This article discusses the role of private regulators within the international legal framework of Arctic shipping. The role of private actors has been acknowledged both in legal scholarship and policy papers; but it has not yet been placed in the centre of attention. This article does so by analysing the role of private actors under the Polar Code and three types of private regulation — guidelines of classification societies, requirements of insurance industry and private contracting. It concludes that private actors have an essential role both in developing and effectuation of public international law and thus in achieving sustainable Arctic shipping.
We solve a central problem in the liner shipping industry called the liner shipping fleet repositioning problem (LSFRP). The LSFRP poses a large financial burden on liner shipping firms. During repositioning, vessels are moved between routes in a liner shipping network. Liner carriers wish to reposition vessels as cheaply as possible without disrupting cargo flows. The LSFRP is characterized by chains of interacting activities with a multicommodity flow over paths defined by the activities chosen. Despite its industrial importance, the LSFRP has received little attention in the literature. We introduce a novel mathematical model and a simulated annealing algorithm for the LSFRP with cargo flows that makes use of a carefully constructed graph; we evaluate these approaches using real-world data from our industrial collaborator. Additionally, we compare the performance of our approach against an actual repositioning scenario, one of many undertaken by our industrial collaborator in 2011. Our simulated annealing algorithm is able to increase the profit from $18.1 to $31.8 million using only a few minutes of CPU time. This shows that our algorithm could be used in a decision support system to solve the LSFRP.
The legal limbo that defines the maritime space over which the process of delimitation of the outer continental shelf is applied appears today as an eminently practical question that needs to be addressed. The institutional framework provided by UNCLOS, which establishes the existence of an internationalized space on the seabed - the area - seems limited to respond to a debate that confuses Geology with Law. This article focuses on the powers of the International Seabed Authority as an agency authorized to act on behalf of Mankind by exploring its weaknesses in its exercise of this mandate in the context of that process. By analyzing the conflict between the expansionist goals of States and the embodied principle that gives the Authority the assignment to act on behalf of Mankind in securing a space that, according to the text of the Convention, belongs to it, we conclude that there are apparent inconsistencies in the institutional framework created the Montego Bay Convention. In our exegesis of Part XI of the Convention, we work on the cogent force of that principle and raise questions about the legal legitimacy of the entire process, ie in the absence of a clear statement by the above-mentioned Authority. We conclude that the text of the Convention provides the possibility of a direct intervention by the Authority but that there are still no political conditions for such a possibility to be realised.