Changing Paradigms in the Law of the Sea and the Marine Arctic

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-467
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka

Abstract The existence of a sense of common or community interests is a prerequisite to establishing an order in a society, national or international. In this connection, it is notable that the protection of community interests is increasingly important in international law and the law of the sea is no exception. The increasing need for protecting community interests necessitates a new paradigm in the law of the sea. The legal issues regarding the marine Arctic should also be considered in the context of changing paradigms in the law of the sea. Thus this article seeks to overview principal issues of the international law governing the marine Arctic from the viewpoints of a dual paradigm, that is, the law of divided oceans (paradigm I) and the law of our common ocean (paradigm II).

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-734
Author(s):  
Natalie Klein ◽  
Douglas Guilfoyle ◽  
Md Saiful Karim ◽  
Rob McLaughlin

AbstractThe ongoing development of diverse maritime autonomous vehicles for varied ocean activities—ranging from scientific research, security surveillance, transportation of goods, military purposes and commission of crimes—is prompting greater consideration of how existing legal frameworks accommodate these vehicles. This article brings together the core legal issues, as well as current developments in relation to commercial shipping, the law of naval warfare, and maritime security. This article captures how these issues are now being addressed and what other legal questions will likely emerge as the newest technology impacts on one of the oldest bodies of international law.


Author(s):  
Yishai Beer

This book seeks to revitalize the humanitarian mission of the international law governing armed conflict, which is being frustrated due to states’ actual practice. In order to achieve its two aims—creating an environment in which full abidance by the law becomes an attainable norm, thus facilitating the second and more important aim of reducing human suffering—it calls for the acknowledgment of realpolitik considerations that dictate states’ and militaries’ behavior. This requires recognition of the core interests of law-abiding states, fighting in their own self-defense—those that, from their militaries’ professional perspective, are essential in order to exercise their defense. Internalizing the importance of existential security interests, when drawing the contours of the law, should not automatically come at the expense of the core values of the humanitarian agenda—for example, the distinction rule. Rather, it allows more room for the humanitarian arena. The suggested tool to allow for such an improved dialogue is the standards and principles of military professionalism. Militaries function in a professional manner; they respect their respective doctrines, operational principles, fighting techniques, and values. Their performances are not random or incidental. The suggested paradigm surfaces and leverages the constraining elements hidden in military professionalism. It suggests a new paradigm in balancing the principles of military necessity and humanity, it deals with the legality of a preemptive strike and the leveraging of military strategy as a constraining tool, and it offers a normative framework for introducing deterrence within the current contours of the law.


1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Graefrath

The history, operation and tasks of the International Law Commission (ILC) have often been described and its success in codifying general international law is well-known and widely acknowledged. The conduct of international relations today is unthinkable without such basic instruments, first drafted by the Commission, as the conventions on diplomatic and consular relations, the law of treaties and the law of the sea. Moreover, other ILC drafts that have not been adopted as treaties have had a long-term effect on the development of international law; for example, the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States, the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, and the Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-18
Author(s):  
Roman Kolodkin

Normative propositions of the international courts, including these of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, are considered in the paper as provisions in the judicial decisions and advisory opinions, spelling out, formulating or describing international law norms, prescriptions, prohibitions or authorizations, which are applicable, in the court’s view, in the case at hand and the similar cases. Such a proposition is considered to be a description of a legal norm, its spelling out by a court, but not a norm or its source. In contrast with legal norms, judicial normative propositions are descriptive, not prescriptive; they may be true or wrong. Normative propositions are not transformed into norms solely by their repetition in judicial decisions. The author considers not only ITLOS decisions but also the Tribunal’s and its Seabed disputes chamber advisory opinions containing normative propositions to be subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law under article 38(1(d)) of the International Court of Justice Statute. The legal reasoning of the Tribunal’s decision, not its operative provisions, usually features normative propositions. While strictly speaking, the decision addresses the parties of the dispute, normative propositions in the reasoning are in fact enacted by the Tribunal urbi et orbi aiming at all relevant actors, ITLOS including. They bear upon substantive and procedural issues, rights and obligations of relevant actors; they may also define legal notions. The Tribunal provides them as part of its reasoning or as obiter dictum. It is those provisions of the Tribunal’s decisions that are of particular importance for international law through detailing treaty- and verbalizing customary rules. However, the States that have the final and decisive say confirming or non-confirming the content and binding nature of the rules spelt out or described by the Tribunal in its normative propositions. Meanwhile, States are not in a hurry to publicly react to the judicial normative propositions, particularly to those of ITLOS, though they refer to them in pleadings or when commenting on the International Law Commission drafts. At times, States concerned argue that international judicial decisions are not binding for third parties. While the States are predominantly silent, ITLOS reiterates, develops and consolidates normative propositions, and they begin to be perceived as law. The paper also points to the possibility of the Tribunal’s normative propositions being not correct and to the role of the judges’ dissenting and separate opinions in identifying such propositions.


