1. Introduction. 2. Industry self-regulation in maritime law. 2.1. Why is industry self-regulation necessary? 2.2. Relevant self-regulatory instru- ments. 3. Industry self-regulation and armed protection. 3.1. Quality assurance of private Maritime Security Companies. 3.2. Use of force. 3.3. Reporting. 4. Remarks and conclusion
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.
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.
The aim of this article is to examine the implications of environmental norms for fishing by analysing the South China Sea and Chagos Marine Protected Area cases. In so doing, the article considers the link between the regulation of fishing and the protection of marine biological diversity. Specifically, three issues are to be examined: (1) the implications of Articles 192 and 194(5) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for the regulation of environmentally harmful fishing, (2) the implications of Article 194 of the Convention for the fishing rights of a state, and (3) balance between environmental considerations and the fishing rights of a state. In this connection, the article argues that environmentally harmful fishing can be regarded as a key concept when considering the regulation of fishing from the viewpoints of marine environmental protection.
The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping is becoming a matter of increasing concern. Two issues arise in particular. The first issue concerns the elaboration of rules on this subject. In this regard, Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), amended in 2011, constitutes a key instrument because it was the first legally binding climate change instrument since the Kyoto Protocol. The second issue relates to effective compliance with relevant rules. While the flag State has the primary responsibility to implement relevant rules concerning the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, the flag State responsibility alone is inadequate to secure effective compliance with relevant rules. Thus, there is a need to examine the question whether and to what extent coastal and port States can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vessels in international law. This article seeks to address these two issues. The article concludes that while port States can perform a valuable role in effectuating global rules provided in MARPOL Annex VI, port State control encounters several challenges. Thus, securing compliance with relevant rules should be an important issue in the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping.
This follow up paper concerns relational contracts in the maritime industry from a legal, game theoretical, and strategic perspective. The paper discusses the purpose of a relational contract, the specific legal characteristics in a relational contract, and draw up economic explanations of the relations among the clauses in relational contract. Strategy and game theory are used to explain the output of negotiations and explain how to behave if to obtain joint utility in a contractual relationship in the maritime industry.
The implementation of unmanned vessels will evidently come with its own legal challenges. One of the most crucial of these is the identification of the role and status of the shore-based controller (SBC) for the purposes of determining liability. Different liability regimes apply different legal principles in this regard. This article will explore these issues from the perspective of English law and Scandinavian law.
ABSTRACT: Climate change provides for improved conditions for maritime navigation and results in increased activity in the Arctic. Those increased activities influence the safety at sea and risk of accidents. A disaster as the Costa Concordia incident would have far more serious consequences in Greenlandic waters than it had in Italy, therefore the question of prevention and disaster-preparedness is crucial. One approach to avoid risks is to create specific legislation. The legal system guiding safe navigation of cruise ships in/around Greenlandic waters is complex: the legal regime for navigation is set in different general and specific international, regional and national legal acts, partly non-binding, therefore issues of effectiveness arise. Safety is also influenced by practical issues, e.g. the lack of sufficient nautical charts for Greenlandic waters and “preparedness” at land to handle potential disasters, such as the SAR-system and preparedness of different actors, for example hospitals.
The regulation of private activities that take place overseas has received significant attention in the legal scholarship. The traditional discussion of the topic observes such regulation from the perspectives of public international law principles of jurisdiction or private international law conflict of laws rules. The present article contributes to the discussion from the perspective of private parties engaged in shipping activities, who face an increasing need of compliance with different regulatory acts of extraterritorial application. It argues that the proliferation of such acts incentivizes private parties to include regulatory interests in their business activities.
The article further suggests that extraterritorial regulation can serve as a trigger for transfer and intrinsic adoption of state’s regulatory interest by private parties. It observes the examples of such ‘privatization of extraterritoriality’ in corporate compliance policies and contractual CSR clauses used by shipping companies, noting their spillover effects over other parties. It further notes that the proliferation of extraterritorial regulation sometimes results in the universalization of responses from private parties, as acquisition of regulatory interest untied from its nation-state origins. The concluding section puts the observed phenomenon into a broader picture, discussing the contribution of extraterritorial regulation to the mechanisms of private governance.
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.