Infrastructure-led development is driving geopolitical agendas in the Global South, and Djibouti is a case in point. Strategically situated in the Horn of Africa, Djibouti's seaports and related infrastructure have been modernized through foreign investments to serve international trade and growing African hinterlands. Scholarship often posits foreign logistics investors as hegemons driven by geopolitical interests, and host states as passive recipients. This paper questions such claims. It examines the relationship between "hegemon" and "host state" from the perspective of the latter, in this case the Djibouti government's interactions with Emirati and Chinese infrastructure companies. Methodologically, the analysis is based on interviews, secondary data and document analysis. It applies a conflict-sensitive controversies approach from critical logistics studies to trace contestation over authority in Djibouti's logistics sector. It shows how Djibouti's government applies various strategies (discursive, legal and political) to exercise agency in its logistics sector. The paper concludes that the geopolitics of infrastructure-led development is a reciprocal effort that goes beyond conventional logics of hegemons imposing on host states.
The EU Green Deal calls for a rapid and efficient green transition. On-going climate change and an increasing need for secure and sustainable energy means ambitious projects and goals are accelerated. To expand and exchange offshore wind energy across North Sea neighbouring countries, the Danish government presented in 2020 the Danish North Sea Energy Island (NSEI) project. This pilot project illustrates the shift from ‘nationally individualistic’ modes of connecting offshore wind energy projects, to supplying a multi-lateral renewable offshore energy grid. The Energy Island project builds on the Hub-and-Spoke (H&S) approach, which introduces a new level of complexity to governing the next generation of offshore wind energy projects. This paper analyses the political motivations for the Danish project and the planning and implementation of the Energy Islands, integrating a combination of collaborative and transboundary governance perspectives. The qualitative analysis is based on a document analysis and a literature review. Findings show how planning for the Danish Energy Island has faced delays and challenges, causing uncertainties about the Island’s capability to support Green Deal goals, as well as a mismatch between political ambitions and practical implementation. The artificial offshore island is currently under reconsideration due to costs and is, as of March 2024, still in its planning phase. This case study on the Danish NSEI serves as an introduction to the general functionalities and development of the Island and defines a Danish Energy Island. Results indicate that the combination of transboundary and collaborative governance structures are necessary as part of a successful implementation of Energy Islands.
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 chapter examines the development of the law of the sea at the time of the League of Nations with specific focus on the entitlement to the oceans and the use of the oceans. This chapter first addresses the entitlement to and jurisdiction over marine spaces by examining the issue of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, bays and islands. The chapter then examines the issue of the use of the oceans, focusing on the regulation of fishing and navigational rights in straits. Finally, the chapter will conclude that the era of the League of Nations can be thought to be one in which the traditional paradigm of the law of the sea was being formulated. However, the paradigm was qualified by the absence of an agreement with regard to the breadth of the territorial sea and rules regarding the delimitation of the territorial sea. In this sense, the paradigm in that period remained incomplete. Furthermore, the time was not ripe to establish a global legal framework for the conservation of marine living resources. Overall the law of the sea at the time was characterised by the reconciliation of competing interests of individual states.
This chapter introduces the reader to port State jurisdiction in public international law, linking customary law traditions to its utilization in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Its provisions are contextualized within their relationship to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, both historically as a matter of treaty negotiations, and contemporarily as a matter of defining generally accepted international rules and standards for port States regulating vessel-source pollution. Port States play a key role in promoting and evolving the uniform and universal application of MARPOL standards as, by-and-large, minimum global standards. Complementary principles—such as no more favorable treatment—and mechanisms—such as regional port State control memorandums—are highlighted, as well as several relevant implementation strategies, for example, concentrated inspection campaigns.
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.
The BBNJ Agreement will affect legal frameworks for the conservation of marine biological diversity in various regions of the world ocean and the marine Arctic is no exception. As biological diversity in the marine Arctic is particularly vulnerable, the implications of the BBNJ Agreement for the conservation of biological diversity in the marine Arctic deserves serious consideration. Of particular note is the procedure for an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Given that damage to the environment may be irreversible, it is a prerequisite to conduct an EIA before authorizing planned activities, with a view to preventing environmental harm. An EIA constitutes a crucial element in the conservation of the marine environment, including biological diversity. Hence, this article examines the potential implications of the procedure for an EIA as set out under the BBNJ Agreement for the conservation of biological diversity in the marine Arctic beyond national jurisdiction.
This chapter examines the role of industry self-regulation in relation to international maritime law. While multilateral intergovernmental agreements are important to encouraging regulatory harmonisation, private actors have an essential role in industry, both in developing norms and in making rules and standards effective to ensure safe and secure shipping on clean oceans. Nonetheless, private actors are often overlooked and yet to be placed in the context of international maritime law and especially the United Nations Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This chapter does so by analysing industry self-regulation in relation to UNCLOS, flag states and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) respectively.
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.