Modern Slavery and the Law of the Sea

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-17
Author(s):  
Chie Kojima

Abstract Practices of modern slavery across maritime borders, such as human trafficking and forced labour in the maritime and fishing industries, are often unregulated and uncontrolled due to legal uncertainties and the lack of political will. This article discusses possibilities to re-interpret the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to give a complementary role to non-flag States in controlling modern slavery practices at sea. In particular, it analyses the question as to whether a non-flag State may take prescriptive and enforcement measures against a foreign vessel suspected of modern slavery on the high seas.

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman

AbstractIf a foreign ship is detained by a coastal or port state, the flag state may contest the legality of the detention and submit the case to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under the general dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. Article 292 sets up a more circumscribed, additional procedure for vessel release. It does not entail the submission of a dispute on the merits to a court or tribunal for judgment. The matter must be dealt with "without delay". Articles 294 and 295 are arguably not relevant. Local proceedings are unaffected and local remedies need not be exhausted. Application can be made "by or on behalf" of the flag state. The text provides an alternative. The words "on behalf of" present an option that is not already provided by the word "by". Therefore, these words should be understood to permit the flag state to dispense with the need for official communication from its government in connection with each application for release, such as is necessary for an application "by" the flag state. Instead, the state may designate in advance natural or judicial persons (e.g. owners or operators), who are authorized to bring applications for release on its behalf. Since no application for release "on behalf of the flag State" may be made against its will, the flag state may change, qualify or withdraw its designations at any time. While there is no doubt that the German Government will permit parties before the Tribunal to be represented by counsel of their choice, without regard to the country in which counsel is licensed to practise law, the question remains whether foreign counsel will be permitted to maintain an office in Hamburg even when they are not working on a case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is, however, less a question of Germany's international obligations, than a question of whether Germany wishes to promote the idea that Hamburg is a global centre for legal activity related to the Law of the Sea.


Author(s):  
Barnes Richard A

This chapter discusses flag state jurisdiction as set forth in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It covers the development of flag state jurisdiction; registration and nationality; the operation of flag state jurisdiction; and flag state rights and duties.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy

AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-83
Author(s):  
Chris Whomersley

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains detailed provisions concerning its amendment, but these have never been used and this article explores why this is so. States have instead maintained the Convention as a “living instrument” by adopting updated rules in other organisations, especially the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. States have also used the consensus procedure at Meetings of the States Parties to modify procedural provisions in UNCLOS, and have adopted two Implementation Agreements relating to UNCLOS. In addition, port State jurisdiction has developed considerably since the adoption of UNCLOS, and of course other international organisations have been active in related fields.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document