This article aims to present the most relevant practices of offshore oil contracting at an international level, in order to better understand the legal dynamics of the sector. The problem investigated deals with the terms of the legal relationship between the State and national and foreign public companies, as well as the relationship between States, with a view to the exploitation of shared offshore oil resources. This problem is current, taking into account both the fact that oil is a scarce resource, as well as the fact that its offshore exploration is particularly complex and risky. This article presents, in a non-exhaustive way, some examples of practices that illustrate contractual trends that have already crystallized. The approach to its content is made from an international law perspective, focused on the transnational challenges posed to States and operators. It is concluded that the sector is characterized by a huge variety of practices, which reveals an ability of operators to adapt to the characteristics of the concrete challenges of an offshore exploration project. It also shows the political and economic particularities of the States involved in the process.
The capacity to act as a port state in international law is best described by the specific powers exercised over foreign ships, namely inspection, detention, expulsion or request of any type of information prior to the entry into the port. Many of these powers are explicitly attributed to the state in multilateral instruments, whereby the flag state consents to having its ships subject to the jurisdiction of the port state. Notwithstanding the consensus around the complementary nature of port state jurisdiction with respect to certain obligations of the flag state, the port state is not limited to fulfilling a secondary role. This is especially visible in the prevention, reduction and control of ship-source pollution, where some port states have not hesitated in acting regardless of an expressed consent by the flag state to the rule or standard being applied with the support of port powers. Not only do port states use more stringent enforcement powers to ensure that international treaties are effective, but they also prescribe novel rules and standards upon any foreign ship that approaches the port, often as a means of breaking an international negotiation deadlock. This study discusses the international legal basis for such unilateral jurisdiction by analyzing the principles of state jurisdiction under the dichotomy parochial/cosmopolitan. By interpreting the stated and implicit purposes of port state actions under that dichotomy, this study proposes that states are finding a legal ground to act based on certain legal functions they fulfill in the international legal order. This argument puts into perspective the assumed self-sufficiency of territoriality and shows how unilateralism may also serve to seek to set universally applicable norms.
Ship-source pollution represents a threat to the environment, regardless of where it occurs. The European Union has been developing standards that aim to counter accidental, operational and intentional pollution in the waters under its member-state's jurisdiction. However, and precisely because marine pollution knows no boundaries, the EU is not coy in contemplating what ships do beyond waters under the sovereignty of its member states. This article analyzes the international legality of EU claims to port state jurisdiction over ship-source pollution. It demonstrates that port state jurisdiction is today not only a means to ensure compliance with international standards but also a means to unilaterally enforce more stringent environmental standards.
This paper discusses the governance of port classification through the lens of multi-level governance theory, with a particular focus on the Port of Aalborg and the issue of classification of Limfjord waters, in Denmark. The study identifies a conflict in which national governmental decisions regarding the classification of navigable waterways obstruct the port's access to funding opportunities. Despite the port's autonomous operational capacity, national control over waterway classification and port typology shows a nested governance dynamic, thereby highlighting the intricacies of the European Union's subsidiarity principle. This paper argues that the case illustrates how the classification of inland waterways, although ostensibly legal, is intrinsically political and subject to national interests. The Danish government's refusal to designate the Limfjord as a navigable waterway potentially hinders regional development and impedes the EU's policy objectives for intermodality. Methodologically, the research synthesizes desk-based analysis with key-informant interviews to examine the legal, political, and geographical dimensions of this issue. The findings contribute to multi-level governance theory by describing the case as a hybrid model that integrates both nested and polycentric elements, thereby enriching the debate on governance complexities within the European context.
This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onwards. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over‐capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) the EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.
