Search

Barbados and Republic of Trinidad and and Tobago are two statesthay facing each other andlocated in Carribian sea. Since along long time ago, these twostates often mixed up withdispute about maritimes boundaries or about the shing of each states, such as when the shing fron Barbados reputedinfringe the boundaries of Republic Trinidad and Tobago. Like this case above was often happened thay nally must be nished with helped by international law. Aswe know that in that Continental shelf with drawnmust 200 nm from the outer states boundaries, and both of them has claimed that they had been fallowed the rules, but thereare still happen an argue between them. How this dispute happened until reached the agreement, how the steps andhow the result of the agreement will be explained in this paper.

A review of scientific articles published over the past 15 years in leading foreign scientific journals on international law demonstrates the gradual improvement of legal means for the settlement of maritime disputes between the states.Aim. Identification of the features for application of the law of the sea norms targeted on the resolution of maritime disputes that develop in the modern international system.Tasks. Development of the classification of maritime disputes, analysis of the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities competent to resolve maritime disputes, characterization of the provisions of international agreements and customs of the law of the sea in the resolution of maritime disputes by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (PCA).Methods. Discourse analysis of the most authoritative publications on the issue of resolving maritime disputes, a formal legal analysis of the norms and customs of maritime law, as well as a comparative legal study of judicial and arbitration practice in resolving interstate maritime disputes. Law enforcement practice on maritime disputes allows to characterize the subject of modern interstate maritime disputes; critically assess the fairness of decisions of international courts; to analyze the problems of enforceability of judicial and arbitral awards in the framework of the procedures for the settlement of maritime disputes provided for in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.Results. Reasonable decisions of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague are usually implemented by the states parties to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Protection of the marine environment as well as prompt release of ships and crews from arrest have become a modern legal reality due to the effectiveness of the legal mechanism for resolving interstate maritime disputes. Territorial maritime disputes cause significant difficulties at all stages of their resolution, which is due to their political nature and the efforts of states to protect their national interests.Conclusion. The resolution of maritime territorial disputes requires more flexibility from the parties, an international agreement between the parties to the dispute on the procedure for its consideration, as well as the use of conciliation procedures to work out a compromise solution to the dispute.

In this article, I had studied the materials about the delineation at sea, carried out, with the consent of the respective states, by the UN International Court of Justice. Such a choice is conditioned by a specific goal-to show how the International Court interpreted contractual sources of international maritime law, how it identified the applicable customary legal norms and principles, how it applied international law on the delineation at sea, to what extent the relevant factors were taken into account in specific situations of maritime delimitation, as he set forth the appropriate international legal argument. In addition, the study of the Court’s materials provides opportunities to identify the legal positions of the disputing States on the problems of delineation at sea and the international legal assessment of such positions by the Court.

This article deals with the concepts of space and territoriality in law and politics seen through reflexion on borders, which are understood primarily as forms of identification and the basis for nation-building. While in the classical antiquity, borders were seen as exclusionary defensive structures, in modern international law in the 18th and 19th centuries, they became spaces for the delimitation of states sovereign territories. The author attempts to enligthen the symbolic significance of borders in modern European history, which have been connected with imperial designs, nationalist discourses and political imaginaries. Border rhetoric often emphasised territorial inclusions and exclusions relied to the concepts such as sovereignty, security and natural living space (“natural borders”). The concept of borders is also related to the understanding of the division of Earth’s surface into areas defined as regions. Regions may construct and transcend natural and political borders. Although, borders have been through world history sites of conflict, they also build ways of interconnections between locals and neighbours. The struggle over cultural and political domination and attempts to integrate and assimilate border populations were mostly reflected into deliberate linguistic policies relating to the language of administration and the public sphere. After the Second world war, the perception of borders have changed and the new understanding of borders have prevailed, based upon the idea of cooperation and the recognition of local traditions and minority rights. The principle of uti possidetis iuris was applied in order to prevent redrawing of the borders of new states and to maintain the territorial stability of the regions. But the recent migration crisis and security concerns in Europe and America have re-actualised the perception of state borders as defensive structures. Moreover, introduction of new technologies, such as ICT and the bio-metric, have transformed classical, linear forms of territorial border surveillance into mechanisms of remote control and ruling at a distance.

