This study examines how the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) has contributed to the ‘progressive development’ of general international law relevant to regulating rescue and disembarkation of refugees and migrants found at sea. It explores the ILC’s texts on interpretation and implementation of international obligations, state responsibility, fragmentation and harmonization of international law, and the status of certain principles of general international law, including jus cogens general principles of law and the principle of good faith, which present legal parameters for regulation of maritime search and rescue operations. In conducting doctrinal examinations of international law and gathering evidence of the practice of States and other relevant actors, the ILC contributes by analysing, clarifying, and systemising important topics of general international law. However, state implementation frequently falls short of the legal interpretations of the ILC, particularly as they relate to respect for and protection of human rights at sea. Therefore, while the ILC needs new strategies to directly connect with States and international organisations, it remains reliant on the mutual following of national and international courts and tribunals, and its mutual contribution in scholarship.
In seeking to fulfill its mission, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is dependent on the capabilities of its Member States. While flag States remain primarily responsible for ensuring compliance of their registered vessels with instruments adopted under that United Nations specialized agency's aegis, coastal States also play a competing but complementary role in the balance of jurisdiction over ships. In particular, the right to regulate the vessel's intent on visiting the port, or its presence therein, is often relied upon to account for the limitations of flag State enforcement. The capacity to act as a port State under international law is the basis for certain implementation mechanisms stemming from treaty provisions on port state control, as well as for innovative practices of port States, either collectively or individually. This chapter provides the reader with an overview of the role of port State jurisdiction in IMO law and practice, and the challenges that can arise in the complex relationship between port States and the IMO.
The power to regulate on-board protection of merchant vessels lies with the flag state. However, the national models of regulation are not developed in a unilateral vacuum. In fact, the whole concept of flag state jurisdiction and legislative power has to be understood and exercised on the national level in close relation with the general regime of the international law of the sea. The aim of the article is therefore two-fold: first, it aims to provide a background for the country reports in this special issue by giving a brief insight into the problem of piracy in the twenty-first century and the international approaches towards this problem. Here the article also provides an insight into the legal background by presenting the concept of piracy in the law of the sea and connected law enforcement powers. Thus, this part of the article provides the overall context in which the discussions concerning on-board protection and the development of national regulations have occurred. Second, the article analyses the issue of on-board protection from the perspective of the legal framework in international law, as well as relevant international soft-law instruments, influencing the development on the national level. On-board protection of vessels as such is not regulated in the international law; however, international law provides a form of general legal setting, in which flags states navigate. Thus, this article aims to draw a picture of the international context in which flags states develop their specific legal approach.
Irregular migration by sea leads states such as Italy and Australia to conduct maritime rescue operations involving refugees and other migrants. During these operations, states must deal with the question of where to disembark survivors. The law of the sea regime obliges states to ensure survivors are delivered to a 'place of safety', arguably requiring maritime officers to merely consider the physical safety of survivors immediately on disembarkation. Non-binding International Maritime Organization guidelines state that the need to avoid disembarking refugees and asylum-seekers in the states of departure or origin is also a consideration. The guidelines refer to other 'relevant' international law, including treaties dealing with 'refugee refoulement' or refoulement in connection with a risk of torture. Under the international human rights law regime, including international refugee law, states' obligations in relation to non-refoulement are broader and prohibit the return of refugees and migrants to states where they directly or indirectly face persecution, torture or other serious harm. In interpreting 'place of safety', this work argues that there is insufficient consensus to integrate the two legal regimes. Nevertheless, states can be under co-existing human rights obligations that place limits on the disembarkation of rescued refugees and migrants.
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.