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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this introduction to a special section of the September 2019 issue of International Affairs, we revisit the main themes and arguments of our article ‘Beyond seablindness: a new agenda for maritime security studies’, published in this journal in November 2017. We reiterate our call for more scholarly attention to be paid to the maritime environment in international relations and security studies. We argue that the contemporary maritime security agenda should be understood as an interlinked set of challenges of growing global, regional and national significance, and comprising issues of national, environmental, economic and human security. We suggest that maritime security is characterized by four main characteristics, including its interconnected nature, its transnationality, its liminality—in the sense of implicating both land and sea—and its national and institutional cross-jurisdictionality. Each of the five articles in the special section explores aspects of the contemporary maritime security agenda, including themes of geopolitics, international law, interconnectivity, maritime security governance and the changing spatial order at sea.
The interpretation of “disputes concerning military activities” under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rests on a sensitive balance between the protection of strategic interests of States and the need for peaceful settlement of international disputes. There, an essential issue arises how an adjudicative body acting under Part XV UNCLOS should assess the nature of conducts of State for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b). This issue was vividly raised in the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation with regard to the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen. In this regard, both the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the arbitral tribunal set out in accordance with Annex VII UNCLOS wrestled with this issue. This article examines the manner of the interpretation of the concept of the military activities for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b) by comparing the approaches taken by ITLOS and the Annex VII arbitral tribunal.
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.