The Pacific Island States and Territories are traditionally described as ‘small island’ nations. However, they are also ‘large ocean’ nations with jurisdiction over substantial maritime spaces stretching to at least 200 nautical miles. The article addresses issues related to baselines along the coast on which these broad maritime claims depend. The article then examines geodynamic considerations coupled with sea and land level projections in the Pacific leading to an assessment of the vulnerability or resilience of atolls in particular. The article then discusses potential implications for the coastlines and baselines of the Pacific Island States and Territories, the limits of their maritime entitlements and both delimited and undelimited maritime boundaries. Potential response options, prospects, and concluding thoughts are then offered.

This paper presents the principal characteristics of the development of the law of the sea in the Mediterranean, from the initial historical sources to the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982). A centuries-long process of creating that law, which applies to all seas, the authors analyzed through the prism of its application in the Mediterranean marine spaces ‒ from the time of the Roman law and its free use of the sea for all, the lordship over the sea by the feudal sovereigns (states) in the Middle Ages, until the first traces of the contemporary law of the sea in the 17th century and codification efforts in the 20th century. A special attention is paid to the complexity of the genesis of the legal regimes and boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea.

An unforeseen fundamental change of circumstances can be invoked to prompt the termination of a treaty, under the customary rule 'rebus sic stantibus', which is codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The fundamental change must affect the essential basis of the treaty and radically transform obligations still to be performed. Maritime boundaries are agreed upon in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and they delimit overlapping maritime entitlements, which are generated by coastal features. Natural occurrences can cause significant and unexpected changes in coastal geography which can affect circumstances essential to a maritime boundary treaty’s conclusion and radically alter the extent of on-going obligations. Treaties establishing boundaries cannot be subject to unilateral termination by virtue of a fundamental change of circumstances because they are excluded under Article 62(2)(a) VCLT. However, the 'travaux préparatoires' of the International Law Commission and relevant case law suggests that the exclusion only covers treaties delimiting territorial boundaries and full sovereignty. Consequently, treaties establishing boundaries to the exclusive economic zone, exclusive fisheries zone and the continental shelf can be subject to termination due to a fundamental change of circumstances.

U ovome radu autorice analiziraju Protokol između Vlade Republike Hrvatske i Savezne vlade Savezne Republike Jugoslavije (danas je stranka Protokola Crna Gora koja je 3. lipnja 2006. proglasila neovisnost i samostalnost) o privremenom režimu uz južnu granicu između dviju država (2002.) i odluke vlada Crne Gore (2011., 2014.) i Republike Hrvatske (2014.) koje se odnose na istraživanje i eksploataciju ugljikovodika u Jadranu, s obzirom na crtu razgraničenja morskih i podmorskih prostora prema Protokolu. Vlada Crne Gore je 3. ožujka 2011. donijela Odluku o određivanju blokova za istraživanje i proizvodnju ugljikovodonika čije granice odstupaju od morskog razgraničenja dviju država prema odredbama Protokola o privremenom režimu uz južnu granicu, ali i pravila međunarodnog prava mora, za razliku od koordinata istražnih prostora Prvog javnog nadmetanja za izdavanje dozvola za istraživanje i eksploataciju ugljikovodika na Jadranu, objavljenog na temelju odluke Vlade Republike Hrvatske od 27. ožujka 2014.

With the acceptation of UNCLOS 1982 by countries in the world, the Indonesia’s sovereign territories from the sea and the air have been increased ten times; hence, the Indonesian authorities on natural resources and other authorities have been widened dramatically. To use the widened and varied of natural resources, and to defend the unity of territories and the rights of Indonesian from the sea and the air, besides on the land, it needs a clear state’s boundaries on land and maritime border, seabed, and the air, and the increased ability of law enforcement and state’s defense that is widened and varied.

The paper presents the Arctic Council and Iceland’s role within it before turning to issues that are governed outside of the Arctic Council system, in particular, Arctic fisheries and maritime boundaries. The paper explains Iceland’s approach to Arctic cooperation in light of its published policy documents and explore the tools available to Iceland to defend its interests.

