Innocent Passage and the 1982 Convention: The Influence of Soviet Law and Policy

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. E. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Sea Power ◽  
United Nations Convention

On April 28, 1983, the Soviet Union became the first maritime country of consequence and the largest sea power signatory to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to enact legislation implementing the provisions of that instrument regulating the innocent passage of foreign warships. The stature of the Soviet Union within the framework of the Convention and the policy changes embodied in the 1983 legislation confer a special importance on these new Rules, whose text and interpretation will become a standard emulated by other countries. The present article examines the text of the Rules against the background of previous Soviet legislation, the 1982 Convention and its negotiating history, and the application of the Rules.

scholarly journals Maritime Piracy and its Characterization as a Threat: Presence, Type, Arms, Violence, and Ships under Attack between 1991 and 2019

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Rivas Pardo
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
International Maritime Organization ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Maritime Trade ◽  
Maritime Piracy ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations

Maritime piracy is a threat to maritime trade whose contemporary version has been legally addressed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) and coercively by the UN and EU. The present article analyzes maritime piracy from the Copenhagen School’s theoretical perspective and its application to the International Chamber of Commerce’s annual reports on piracy, whose information ranges from 1991 to 2019. This analysis indicates two increase periods, characterized by presence, type, arms, violence, and ships under attack.

Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and Objects Launched into Outer Space

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irmgard Marboe
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Space Objects ◽  
The Law

The Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (ARRA) of 1968 deals with the obligation of states toward astronauts in distress or in emergency situations and with the obligation to return space objects. It is the second of the five United Nations space treaties, after the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 and before the Liability Convention (LIAB) of 1972. The historical development of ARRA and how this agreement reflects the needs and interests of the two important space-faring nations at the time of its entry into force, the United States and the Soviet Union, are important factors for understanding the space race. ARRA is related to the OST and regards the various obligations of states concerning rescue and assistance as well as the return of astronauts, which stand in the middle between a general humanitarian duty and political and national security considerations. The return of space objects and the question of costs of rescue and return operations are important concerns and can be compared to the situation with the law of the sea, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982 and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Respecting Assistance and Salvage at Sea (Salvage Convention) of 1989. ARRA has never been applied with respect to accidents or distress of astronauts or cosmonauts but several times with respect to the recovering and returning of space objects. Finally, current challenges, such as the commercialization and privatization of outer space activities need to be addressed. This includes the increased interests of private individuals to enter outer space (so-called space tourism) and the question of the application of the ARRA to suborbital flights. Many legal challenges created by technological progress can be resolved via an evolving interpretation and application of the ARRA. Yet, some issues might warrant a new legal framework.

scholarly journals Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and "Disputed Areas": State Practice concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance Johnson ◽  
Alex Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractArticle 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) requires a coastal State to submit information on the limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). The Commission shall make recommendations to the coastal State on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf. In a case where the coastal State establishes the outer limits on the basis of these recommendations, they are final and binding. However, Article 76(10) provides that the "The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts". The relationship between Article 76 and the delimitation of the continental shelf between neighboring States and other "unresolved land or maritime disputes" has been addressed by the CLCS in its Rules of Procedure. The present article analyzes the significance of Article 76(10) for submissions to the CLCS, looking at the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the submissions that have been made to the Commission to date.

Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Rizal Abdul Kadir
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Caspian Sea ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The Caspian Sea ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations

After twenty-two years of negotiations, in Aktau on August 12, 2018, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, and Turkmenistan signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. The preamble of the Convention stipulates, among other things, that the Convention, made up of twenty-four articles, was agreed on by the five states based on principles and norms of the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. The enclosed Caspian Sea is bordered by Iran, Russia, and three states that were established following dissolution of the Soviet Union, namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document