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 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.
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.
As ocean space increasingly is used for production purposes, such as for the production of food and feed, renewable energy and resource mining, competition for space becomes a concern. A spatial solution to this is to co-locate activities in a multi-use setting. Next to the direct (financial) costs and benefits of multi-use and the societal cost and benefits, there are other factors, in the realm of legal aspects, insurance, health and safety issues and the overall governance of multi-use, that determine whether multi-use can be implemented successfully. This includes transaction costs that arise when for example non-adequate regulation, governance and insurance schemes are in place. Based on the analysis of five case studies across Europe these combined/collective transaction costs of multi-use are analysed and suggestions how to reduce and/or overcome these transaction costs are presented.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains only general rules concerning the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. However, international courts and tribunals have, within their compass, elaborated the law of maritime delimitation through their jurisprudence, thereby maintaining the resilience of the Convention in a particular context of maritime delimitations. The jurisprudence is not a panacea, however. As regards the implications of maritime delimitation judgments for third States in the same region, for example, the jurisprudence has not been consistent. Lack of consistency of the jurisprudence may undermine the predictability of the law of maritime delimitation and weaken the resilience of the Convention. This article critically assesses the approach of the International Court of Justice to the presence of third States in the process of maritime delimitation, by analysing the Nicaragua v. Colombia case and the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, respectively.
Illicit maritime activities generate significant scholarly and policy attention. While diverse in nature, governance responses share many regulatory features. This introduction advances the notion of maritime justice, a socio‐legal research agenda. Different from broader maritime security studies, it places law at the centre of the inquiry, studying maritime governance practices through the lens of regulation. Empirically, it covers operational, spatial, and structural junctions between illicit maritime activity and regulatory responses deriving from international and domestic law. Analytically, it is heterogeneous but holds a methodological commitment to studying everyday law enforcement practices of maritime security governance to disentangle its meanings and effects. The introduction posits the junction between illicit maritime activities and regulatory responses as a productive space to study the varied norms that shape order‐making at sea, and vice versa.
Plastic litter is introduced into the oceans from land-based sources located in many countries around the world. Marine plastic pollution may therefore be attributable to multiple states, resulting in shared state responsibility. This article discusses the issue of shared state responsibility for land-based marine plastic pollution by examining (i) primary rules of international law concerning the prevention of land-based marine plastic pollution; (ii) secondary rules of international law on this subject; and (iii) possible ways of strengthening the primary rules. It concludes that the barrier for the invocation of state responsibility may become higher in cases of shared state responsibility. Three cumulative solutions to this problem are proposed: elaborating the obligation of due diligence, strengthening compliance procedures, and interlinking regimes governing the marine environment and international watercourses.
The European Union (EU) seeks to become a global maritime-security actor, yet strategic challenges influence its maritime-security strategy process. Is there a distinctive and coherent EU approach to global maritime security, and how should the EU address the growing range of maritime challenges, including the intensification of militarized competition in the Indo-Pacific?
A tension between two opposing forces, that is, the force of division and that of unity, is increasingly sharpened in the law of the sea today. An essential question that arises is how one can protect community interests in the divided ocean. The law of dédoublement fonctionnel advocated by Georges Scelle provides an insight into this question. According to Scelle’s theory of the law of dédoublement fonctionnel, State organs perform a dual function: the national function of protecting State interests and the public service function of safeguarding community interests. The law of dédoublement fonctionnel seeks to reconcile these functions. Scelle’s harmonistic vision of international law is well worth reconsidering in the law of the sea and beyond. This article examines the relevance of Scelle’s theory in the context of the law of the sea and explores two models for the protection of community interests at sea.
This introductory note examines the development at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the year 2020. While there was no judgment in 2020, proceedings of two cases, the M/T “San Padre Pio” (No. 2) Case (Switzerland/Nigeria) and the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives), continue. Accordingly, this note discusses the issues of the two pending cases. Furthermore, there were some important events regarding the Tribunal in 2020. Among other things, this note focuses on an adoption of a Model Agreement between ITLOS and Singapore, the election of the seven members of the Tribunal, and amendments of the Rules of the Tribunal.