following questions: (1) Which state bears the burden of proof to invoke Article 300? (2) What conditions/steps fulfill Article 300’s invocation? (3) In which circumstances do courts uphold or reject allegations that Article 300 has been breached? This article’s findings allow for an appraisal of international judges’ interpretations of the meaning and purpose of Article 300.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134951
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases, natural prolongation has been a semisacred expression that characterizes the continental shelf. This article examines whether this notion is still viable. A comparative study of its current use in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea against its original use reveals misunderstandings in three key aspects: entitlement, delineation, and delimitation of the continental shelf. This article concludes that natural prolongation no longer constitutes a pivot in the legal understanding of the continental shelf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
122191
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The operation of regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) may transform the high seas into mare clausum, by threatening the premise of the freedom of the high seas?equal access of all states to the high seas. This arises since the procedure to become a party to RFMOs prevents states from enjoying the freedom of fishing. Moreover, formal and substantive equality is not ensured in the decision-making process of RFMOs. However, in order to avoid this threat to mare liberum, RFMOs are making some efforts toward more rational and equitable management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|