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.
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.
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 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.
Background
The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC2006) entered into force in August 2013 and is a milestone for better working and living conditions (WLC) for seafarers. As of March 2020, 96 countries have ratified the MLC2006, covering more than 90% of the world’s shipping fleet. A system of port state control (PSC) allows ratifying countries to inspect any foreign ship arriving in their ports for compliance with the convention. It is intended as a second safety measure for the identification of substandard ships that sail all over the world. Nine regional agreements, so-called Memoranda of Understanding (MoU), have been signed to coordinate and standardize PSC inspections and to increase efficiency by sharing inspections and information. This paper uses public PSC statistics to evaluate the impact of the MLC2006.
Methods
A preliminary analysis using registered tonnage and MLC2006 ratification was conducted and seven MoU were selected for the analysis. The annual reports of these MoU have been viewed in September 2019. Numbers on annual inspections, deficiencies and detentions and in particular data for deficiencies related to living and working conditions and certificates and documents, have been extracted and analyzed for the years 2010 to 2017.
Results
Across the eight-year period analyzed, inspection numbers remained stable among all MoU authorities. Deficiencies overall and deficiencies related to WLC declined, indicating an improvement in conditions overall and an increased focus on seafarers’ conditions on board. After the MLC2006 entered into force, three MoU reported WLC-ratios above 14%, while the numbers didn’t rise above 10% in the other four authorities. Deficiencies related to certificates and documents did not rise significantly between 2010 and 2017. Two European MoU showed the highest ratios for deficiencies in both categories analyzed.
Conclusion
The analysis confirmed that an increasing attention is being paid to the inspection of working and living conditions, especially in European countries. However, a clear positive impact of the MLC2006 could not be determined from the PSC statistics in this analysis. A large variation still exists among the MoU, a fact that demands increased efforts for harmonization of PSC procedures.
Ocean acidification (OA) is a global problem with profoundly negative environmental, social and economic consequences. From a governance perspective, there is a
need to ensure a coordinated effort to directly address it. This study reviews 90 legislative documents from 17 countries from the European Economic Area (EEA) and
the UK that primarily border the sea. The primary finding from this study is that the European national policies and legislation addressing OA is at best uncoordinated. Although OA is acknowledged at the higher levels of governance, its status as an environmental challenge is greatly diluted at the European Union Member
State level. As a notable exception within the EEA, Norway seems to have a proactive approach towards legislative frameworks and research aimed towards further
understanding OA. On the other hand, there was a complete lack of, or inadequate reporting in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive by the majority of the EU
Member States, with the exception of Italy and the Netherlands. We argue that the problems associated with OA and the solutions needed to address it are unique and
cannot be bundled together with traditional climate change responses and measures. Therefore, European OA-related policy and legislation must reflect this and
tailor their actions to mitigate OA to safeguard marine ecosystems and societies. A stronger and more coordinated approach is needed to build environmental,
economic and social resilience of the observed and anticipated changes to the coastal marine systems.
This paper aims to determine what the proper role of the judiciary should be in developing climate change policy. It does so in light of the sometimes contentious relationship between ‘activist’ or ‘progressive’ judges and the doctrine of separation of powers. This relationship has a long history by which much of human rights law has been shaped. The paper analyses the court judgments in the cases of Urgenda v Kingdom of the Netherlands, Juliana v United States, and Friends of the Irish Environment v Ireland in order to identify how different legal systems view this relationship. The paper also considers the upcoming climate case in the Supreme Court of Norway. In particular, the question is asked whether the separation of powers in Europe and the United States is a doctrine mandating systems of power balance rather than of strict separation.
Drawing on the argumentation from the Urgenda judgment, the paper concludes that the protection and development of human rights should be the main concern in climate change litigation. The judiciary should accordingly take an important role in climate change policy-making in order for the state to comply with its duty to instigate emission limits.
Spatial tools to calculate cumulative impact assessments on the environment (CIA) are important contributors to the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to maritime spatial planning (MSP). Ecosystem dynamics are increasingly important to understand as the activities and pressures in marine areas increase. Results from the application of a new training set for the CIA tool MYTILUS, developed in capacity-building MSP projects for active learning environments, illustrate important points on how the CIA method can be used in systematic scenario design. The feedback from its use in an online PhD course outlines how the training set successfully enables researchers from different disciplines and different parts of the world to meet the CIA approach with such interest and understanding that it enables them to highlight the strengths as well as the shortcomings of the tool interface, tool capabilities, and CIA method, even when none of these researchers are CIA experts. These promising results are presented in this paper and advocate for the increasing use of MYTILUS and similar CIA tools in MSP stakeholder sessions where no preliminary CIA expertise can be expected. The key strengths and challenges of training CIA with MYTILUS are discussed to point out focus points for how to make its approaches increasingly fit for participatory and decision-making processes in MSP to utilize its promising abilities for supporting ecosystem-based management.
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.
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.