NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF CONVENTION ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE CASPIAN SEA

ANCIENT LAND ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 01 (02) ◽  
pp. 58-63
Author(s):  
Jamila Rashadat Majidli ◽  

This article is dedicated for the analysis of the Convention on ‘Legal Status of the Caspian Sea’ concluded on August 12th, 2018 between the coastal States of the Caspian Sea. The exclusive rights and new opportunities issued to the parties, and alternative resolution to the question ‘sea or lake’ which has been getting on international dispute are researched throughout the Article. However, some issues arisen before the Convention have not been resolved yet. The research states possible solutions for these issues and clarifies indefinite circumstances not reflected in the Convention. In this paper, contradictions existing within the provisions of the Convention and discrepancies occurred between the clauses and the practice are searched. This Article has been prepared on the basis of the analysis of the articles of the Convention on ‘Legal Status of the Caspian Sea’ and the comparison of the current situation with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS- 1982). Key words: Caspian Sea, special legal status, international disputes, delimitation, implementation of the strategical projects

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Rizal Abdul Kadir

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.


2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex G. Oude Elferink

AbstractThis article looks at the question of how the obligation of states parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to submit information on the outer limit of their continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the regime established by the Antarctic Treaty can be reconciled. Under the latter Treaty states have 'agreed to disagree' about the legal status of Antarctica. The establishment of an outer limit of the continental shelf on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf would pose a threat to this agreement to disagree as it would recognise the existence of coastal states and maritime zones. The article sets out the options of the states involved to deal with this issue. It is concluded that there are a number of approaches which safeguard the rights of coastal states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the agreement to disagree of the Antarctic Treaty.


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