China's Marine Legal System and the Law of the Sea

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyuan Zou
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
John Ford

This chapter explores the problems which union posed to maritime lawyers of both nations. It approaches the questions from an oblique angle by asking why in one area it did become possible to speak with some plausibility of a body of British law. In particular, it tries to address why lawyers in Scotland began to accept between the Unions of 1603 and 1707 that their sea law might need to be exposed to influence from south of the border. It then considers why the handling of maritime matters excepted from the general insistence on the preservation of a separate legal system in Scotland. A theoretical difference between approving the customs of mariners and determining the requirements of international law is vital, for it displays that the move towards developing a British law of the sea cannot simply have led from recognition that many maritime disputes had to be determined in accordance with international law. To secure the coasts against invasion and to promote mutual trade, there had to be a British admiralty regulating the exercise of jurisdiction over British ships in the British seas.


1975 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne

One of the central, and most controversial, issues of historic international law concerns the distinction between the territorial sea, over which the sovereignty of the coastal State extends (and by implication also its legal system), and the high seas which are subject to the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. Involved in that controversy is first and foremost the very idea of a division of the waters of the sea into two distinct juridical institutes. In the present century alone this question has been unsuccessfully tackled by a whole series of major international conferences on the law of the sea, held in 1930 under the auspices of the League of Nations, and in 1958, 1960 and 1973–75 under the auspices of the United Nations—this latter conference being still in progress at the time of writing.


10.33540/13 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Rozemarijn Jorinde Roland Holst
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALDO CHIRCOP ◽  
DAVID DZIDZORNU ◽  
JOSE GUERREIRO ◽  
CATARINA GRILO
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masdar Masdar

Cash waqf in Indonesia has been long enough implemented based on some rules enacted by government and other rules defined by The Waqf Board of Indonesia (BWI). However, the implementation of cash waqf has not reached the level of success. Therefore, this article studies the application of cash waqf law in Indonesia according to Friedman’s legal system theory. The legal system theory of Friedman firstly looks at the substance of the law, which is the rules or regulations; and secondly it examines the structure of the law, encompassing the law enforcement agencies, such as judge, prosecutor, police and legal counselors. And lastly the theory examines the element of legal culture, which is a response from Muslim society. The first two examinations indicate that there is nothing to be a problem. But from the last examination there is a problem regarding the trust from Muslim society. From the legal culture point of view, the implementation of cash waqf by the government, which is performed by BWI, needs attracting society’s credentials in order to improve and maximize the performance of cash waqf in Indonesia.


Author(s):  
ARTAN QERKINI

The market economy and changes within Republic of Kosovo’s legal system, which imposed the need of legal changes within the field of contested procedure also, have caused this procedure to become more efficient vis-à-vis legal provisions which were in force until October 6th 2008. Through the Law on Contested Procedure (hereinafter “LCP”), the legislator has aimed, inter alia, to make the contested procedure more concentrated, and thus, more efficient. In this regard, the Kosovar legislator has determined that it is mandatory for the parties to present any and all relevant evidence for resolving the dispute until the preparatory session, and in the event that one was not held, until the first main hearing session. As an exception, the parties may present relevant evidence even after this stage of proceedings, provided that their failure to present said evidence no later than at the preparatory session, respectively first main hearing session, was through no fault of their own. I consider that these legislative amendments are vital to ensuring practical implementation of the principle of efficience in the contested procedure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document