Discusses the challenges of raising finance to build and convert low- and zero-emission ships as required by international law and policy to mitigate climate change.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Purpose— The article presents a commentary on the case Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), aiming to deliver a comprehensive summary of the case and general commentary on the most relevant claims and the procedural history. Design, Methodology, Approach— The article comments on the case following a procedural structure, explaining the principal factual and jurisdictional issues, the application presented by Nicaragua, the preliminary exceptions, and the counterclaims presented by Colombia during the jurisdictional phase of the case leading to the judgment on jurisdiction in 2016, and the decision on the merits rendered by the Court in 2022. Findings— The commentary highlights the difficulties raised before the ICJ when entertaining the admissibility of counterclaims, and studies the factual pattern that led to Nicaragua’s application as a manifestation of a conduct of resistance to international courts and tribunals. Practical Implications— The article may provide readers with in-depth knowledge of recent litigation that is relevant to the law of the sea but also the authority of the ICJ and the effectiveness of its judgments. Originality, Value— The article is one of the few case commentaries on the procedural history and legal claims before the ICJ in this very recent case that was decided by the Court in 2022.
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.