U radu se analizira primjena pravila međunarodnoga prava mora o vanjskim granicama unutrašnjih morskih voda u praksi obalnih država Sredozemlja. Uz nacionalne propise kojima su defi nirane normalne ili ravne polazne crte ispred njihovih obala, s pozornošću se razmatraju i pitanja vezana uz zatvaranje historijskih zaljeva, posebice onih znatnije širine koje su proglasile Italija (Tarantski zaljev) i Libija (zaljev Sidra). Iako su konvencije o pravu mora izričito priznale postojanje tih zaljeva, propustile su urediti uvjete za nastanak pravnog naslova po historijskoj osnovi, ostavljajući ih u domeni međunarodnog običajnog prava. Najveća odstupanja od konvencijskih odredbi razvidna su u pogledu povlačenja ravnih polaznih crta od kojih se mjeri širina teritorijalnih mora. Pravila sadržana u članku 7. Konvencije iz 1982. (odnosno u članku 4. Konvencije o teritorijalnome moru i vanjskom pojasu) poštivala je samo nekolicina od čak devetnaest sredozemnih zemalja koje su primijenile tu metodu. Kao posebno upitne ističu se ravne polazne crte Albanije, Egipta, Italije i Španjolske, čije obale se najvećim dijelom ne mogu smatrati razvedenima i duboko usječenima ili obrubljenima otocima. Kao primjer ravnih polaznih crta koje ispunjavaju sve uvjete što ih međunarodno pravo postavlja u pogledu njihove primjene, izdvajaju se ravne polazne Republike Hrvatske. Međutim, s obzirom da su povučene restriktivno, izvan njihovoga obuhvata ostali su udaljeni hrvatski otoci, pa prostori između njih i kopna nisu obuhvaćeni pravnim režimom unutrašnjih morskih voda. Stoga hrvatsko državno područje na moru danas ne obuhvaća sav međunarodnopravno dopustiv prostor. Pitanje djelomične korekcije ravnih polaznih crta od kojih se mjeri širina hrvatskoga teritorijalnog mora razmatra se i sa tehničkog stajališta.

Morske granice mogu biti granice pojedinih morskih prostora država ili crte razgraničenja morskih i podmorskih prostora između država, kada se obale država nastavljaju jedna na drugu ili leže sučelice. U ovome se radu analiziraju sve granice u sjevernom Jadranu, dakle granice pojedinih morskih i podmorskih prostora obalnih država, granice morskih područja između država te posebice sporna pitanja razgraničenja između Hrvatske i Slovenije koje su započele pregovore neposredno nakon osamostaljenja, ali još uvijek nisu postigle konačno rješenje. Istraživanje polazi od 1948., kada je donijet prvi jugoslavenski propis, Zakon o obalnom moru Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije, kojim su prvi puta povučene ravne polazne crte duž hrvatskoga dijela Jadranskog mora (čl.3.) i određena širina teritorijalnoga mora bivše države od 6 milja (čl. 5.), i završava s 2009., donošenjem službenog e-Atlasa okolja Slovenije u kojemu je slovenska granica na moru (vanjska granica teritorijalnoga mora) ucrtana ispred hrvatske obale. Kronološki je dat kartografski prikaz svih granica pojedinih morskih područja obalnih država u sjevernom Jadranu, utvrđene (povučene) granice morskih i podmorskih prostora između tih država, stajališta Hrvatske i Slovenije o spornom razgraničenju te karte njihovih jednostranih akata.

With its demonstrative setting of a Russian Flag on the seabed in the Arctic Ocean outside the 200 nautical miles limitation of the continental shelf in 2007 the Russian Federation has fuelled discussions on claims concerning the outer continental shelf by Arctic rim-States. Although the planting of the flag on the ocean floor is irrelevant under international law, it reveals a political attitude that may make agreement and co-operation concerning the different demands more difficult. The disputes on the boundaries of the outer continental shelf cannot finally be settled by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf or by dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea but only by agreement amongst the parties themselves.