Search

We address two research lines, continuing our work in [11]. The first uses the affine connection introduced by Cartan at the 1928 International Congress of Mathematicians. We classify here the 2-3-5 nonholonomic geometries. The maximum symmetry case, 6-dimensional, has two branches. We describe the most interesting and quite surprising one, that ocurs in the celebrated 3:1 sphere-sphere distribution (a shadow of Cartan's exceptional Lie group G2). In the second part we study the dynamics of a "rubber coated" body rolling without slipping nor twisting on a surface. If the latter is a sphere one has a SO(3) Chaplygin system [14], and the dynamics reduces to T* S2. The sphere-sphere problem is conformally symplectic. Details and further results will be published elsewhere (for the dynamic part, see [16]), and posted on Arxiv. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographic Information (GI) is more and more seen as an integral part of the modern information and communication society. Improved methods for data access and integration have accelerated this process. Remotely sensed image data has increasingly been used to generate the necessary current, accurate, and synoptic information for the GI databases. For applications such as environmental monitoring, large-scale mapping or urban information systems, remotely sensed data of very high spatial resolution are required. Traditionally, aerial photography was used as standard imaging input. The advent of the new satellites with a resolution of better than 1 m and digital airborne scanner sensors with a high geometric fidelity and spatial resolution in the centimeter range, however, challenge the analog airphoto techniques. These new digital airborne and spaceborne high-resolution sensors offer an advanced potential for environmental mapping and monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the carriage of goods by sea, the most common type of damage or loss is loss of or damage to goods. However, there are cases where the carrier suffers loss or damage as a result of the shipment of goods. In this regard, the law relating to "dangerous goods" occupies an important, although often overlooked, aspect of maritime law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

So far we have seen liability issues in terms of contractual relation between shipper and carrier. In this part third party liability arising from the shipment of hazardous substances will be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As seen so far, the charterer or shipper may be exposed to liability vis-à-vis the shipowner or carrier due to the shipment of dangerous goods, whether strict or fault-based liability, for resulting damage to the vessel or other cargo onboard, injury to the crew, damage, the costs of disposing of the cargo and cleaning the vessel, and even for damage to the environment. Moreover, not only dangerous goods but any good which damages the ship's other cargo due to the defective nature or packing or lack of information with regard to handling conditions may result in liability. Likewise, a shipper or charterer may be responsible for loading and unloading goods and thus liable for resulting damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generally speaking, in the field of carriage of goods, goods are the object of loss or damage. The system is mainly based on the concept of the loss of or damages or delay to goods. However, it is not always so. Goods can cause various damages in different situations while in transit. In particular, the carriage of dangerous goods by sea carries with it substantial risks of damage both to the vessel and to other cargoes. In this case, goods become the subject rather than the object. Dangerous goods can, for example, cause an explosion or fire, corrode the cargo holds or the hull, or liquids in the cargo holds can solidify. Furthermore, the carrier may incur extra expenses such as unloading and reloading of cargoes, extra bunker expenses due to the damage to the ship since he may have to deviate. The vessel may be detained or quarantined, so the carrier may suffer economic loss or the vessel may need to be cleaned. Moreover, cargo may damage other cargo onboard or may injure the crew. In accordance with this fact, Art. IV.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules provides that "Goods of inflammable, explosive, or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier, master or agent of the carrier has not consented with knowledge of their nature and character ... the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damage and expenses directly or indirectly arising from such shipment." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The parties to a contract for the carriage of goods by sea, whether this is embodied in a bill of lading or one of the standard charterparty forms, customarily negotiate its terms against a background of both commercial and legal considerations. The parties' respective liability for risks to which the vessel and its cargo might be exposed during the course of the contracted voyage will be of paramount importance. Should they arise, the potential risks might expose the parties, through their insurance, to expensive damage claims. Therefore, the description of the cargo for shipment is one of the crucially important components of the negotiations between the parties to any shipping contract.1 This requirement becomes especially relevant when it has been estimated that more than 50% of the cargoes transported by sea today may be regarded as dangerous, hazardous, and/or harmful and need to be handled with special care. As a result, a shipper does not have unlimited freedom as to what he may transport by sea. Restrictions on goods which a charterer or shipper may ship are imposed by law, the terms of the contract and statutes. These restrictions are commonly elided into a general proposition that a person sending goods by sea must not ship dangerous goods. Yet it is the case that dangerous goods are often shipped and legitimately so; and the carrier should discharge his normal duties in respect of whatever cargo he has agreed to carry. The real issues, therefore, are to identify what risks are involved in the carriage of the cargo in question, how these risks are allocated between the parties and what the consequences of shipping dangerous goods are.2 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is clear that a shipper is not restricted to shipping only goods which carry no risk at all and also true that all goods present some risk.1 Responsibility for such risks or for avoiding or minimizing their consequences may of course fall on the shipper, who may be liable for losses suffered by the carrier or third parties as a result of the shipment of such goods. Otherwise it is the carrier's duty to provide a seaworthy ship which is fit for the contracted cargo. Furthermore, it is a normal part of a carrier's duties to take appropriate measures to avoid loss resulting from risks of which he is or should be aware. He assumes all risks of accidents attributable to a failure to carry in that manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dangerous goods as a category make legal sense only if rules are applied which differ in kind from those governing cargo in general and rules do exist which are based on the concept of the term "dangerous". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strict liability is the chosen liability rule in the Bunkers Convention, and insurance is also required. In practice, even where there is no legal duty to insure against liability, the liable person tends to voluntarily procure the insurance policy against such a large-scale liability. In earlier conventions, the person who can most easily be identified was chosen as the liable person and also the person to take out insurance. The answer to the questions of who shall be liable and who is in a better position to insure against liability under the Bunkers Convention is, however, novel to other civil liability conventions: the shipowner that includes a group of different persons is strictly liable for pollution damage; however, only the registered owner is required to take out insurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shipowner may be required to maintain insurance or financial security to meet their potential liabilities on a national or international level. This is a main approach for covering shipowners' financial responsibility under both international civil liability conventions and the OPA 90. The P&I Club is a mutual insurance association. "Mutual" means that the members contribute to a fund from which the losses or expenses suffered by them can be paid. Despite the emergence of other alternative means of providing insurance in the U.S. market, shipowners' oil-pollution liability is predominantly insured by P&I Clubs. The Clubs routinely provide insurance for liabilities not readily available elsewhere on the insurance market. Externally, the Clubs have established cooperative relationships with other organisations as regards handling oil-pollution incidents and related liability issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 (the Bunkers Convention) was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in March 2001. The aim of the Bunkers Convention is to ensure the availability of adequate, prompt and effective compensation to persons who suffer pollution damage caused by oil spills when the oil is carried as fuel in ships' bunkers.1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is not intended to constitute an exhaustive treatment of all subjects related to the Prestige accident. Moreover, its purpose is not to provide an indepth legal analysis of all relevant Spanish regulations ensuing from the Prestige accident, but simply to track the general trends of the legal policy. The paper will also attempt to elicit some of the lessons learned from the disaster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The international regime for the compensation of pollution damage caused by oil spills from tankers is based on two treaties adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1992 Civil Liability Convention), and the 1992 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (1992 Fund Convention). These Conventions replace two corresponding Conventions adopted in 1969 and 1971 respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international agreements, in particular those concerning the protection of the marine environment against oil pollution, provide for an individual liability of polluters. There has been an increasing trend to hold individuals or corporations liable for oil pollution damage. No such trend exists in respect of State liability, neither subsidiary in cases where the individual polluter does not provide compensation, nor in cases where environmental damage results from the violation of a State's own non-compliance of international environmental obligations. In respect of the latter general international law on state responsibility is of relevance.1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preventing pollution is the best way to protect the marine environment. Because pollution will never be totally eliminated, compensation for pollution damage is an important form of protection. Compensation is necessary for environmental restoration, but it also functions as a deterrent, and thus, has a preventive effect. The polluter-pays-principle, a main concept in environmental law,1 embodies the concept of compensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is estimated that more than 50% of packaged goods and bulk cargoes currently transported by sea can be regarded as dangerous, hazardous or harmful to the environment.1 These cargoes include products transported in bulk, such as solid or liquid chemicals and other materials, gases, and products needed and produced by oil refineries. Some of these substances, materials and articles are dangerous or hazardous from a safety point of view, and are also harmful to the marine environment. Others are only hazardous when carried in bulk and some may be considered as harmful to the marine environment. Between 10-15% of cargo transported in packaged form falls within this category. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For more than three decades, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) has acted as the main environmental policy-maker for the Baltic Sea area by developing specific measures to protect and conserve its unique marine environment. The Commission, working through intergovernmental co-operation between all the coastal countries, has produced many environmental gains over the past 30 years. These gains validate the belief that the deterioration of one of the most polluted seas in the world can be arrested and the state of the marine environment improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In public international law the European Union (EU) is called an organisation for regional economic integration, however, its environmental duty goes beyond economic integration, and is global in scope. The EU has fixed itself on the objective of "promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems."1 It has ratified all of the main UN environmental conventions, in particular, the Convention on the Law of the Sea.2 However, it is widely considered that EU foreign policy is at present largely rhetoric. The lack of sincere policy also affects foreign environmental issues and protection of the marine environment. Indeed, the EC has not developed a consistent policy to address the protection of the marine environment, either at the global or regional level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. It was established by a constitutive Convention that was adopted in 1948 and entered into force in 1958.1 The purposes of the Organization, as stated in Article 1(a) of the Convention, are "to provide machinery for cooperation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade; to encourage and facilitate the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships".2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Baltic cod stock is currently well below safe biological limits. Recent estimates of spawning biomass fall below Blim (the precautionary biomass level, below which recruitment is impaired), implying the stock has a reduced reproductive capacity (ICES, 2003, 2004b). Consequently, the stock is classified "as being outside safe biological limits," posing concerns for Baltic Sea fisheries management (IBSFC, 2004). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persistent toxic substances (PTS) are organic chemicals that are environmentally persistent and harmful to human health and to the environment. Bioaccumulation or increase in concentration of a pollutant from the environment to the first organism in a food chain refers to how pollutants enter a food chain. They can be released into the environment in various ways including during their production, application (e.g., pesticides), or combustion (e.g., dioxins). Whether produced by natural or anthropogenic processes, PTS have a particular combination of physical and chemical properties allowing them to remain intact for exceptionally long periods after release into the environment. PTS migrate between different environmental compartments and undergo long-range transport (LRT) by natural processes in both the atmosphere and oceans, thus becoming ubiquitous global contaminants. PTS are distributed throughout the oceans as a consequence of atmospheric deposition and direct introduction into aquatic systems. Scientific and political interest in the fate and behaviour of PTS in the environment arises from concern over human exposure to these chemicals and their discovery in pristine environments far from source regions. There is international interest in reducing and (possibly) eliminating releases of PTS, and in reducing risks to regional and global environments. International agreements, such as the UNEP Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the UNECE Convention on Longrange Transboundary Air Pollution, and the OSPAR Convention, require assessment criteria of the environmental risks posed by PTS based on sound scientific knowledge and models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In addition to natural risks such as rising sea levels, storm surges, or tsunami waves, the pollution of the marine environment represents a serious threat to coastal inhabitants. However, contrary to the first factors mentioned, pollution does not present a direct danger to human life. Societies have recently started to become aware of marine pollution, however, awareness is increasing rather slowly and is not sufficiently developed everywhere. Nevertheless, pollution of the sea damages the marine ecosystem irreversibly over long time scales, endangering a broad spectrum of resources, from seafood to recreational spaces. The struggle against marine pollution requires environmental knowledge within society, political resolve, and money. Industrial nations, which are also the biggest polluters, are meeting these criteria to some extent, but among them there is no uniform position on marine pollution. Developing countries are in danger of repeating the environmental mistakes of previous decades, but on a greater magnitude. The current state of the sea is characterized by considerable pollutant load in the shelf regions of the most industrialized nations (e.g., the Northwest European shelf), but there is also a trend of improvement in these areas. Sea shelves of less developed countries (e.g., the East Asian waters) exhibit an increasing burden. Industrial nations must share their experiences and provide conceptual and financial help to less developed countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in the existent public international law cannot and must not be isolated from factual matters and policy concerns. In fact, it is very likely that respect of public international law will increase if international lawyers are well aware of these factual matters while applying international law. Furthermore, public international law seems to be more flexible than other legal systems because custom plays a great role as one of its sources and because the analysis of State practice constitutes a major part of the interpretation of treaties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In spite of their considerable significance in order to maintain a reasonable balance between a great number of security concerns and the freedom of navigation, the compensation provisions analysed in this study have not played a major role in international dispute settlement. Considering the increasing number of interdiction measures, it seems doubtful whether this lack of application is due to the absence of abusive interferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The classical distinction in public international law between rules applicable in times of peace on the one hand, and rules applicable in times of war on the other hand, also generally applies to the Law of the Sea.1 Therefore, the Law of the Sea Convention as such does not govern the relations between States in times of war.2 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Instead of relying on multilateral conventions, the United States has a considerable tradition of concluding bilateral agreements in order to obtain permission to conduct the boarding of foreign vessels on the high seas or even in waters under foreign jurisdiction when the United States deemed such interferences necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]