Search

Over the years, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) has been recognized as a crucial element in the toolkit of measures to combat climate change. At the European Union (EU) level, CCS plays a vital role in climate policy, particularly in reducing CO2 emissions from hard-to-abate industries. However, no comprehensive legal framework covers all stages of CCS. These stages include carbon capture techniques, transportation by ships or pipelines, injection, site closure, and post-closure management. Each of these stages is regulated by different legal frameworks that address various topics such as geoengineering, climate change, industrial activities, property, transportation, port operations, waste management, dumping, health, and the environment. Critical legal questions remain unanswered, such as who is liable for discharges in the marine environment during the transportation of CO2 by ships and for the long-term management of sub-seabed storage sites. As the transportation of CO2 by ships will likely have transboundary implications, we explore the legal possibilities, limitations and risks associated with exporting CO2 streams for sequestration under the sub-seabed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Law and space are intimately connected. In the ocean, the natural environment is divided into maritime zones. Such a division neglects the interconnected nature of the ocean and its inhabitants. Since this zonal approach relies on geographically stable boundaries, it also limits the opportunities to manage a fluid ocean. Area-based management tools, including marine protected areas (MPAs), address some of the limitations of zonal management. However, MPAs are also static from a geographical point of view. The deteriorating state of many marine species and ecosystems indicates a failure of traditional management approaches and puts a renewed emphasis on adapting legal scales to "natural scales," such as ecosystems. In this article, we argue that there are positive trends and new tools that could be developed within the current legal order to face the challenges that nature is facing in the Anthropocene. One such tool is dynamic ocean management, which moves away from the static rationale of traditional ocean management illustrated here by MPAs, toward a management system focused on the temporal and spatial dynamism of the marine environment. In order to understand how such a management tool could be developed and used within the current legal system, we show how traditional ocean management rests on the notion of delimited and static boundaries and temporarily fixed measures. We discuss this in terms of fixity and simplification. Then we analyze dynamic ocean management and its potential to capture more of the complexity of the marine environment. This analysis is followed by an overview of MPAs and networks of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), where we discuss the impact of the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty) in the development of dynamic ocean management. This overview provides information about both the possibilities and challenges of area-based management in ABNJ. We argue that MPA networks and large marine ecosystems (LMEs), coupled with the establishment of coordination mechanisms between existing institutional structures, are necessary first steps to secure dynamic ocean management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As ice recedes, the governance of the Arctic is undergoing a significant change. What was once considered a frozen desert with little relevance to the legal system, the Arctic has gradually become a global object of governance. Furthermore, the growing political salience of the Arctic Ocean has generated interest in its governance beyond Arctic states, particularly Asian states such as China, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. These countries have been actively participating in regional cooperation arrangements, including the Arctic Council. Undoubtedly, science diplomacy has been an important driver in shaping the governance of the Arctic and maintaining it as a low-tension area. However, this perception is now being put to the test following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Amidst this crisis, we explore whether science diplomacy can continue to promote peaceful collaboration in the Arctic region. Our research suggests that science diplomacy could potentially aid in the future of Arctic governance, particularly with regard to the involvement of Asian states. We analyse the legal and geopolitical factors involved in determining the potential roles of Asian states in Arctic governance, including whether they could serve as a bridge between the West and Russia or if their actions might further fragment Arctic governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]