While European policies have progressed towards an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM), limited attention has been paid to the implications for its advisory system. This paper analyzes the advisory landscape in the European Union (EU) by addressing two questions: to what extent can the needed advice be provided? how prepared is the management system to integrate ecosystem advice? We provide a systematic analysis of the relevant advisory bodies, explore gaps related to the requested and delivered advice, and identify paths for improvement. The findings confirm earlier observations of lack of a formalized process to provide and integrate advice in support of an ecosystem approach into EU fisheries management. Instead of enabling existing capacities to embed ecosystem components (eg investments and initiatives made by stakeholders (and authorities) to move to EAFM -pushing strategies), the system relies heavily on mandatory requests from policy makers (pulling mechanisms). Furthermore, social and economic dimensions are the weakest aspects in the advisory process, which hampers the balancing of objectives that represent one of the hallmarks of EAFM. The policy framework has adopted EAFM for European fisheries, but the advisory processes have not yet been adapted to substantially support EAFM.
A new motivation for marine restoration has been observed, associated with the dissatisfaction with current marine restoration governance arrangements (MRGAs). An MRGA consists of alliances of public and private actors (coalitions) who, through their common conceptualisation of the problem (discourses), try to influence and design marine restoration activities while considering the rules of decision-making, and the management of limited resources. Emerging MRGAs rise in parallel to existing ones and aim to contribute to the same goals or show another way of reaching those goals. This phenomenon raises questions of legitimacy both for the emerging and the existing arrangement. Building on existing literature, this paper proposes an analytical framework to simultaneously explore input, throughput and output legitimacy as three essential pre-conditions of legitimacy for MRGAs. The framework is tested in three European cases of MRGAs that were part of the European Union MERCES project (http://www.merces-project.eu/). Analysis showed that actors who are influential in achieving restoration goals, and also those who are impacted by restoration actions, should be involved in the MRGAs (input legitimacy); actors within MRGAs should establish and follow procedures for decision-making that are both transparent and clear (throughput legitimacy); and actors within MRGAs need to establish a common understanding of restoration, of the goal to reach and of the related uncertainties (output legitimacy). Awareness of these pre-conditions allows actors internal and external to MRGAs to address aspects that give legitimacy to restoration actions. It also creates a language that allows actors to engage in discussion on legitimacy that goes beyond the mere application of the rule of law.
This paper examines if eco-rating schemes improve environmental outcomes in the context of the
international shipping industry. Shipping faces global environmental challenges and has recently
witnessed the introduction of several eco-rating schemes aiming to improve the environmental
performance of ships. Extending the private environmental governance literature into a mature
service industry with global operations, the paper shows that concerns about eco-rating schemes’
effectiveness also have relevance here. Shipping eco-rating schemes fall short of best practices for
design and governance, and this hampers improvement efforts. The study has policy implications for
the achievement of improved environmental outcomes in the shipping industry.
This paper examines if eco-rating schemes improve environmental outcomes in the context of the international shipping industry. Shipping faces global environmental challenges and has recently witnessed the introduction of several eco-rating schemes aiming to improve the environmental performance of ships. Extending the private environmental governance literature into a mature service industry with global operations, the paper shows that concerns about eco-rating schemes’ effectiveness also have relevance here. Shipping eco-rating schemes fall short of best practices for design and governance, and this hampers improvement efforts. The study has policy implications for the achievement of improved environmental outcomes in the shipping industry.
In this article, we examine the relations between global value chain governance and environmental upgrading in maritime shipping. Drawing from interviews with global shipping companies and major buyers of shipping services (cargo-owners), we reveal the key issues and challenges faced in improving the environmental performance of maritime transportation. Contributing to the Global Value Chain (GVC) literature, we compare and analyze the influence of three main external drivers on environmental upgrading in the tanker, bulk and container shipping segments: regulation, cooperation and buyer demands. Our findings suggest that environmental upgrading is more likely to occur when global value chains are characterized by unipolar governance and where the lead firms are consumer-facing companies with reputational risks. Furthermore, environmental upgrading in shipping is not likely to materialize without clear and enforceable global regulation and stronger alignment between regulation and voluntary sustainability initiatives.