| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
137396
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although the need for holistic ocean governance has been widely accepted and some implementation efforts have been undertaken, there is still a significant lack of understanding or agreement as to its content, or primary objective(s). While both principled and process-based approaches have been proposed as providing objectives or content for the holistic approach, both have flaws. In this article, an approach that combines both principle and process—the ecosystem approach—is assessed and the degree to which it can provide and does already provide such content and objective(s) is explored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137394
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the National Plans of Action (NPOAs) adopted by selected States to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Despite some minor differences between States’ NPOAs, the NPOAs generally are similar to what was envisioned in the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing adopted in 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
137395
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The seas of Northeast Asia are subject to significant risk from oil and hazardous and noxious substances spills. This article examines the issues concerning marine pollution incidents in the context of the Action Plan for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Northwest Pacific Region (NOWPAP) regime. It also discusses the institutions and legal instruments that deal with marine pollution response in the NOWPAP region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
137397
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2011, the member states of the Arctic Council signed the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, the first legally binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council. In 2013, an Agreement on Oil Spill Preparedness and Response was signed. The purpose of this article is to explore why the two agreements have been negotiated, examine their substance, and assess their practical impact. Norway is used as an illustrative case. It is argued that both agreements are more important for the Arctic Council than for Norway. Explaining the reality of the agreements can indicate something about the potential for future agreements negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
137398
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea contains provisions governing the maritime claims of states, including special provisions for archipelagic states. To date, 20 states have utilized these provisions by enacting archipelagic baselines, within which these states claim sovereign waters subject to the navigational rights of other states. This article systematically examines the degree to which the archipelagic claims of these states have complied with the requirements in the Law of the Sea Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|