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.
Coastal communities have ideas and plans on how to redirect the blue economy to
support thriving societies, but how can EU Member States better support bottom-up
transitions?
This is a policy brief included in D5.3 of EmpowerUs.
The oceans, covering approximately 70% of Earth's surface, play a pivotal role in climate regulation, biodiversity, and biogeochemical processes. The large and growing volume and complexity of ocean data, spanning diverse disciplines and formats, and dispersed across a wide range of sources, presents opportunities and challenges for advancing scientific research, informing policy, and addressing societal needs.
In this review paper we aim to create an easy-to-navigate map of the field of ocean data, enabling the reader to establish a broad understanding of the ocean data sector, and bridging gaps between different disciplines and levels of familiarity with ocean data. This is done through the concept of the "data ecosystem", which is used to describe the actors, organisations, and infrastructures involved in all aspects of the data value chain. We propose a structured ocean data ecosystem model as a method for comprehensive mapping of the ocean data market landscape. The proposed model consists of five key elements: stakeholders, societal elements, data sources and product offering, standards and best practices, and emerging technologies. We provide an up-to-date analysis of ocean data sources and emerging solutions and a summary of relevant data standardization efforts such as marine standards, vocabularies, and ontologies. All this will promote the development of needs-based solutions, components, products, services, and technologies, thus contributing to the evolution of the ocean data ecosystem and promoting data-based ocean research.
This article explores how adopting a combined ecosystem and justice approach to deep-sea mining (DSM)-particularly in vulnerable regions like the Arctic-would constitute a paradigm shift in ocean environmental law and governance. Such a shift would move ocean governance beyond fragmented, technocratic, and resource-driven frameworks toward an integrated, equitable, and sustainability-centered regime grounded in ecological integrity, social justice, and respect for human rights and local traditions.
Current modeling practices for social-ecological systems (SES) are often qualitative and use causal loop diagrams (CLDs), as these models promote an evaluation of the systems loops and variable connectivity. Our literature review demonstrated that quality assurance of these models often lacks a consistent validation procedure. Therefore, a guide to improving the validation of qualitative models is presented. The presumed utility protocol is a multi-dimensional protocol with 26 criteria, organized into four dimensions, designed to assess specific parts of the modeling process and provide recommendations for improvement. This protocol was applied to three demonstration cases, located in the Arctic Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Macaronesia, and the Tuscan archipelago. The “Specific Model Tests” dimension, which focuses on the structure of the model, revealed positive evaluations of its structure, boundaries, and capacity to be scaled up. "Guidelines and Processes", which focuses on the meaning and representativeness of the process, showed positive results regarding purpose, usefulness, presentation, and meaningfulness. "Policy Insights and Spillovers", a dimension focused on the policy recommendations, revealed a high number of "not apply", indicating that several criteria are too advanced for the status of the models tested. The "Administrative, Review, and Overview" dimension, which focused on the managerial overview, showed the models needed improvement in the documentation and replicability, while time and cost constraints were positively evaluated. The presumed utility protocol has shown to be a useful tool providing quantitative and qualitative evaluations for an intermediate evaluation of the model-building process, helping to substantiate confidence, with recommendations for improvements and applications elsewhere.
A serious ship-bridge collision accident happens about once a year. These accidents cause fatalities and large economic losses due to loss of transportation service and replacement cost of the bridge structure. One of the most recent, widely published, ship-bridge collisions was the collision where the containership Dali in 2024 collided with the Baltimore Key Bridge in the US city of Baltimore. The resulting collapse of the bridge girder caused six fatalities as well as large financial losses. One effect of this event has been that engineers around the world now are being engaged in evaluation of the vulnerability of existing bridges and establishment of rational design criteria for new bridges.
The presentation will outline elements of a rational design procedure for bridge structures against ship collision impacts. A set of risk acceptance criteria will be proposed and a mathematically based procedure for calculation of the probability of ship collision accidents caused by human as well as technical errors will be presented. This first part of the presentation leads to identification of the largest striking ship, “design vessel”, a given bridge element must withstand without structural failure in order for the bridge connection to fulfil the risk acceptance criteria.
The final part of the presentation will be devoted to an analysis of the needed impact capacity for the bridge pylons and piers exposed to ship bow impact loads from design vessels. A procedure will be described for derivation of expressions for ship bow crushing forces, which can be used in design against ship collision impacts. The resulting collision force expressions are verified by comparison with large-scale laboratory experiments and an analysis of a fullscale shipping accident. Finally, the proposed impact force expressions will be compared with existing standards for modelling ship collisions against bridges as published by AASHTO, IABSE and Eurocode.
This book introduces a novel model to explain how the co-design and co-delivery of ocean science knowledge and solutions is influenced by ocean stakeholders with asymmetric power and resources, policy incentives and ocean conflict, ocean narratives, different knowledge systems, security concerns, principles, formal and informal rules, and communication competencies. Using the International Collaboration in Ocean Science model as a basis, the book advances with three lines of inquiry: ontological security of ocean science participants, the Ocean Decade and human well-being, and strategic narratives about international collaboration in ocean science. Through these, Carolijn van Noort shows the enabling and constraining conditions of co-creating ocean knowledge and solutions. Theoretically novel, the book provides a compelling framework for scholars to study ocean science collaboration.
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 ‘port managing body (PMB)’ plays a central role in the development of the port. Public funding for investment projects of the port managing bodies is common in the EU as well as most other countries. This paper adds to the body of knowledge on port investments and financing challenges with an analysis of data from two surveys that were carried in 2018 and 2023. This analysis yields the following conclusions. First, the PMBs in the EU have shifted their investments, in response to changing investment drivers. The increasing relevance of the transition to a net-zero economy leads to a shift towards investments in projects that reduce environmental effects and/or allow private investments in new green activities such as the production of zero-emission fuels. Second, financial bottlenecks are the most important bottlenecks for the execution of the projects of PMBs. Third, the PMBs have high aspirations with regard to public funding, both on the EU and national level. Fourth, there is a difference between two types of PMBs: state-owned commercial port development companies and the public sector embedded port authorities; the latter execute less projects without public funding and are more oriented on national public funding than on EU funding. Finally, the societal value creation of the investments of PMBs is used to justify public funding aspirations. The PMBs indicate that the majority of their investments create societal value, often by enabling emission reductions and by reduced local negative externalities.