This edited volume examines the continued viability of international human rights law in the context of growing transnational law enforcement. With states increasingly making use of global governance modes, core exercises of public authority such as migration control, surveillance, detention and policing, are increasingly conducted extraterritorially, outsourced to foreign governments or delegated to non-state actors.
New forms of cooperation raise difficult questions about divided, shared and joint responsibility under international human rights law. At the same time, some governments engage in transnational law enforcement exactly to avoid such responsibilities, creatively seeking to navigate the complex, overlapping and sometimes unclear bodies of international law. As such, this volume argues that this area represents a particular dark side of globalisation, requiring both scholars and practitioners to revisit basic assumptions and legal strategies.
The volume will be of great interest to students, scholars and practitioners of international relations, human rights and public international law.
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are not the only emissions of concern to the international transport community. SOx emissions are non-GHG emissions that are caused by the presence of sulphur in the fuel. As the maximum percentage of sulphur in automotive and aviation fuels is strictly regulated in most countries around the world, much of the attention in recent years has focused on maritime transport. The attention mainly stems from the fact that in marine fuels the percentage of sulphur can be very high: it can be as high as 4.5 % in Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), which is the fuel typically used in all deep-sea trades. Even though the amounts of SOx produced by ships are substantially lower than CO2, SOx emissions are highly undesirable as they cause acid rain and undesirable health effects in humans and animals. To mitigate these adverse environmental effects, the international shipping community has taken substantial policy measures. With the introduction of new limits for the content of sulphur in marine fuels in Northern European and North American sea areas, short-sea companies operating in these areas will face substantial additional cost. As of 1/1/2015, international regulations stipulate, among other things, a 0.1 % limit in the sulphur content of marine fuels, or equivalent measures limiting the percent of SOx emissions to the same amount. As low-sulphur fuel is substantially more expensive than HFO, there is little or no room within these companies current margins to absorb such additional cost, and thus significant price increases must be expected. Unlike its deep-sea counterpart, in short-sea shipping such a freight rate increase may induce shippers to use land-based alternatives (mainly road). A reverse shift of cargo would go against the EU policy to shift traffic from land to sea to reduce congestion, and might ultimately (under certain circumstances) increase the overall level of CO2 emissions along the entire supply chain. The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the potential effect of sulphur regulations on the share of cargo transported by the waterborne mode vis-à-vis land-based alternative
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are not the only emissions of concern to the international transport community. SOx emissions are non-GHG emissions that are caused by the presence of sulphur in the fuel. As the maximum percentage of sulphur in automotive and aviation fuels is strictly regulated in most countries around the world, much of the attention in recent years has focused on maritime transport. The attention mainly stems from the fact that in marine fuels the percentage of sulphur can be very high: it can be as high as 4.5 % in Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), which is the fuel typically used in all deep-sea trades. Even though the amounts of SOx produced by ships are substantially lower than CO2, SOx emissions are highly undesirable as they cause acid rain and undesirable health effects in humans and animals. To mitigate these adverse environmental effects, the international shipping community has taken substantial policy measures. With the introduction of new limits for the content of sulphur in marine fuels in Northern European and North American sea areas, short-sea companies operating in these areas will face substantial additional cost. As of 1/1/2015, international regulations stipulate, among other things, a 0.1%limit in the sulphur content of marine fuels, or equivalent measures limiting the percent of SOx emissions to the same amount. As low-sulphur fuel is substantially more expensive than HFO, there is little or no room within these companies current margins to absorb such additional cost, and thus significant price increases must be expected. Unlike its deep-sea counterpart, in short-sea shipping such a freight rate increase may induce shippers to use landbased alternatives (mainly road). A reverse shift of cargo would go against the EU policy to shift traffic from land to sea to reduce congestion, and might ultimately (under certain circumstances) increase the overall level of CO2 emissions along the entire supply chain. The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the potential effect of sulphur regulations on the share of cargo transported by the waterborne mode vis-à-vis land-based alternatives.
Maritime shipping is the transmission belt of the global economy. It is also a major contributor to global environmental change through its under-regulated air, water and land impacts. It is puzzling that shipping is a lagging sector as it has a well-established global regulatory body—the International Maritime Organization. Drawing on original empirical evidence and archival data, we introduce a four-factor framework to investigate two main questions: why is shipping lagging in its environmental governance; and what is the potential for the International Maritime Organization to orchestrate emerging private ‘green shipping’ initiatives to achieve better ecological outcomes? Contributing to transnational governance theory, we find that conditions stalling regulatory progress include low environmental issue visibility, poor interest alignment, a broadening scope of environmental issues, and growing regulatory fragmentation and uncertainty. The paper concludes with pragmatic recommendations for the International Maritime Organization to acknowledge the regulatory difficulties and seize the opportunity to orchestrate environmental progress.
Policy emphasis in ship design must be shifted away from global and idealized towards regional based and realistic vessel operating conditions. The present approach to reducing shipping emissions through technical standards tends to neglect how damages and abatement opportunities vary according to location and operational conditions. Since environmental policy originates in damages relating to ecosystems and jurisdictions, a three-layered approach to vessel emissions is intuitive and practical. Here, we suggest associating damages and policies with ports, coastal areas possibly defined as Emission Control Areas (ECA) as in the North Sea and the Baltic, and open seas globally. This approach offers important practical opportunities: in ports, clean fuels or even electrification is possible; in ECAs, cleaner fuels and penalties for damaging fuels are important, but so is vessel handling, such as speeds and utilization. Globally we argue that it may be desirable to allow burning very dirty fuels at high seas, due to the cost advantages, the climate cooling benefits, and the limited ecosystem impacts. We quantify the benefits and cost savings from reforming current IMO and other approaches towards environmental management with a three-layered approach, and argue it is feasible and worth considering.
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.