Marine Scientific Research in Japan’s Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-293
Author(s):  
Sookyeon Huh

Abstract This article examines Japan’s state practices on marine scientific research (MSR). The survey of state practices requires the discernment of generalisability and particularity in each state practice. There are two points to note while considering the generalisabilities and particularities in Japan’s practices: first, Japan oversees MSR activities in its waters according to a non-legal instrument or a guideline, unlike neighbouring countries that use domestic legislation in MSR upon ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; second, Japan faces quite a few MSR incidents in its undelimited exclusive economic zone. Thus, this article covers an outline of Japan’s guideline, its response to illegal or unregulated MSR activities in its waters, its relationships with neighbouring countries, and the failure of its attempt to legislate the MSR Law in 2007.

Author(s):  
Francis Rigaldies

SummaryThe use of the concept of an exclusive Economie zone has increased since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the characterization of this zone varies greatly between States. This article presents an exhaustive survey of the concept of an exclusive Economie zone. The author discusses the types of jurisdiction exercised by States in their uses of an exclusive Economie zone. Disparity exists between the provisions of the Convention and State practice in some specific areas: for example, the provisions on the environment and on scientific research. Despite these exceptions, the author maintains that the basic tenets of the Convention are respected in State practice. State declarations as well as arbitral and judicial decisions show that the Convention and State practice are together evolving to reinforce the basic principles of the concept of an exclusive Economie zone.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf Einar Fife

Abstract The exclusive rights of the coastal state over the natural resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) coexist with the high seas freedoms of communication of other states. This particular coexistence of state competences is a distinguishing feature of the 200-mile zones. Articles 56(2) and 58(3) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) require that coastal states have ‘due regard’ to the rights, freedoms and duties of other states in the zone, and vice versa. It is suggested that the two provisions are not ‘dormant’. State practice indicates the contrary, as well as future paths for clarification. The obligation to have ‘due regard’ constitutes a linchpin in the conceptual underpinnings of the EEZ, and requires an interpretation of the concrete provisions that are applicable, in keeping with the Convention’s nature as a strategic ‘package deal’ with a particular bearing on international peace and security.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-116
Author(s):  
Ioannis Prezas

Abstract This study examines the applicability and scope of the reciprocal ‘due regard’ duties imposed upon coastal and third states by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the field of military activities in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The applicability of these duties depends on the existence of a right of third states to conduct military activities in the EEZ of another state. Still, this preliminary issue remains extremely controversial because the rules established by the Convention do not offer any clear guidance. On the other hand, if such a right is recognized in abstracto and thus the applicability of the ‘due regard’ duties is triggered, an enquiry into the potential procedural and substantive scope of these duties is necessary to understand how conflicts between this right and coastal states’ rights and jurisdiction should be resolved in concreto.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 117-131
Author(s):  
Kumari Issur

In the wake of what has been termed “the scramble for the oceans,” the Republic of Mauritius lodged an application in 2012 with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to recognize its rights to an Exclusive Economic Zone that comprises a large expanse of the Indian Ocean, and subsequently redefined itself as an ocean-state. This new configuration raises as many issues as it answers. The Indian Ocean remains firmly central both to Mauritian history and to its imaginary. All at once, the endless fluidity of the ocean renders material traces and academic archeology harder, yet somehow it traps and sediments memory and meaning in some ways more profoundly than land. This article bores and drills into the historical, geopolitical, and ontological depths of ocean-state Mauritius with the figure of the ghost as motif, metaphor, and witness.


2022 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Bambang S. Irianto

This research is classified as normative legal research. The approach used is the statute approach, legal principles, legal theories, legal concepts. The juridical approach in this research is a problem approach based on the applicable laws and regulations, while the normative approach is a problem approach that examines the law in law so that conclusions can be drawn that are logical, coherent and systematic. Case Approach with the case approach is done by examining cases related to the issue at hand, and has become a decision that has permanent legal force.The results of the study show that there is still inconsistency in law enforcement in the EEZ for fishery potential by the Indonesian Navy in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Indonesia is based on the United Nations convention regarding the Law of the Sea in 1982 with Law Number 17 of 1985 concerning legalization. on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries. Illegal fishing still occurs in the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone by foreign vessels, which is caused by weak patrols in the ZEEI area and is supported by the opening of the ZEEI area, the patrol vessels are less modern to compete with foreign fishing vessels, and the fish resources that are in the ZEEI have not been exploited by Indonesian fishermen according to Law No. 45 of 2009 concerning Fisheries is carried out by legal proceedings and is tried in court, and is sentenced to a sentence which is usually a fine. In the event that a prison sentence is allowed.  


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-280
Author(s):  
Minchul Kim

Abstract This article considers an approach for achieving an effective cooperation regime for marine scientific research (MSR) in Northeast Asia. Specifically, it addresses the causes of MSR-related disputes in undelimited maritime areas and explores its reality in Northeast Asia through case studies. It further examines the legality of unilateral research or survey activities in undelimited maritime areas, considering Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Based on such discussions, it offers suggestions for realizing a cooperative regime for MSR. This article’s primary argument is that it is worth considering a regime-building suggestion in alignment with the original spirit of MSR, despite the challenges it may entail. To that end, it emphasizes that efforts should be made to remove the causes of disputes and recommends a cooperative regime led by international institutions and a joint research regime as a modus vivendi.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document