Asian Survey ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein Tønnesson

The article looks at three ways in which international law has affected government behavior in the South China Sea. It has exacerbated disputes. It has probably curtailed the use of force. And it has made it difficult to imagine solutions that violate the law of the sea.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Lakićević-Đuranović

This paper aims to show the significance of maritime delimitation in the Law of the Sea, as well as the contribution of international jurisprudence to the creation of the rules of maritime delimitation. The decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the awards of arbitration tribunals are especially significant in the part of the Law of the Sea dealing with maritime delimitation. Based on the analysis of the principle of equity and the method of equidistance, the jurisprudence of the courts is shown to have established precedents and to have an irreplaceable role in the development of the international Law of the Sea, particularly in the segment of maritime delimitations.


Author(s):  
Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik

Abstract The article explores the current stagnation in multilateral law-making based on an analysis of recent treaty attempts across various subfields of international law. It further examines why the law of the sea has continued to evolve despite this trend. The article demonstrates that states still regularly seek multilateral treaties to address new challenges. While there is some evidence of general treaty saturation, it is the current inability of traditional great powers to negotiate new binding norms which is the most constraining factor on multilateral law-making. This in turn is related to deeper geopolitical shifts by which traditional great powers, notably the United States and its allies, have seen their relative influence decline. Until the current great power competition ends or settles into a new mode of international co-operation, new multilateral treaties with actual regulatory effect will rarely emerge. The law of the sea has avoided the current trend of stagnation for primarily three reasons (i) a global commitment to the basic tenets of the law of the sea; (ii) a legal framework that affords rights and obligations somewhat evenly disbursed, allowing less powerful states to use their collective leverage to advance multilateral negotiations, despite intermittent great power opposition; and (iii) the avoidance of entrenched multilateral forums where decisions are reached by consensus only.


Author(s):  
Valentin J. Schatz ◽  
Arron N. Honniball

International fisheries law is a broad field of international law within which significant state practice, instruments, and relevant fora are found at the global, regional, subregional, bilateral, and national level. For the purposes of this bibliography, the analysis of international fisheries law is limited to the law governing marine capture fisheries (other fisheries law definitions may include the regulation of aquaculture or inland fisheries). This bibliography also primarily approaches fisheries law as a matter of fisheries conservation and management under the international law of the sea. The two main treaties of global application which reflect its foundational framework are the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). As a starting point, one should consult the maritime zones established under UNCLOS and customary law, whereby the distribution of rights and obligations among the various capacities of states differs per maritime zone. As fish do not respect legal boundaries, special rules of international law that emphasize cooperation and management between states must be adopted and adapted for shared fish stocks such as transboundary fish stocks, straddling fish stocks, and highly migratory fish stocks. In addition, various treaties of global application dealing with specific issues exist, such as the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement) and, most recently, the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA). This global treaty framework is complemented by various global non–legally binding instruments, most of which were adopted under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). On the regional level, countless multilateral and bilateral fisheries treaties have been concluded, and the field remains highly dynamic. Notably, many fisheries are nowadays managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements (RFMO/As) or bilateral fisheries commissions. As a thematically defined field of law, international fisheries law is not restricted to the rules governing conservation and management of marine fisheries, but may equally raise, among other issues, questions of general international law of the sea such as jurisdiction and maritime law enforcement operations, international environmental law, international trade law, international human rights law, and international dispute settlement.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmina Krštenić ◽  

Giving attention to the legal relations in special international public law branch which its existence connects to the biggest part of the Planet, unresearched completely, it is absolutely important for modern way of living. In a period of questioning of boundaries and possibilities of future existence of ancient principles of legitimate rule, we need to pay attention to, at least for a glance, issues which tangle the subjects of legal relations regulated by rules under law of the sea. Lot of people use sea routes, a certain part of population of continental states uses the benefits of the sea although they do not ask themselves about order and way of functioning that huge system which demands obeying rules defined on international level. Struggle to reach an agreement was long and difficult, results are visible and used, and agreed terms and established rules, could be changed. It is important to know certain circumstances, some demands and the essence of the agreement reached. The sea as a road, the source of life, and this time, the source of international rules governing legal order on sea’s surface and endless depths. We will get acquainted with the basics of the law of the sea and some sorts of sea related services. We will consider some problems and ways of solving these problems with the provision of proposed guidelines for future action within the framework of the international law of the sea.


2019 ◽  
pp. 468-493
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández

This chapter explores the law of the sea. The ‘law of the sea’ is a blanket term, describing the law relating to all bodies of water, irrespective of whether they are subject to the jurisdiction of a State. Naturally, the seas are tremendously important globally; the seas are a crucial means of communication and trade, allowing for the transport of persons and goods around the world. The seas and their subsoil are also a valuable economic resource. However, the law of the sea is not also important for its significant contributions to public international law. The law of the sea governs a series of overlapping sovereign interests and projections of jurisdiction. The basic concept is that the sea is divided into two broad categories: territorial sea and high seas. The exact line between these two has been at the heart of more than four centuries of legal developments and disputes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document