|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
145653
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the existing governance arrangements applicable to the Bering Strait Region (BSR), assesses the emerging needs for governance in the region, and considers options for addressing these needs. Widely regarded as a critical chokepoint between the North Pacific and the Arctic Ocean (and its marginal seas), the BSR is subject to a variety of regimes, ranging from global constitutive arrangements (e.g., 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) to bilateral operational arrangements. The growth of human activities in the BSR, associated with transformative changes occurring in the Arctic in recent years, is generating new needs for governance. This article reveals options that can be used or ignored by decision makers, in contrast to recommendations that may involve advocacy, with the single objective of contributing to informed decision making in this realm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
145650
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Comparative studies of the Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in regard to the identification of the base of the continental slope region on submarine fans arguably reveal discrepancies in the approach utilized by the Commission. The base of slope off Norway was identified on the basis of a geomorphological analysis with the support of geological and geophysical data in addition to bathymetric and morphological data. Contrariwise, in the case of Brazil it appears that the absolute values of the seafloor gradients on the slope and rise are guiding the Commission's appreciation of the base of slope region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
145649
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Port-state jurisdiction has been used as a means of circumventing the inadequacies of enforcement on the high seas and of flag states’ ineffectiveness, but also the absence of international rules due to lack of consensus at the international level. Pressing and complex problems related to the global environment and global commons, such as depletion of fisheries, marine and atmosphere pollution, and climate change, and foot-dragging in the international community to effectively cooperate to tackle these problems have brought the concept of unilateral regulation of extraterritorial activities to the forefront. In this respect, the role of the port state, as a first point of contact for industries engaged in activities harmful to the global commons (i.e., fishing and shipping), is increasingly important. This article examines the scope and limits of port-state jurisdiction with respect to measures that may have an extraterritorial impact in the light of the law of the sea and international rules on jurisdiction. The aim of the article is to assess whether the practice of port states in exercising jurisdiction has contributed to developments regarding the exercise of (extraterritorial) jurisdiction as a regulatory tool for the protection of global commons. By identifying elements of current state practice regarding exercise of port-state jurisdiction, the article advances a framework for the most effective exercise of port-state jurisdiction for the protection of global commons with reference to the principle of common concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
145651
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article assesses the treaty practice of the five Arctic Ocean coastal states and Iceland in dealing with the issue of transboundary hydrocarbon deposits as part of the conclusion of maritime delimitation and other related agreements. That practice suggests a number of different ways in which states deal with the issue of hydrocarbon deposits bisected by a maritime delimitation: (1) silence, (2) a standard unity of deposit clause, (3) more complex variations on the standard clause including framework agreements for the development of transboundary deposits, and (4) a delimitation line with some form of joint development zone. This article assesses the Arctic state practice within this typology seeking to supplement the existing literature which tends to focus on the North Sea and Southeast Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
145652
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The principle of freedom of the seas remains the governing paradigm of the high seas in modern law of the sea. Although the principle, as embraced by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), is no longer an absolute norm, it continues to present fundamental challenges for achieving effective conservation on the high seas as it stands in direct contrast to the conservation duty imposed on states by LOSC. The recent UN General Assembly resolution calling for the adoption of a further Implementing Agreement under LOSC to address conservation on the high seas, highlights the need to build a new ethos for management of the high seas, which will require states to loosen their firm grip on the Grotian doctrine. This article seeks to contribute toward shifting attitudes in relation to the principle of freedom through an examination of the nature and scope of the principle in its historic context and in contemporary law of the sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|