Search

Property rights in the marine environment differ from those on land and this difference has an impact on the legal framework for marine protected areas. The Site of Special Scientific Interest designation, which underpins terrestrial nature conservation in the UK, is only relevant at sea for intertidal sites and a few subtidal extensions. Legislation for Marine Nature Reserves, based on that for terrestrial National Nature Reserves, was unworkable because of government reluctance to designate sites in the face of stakeholder opposition. Regulations for the protection of European Marine Sites were made to implement the European Habitats Directive which covers very few marine habitats or species. The lacuna in legal protection was filled by the creation of the Marine Conservation Zone designation but the emphasis on features of particular value detracts from the objective of wider ecosystem protection. Protection for all types of marine protected areas is constrained by the need to consider the socio-economic consequences of regulation. The new pilot Highly Protected Marine Areas in England could tip the balance in favour of conservation but the rejection of two out of five candidate sites on the basis of the socio-economic concerns does not augur well for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sea Level Rise will result in a variety of impacts by 2100. One of these will be changing coastlines around the world as land is inundated by the ocean. Currently, the mean low-water lines around the world are used as baselines for maritime zones under the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea. These physical points will change in the future and UNCLOS does not explicitly state what this means for maritime zones. In some cases the Vienna Convention on the Law of International Treaties can be applied to fix zones defined under bilateral treaties. However, for zones not defined in a bilateral treaty, the future is more uncertain. The future of these zones is likely to be up to the discretion of courts and tribunals with jurisdiction over UNCLOS or rely on updates to the convention.

The problem in the South China Sea is becoming increasingly complex because other parties also have strong regional interests. The other party was later called a non-claimant state in the South China Sea area. Non-claimant states ensure that international law of the sea is enforced in any part of the sea on the planet to guarantee safety and freedom to transport commodities with high economic value. These non-claimant states generally oppose China's actions that do not comply with the agreed UNCLOS. This juridical normative research presents the legal basis for the actions of non-claimant states in the South China Sea region based on relevant literature. This study describes the basis of international law and the interests and policies of non-claimant states such as Indonesia, the USA, the UK, Australia, the EU, Japan, and India over the South China Sea region.

Crime control at the sea involves public activities to create a modern security system in seaports, at the territorial sea and the adjacent zone throughout the sea corridors, as well as in the open sea on sea routes with intensive shipping.Aim. Impact assessment of digital transformation on maritime crime control.Tasks. Firstly, to characterize the impact of digital technologies on the nature of pirate attacks and other maritime offenses, which are actual threats to the maritime infrastructure. Secondly, to analyze the impact of modern measures to combat maritime crime on the economy of seaports, shipping companies and other maritime business entities. Thirdly, to demonstrate the role of the seaport administration and private military companies in the fight against offenses at sea.Methods. The study is carried out by formal legal and comparative legal methodology using a review-analytical approach.Results. Data analysis shows that the administrations of seaports are interested in optimizing security costs by creating a convenient digital management system for the coastal infrastructure. Security systems and logistics solutions depend on the effectiveness of digital technologies implemented in the interests of ensuring the safety of navigation. The Convention for the Safety of Human Life at Sea (SOLAS-74/88), supplemented by the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) in 2004, provides for a universal maritime security system, however, the implementation of these standards in a number of regions of the World Ocean is not enough to neutralize coastal criminal threats.Conclusion. In the context of digitalization, measures to combat crime at sea lead to significant costs, as they require complex technological infrastructure on ships and in ports. The norms of the law of the sea aimed at combating piracy and smuggling should be implemented at the national level, taking into account the socio-economic features of the maritime infrastructure development. Since negative economic trends entail an increase in criminal activity, the economic interests of commercial shipping entities should not be sacrificed in the fight against piracy and smuggling.

Poor fishing practices and overfishing are now imperiling livelihoods on small-scale fishing. Traditional fishing rights as one of the legal guarantees for small-scale artisanal fishers under SDG 14 may be abused in various maritime zones, which is precisely because such rights are not well-reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), leading to uncertainty between theories and practice. In order to better implement SDG 14 and its targets for sustainable fishing, this paper examines the practical meaning of traditional fishing rights through tracing back the origins, nature and legal elements of such fishing rights by jurisprudence and state practice, and it differentiates its distinctions between 'historic rights'. Based on this, the paper analyzes the application of these fishing rights in different maritime zones and suggests sustainable ways of making a balance between the jurisprudence and practice for a healthy ocean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity have recently received attention, and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have become key management tools that are gradually being applied to the high seas. However, the sustainable management of MPAs in the high seas requires legal regimes to support them, though relevant regimes are still immature. This paper summarizes the existing regional treaties governing high seas MPAs, and the agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). After reviewing and comparing their law-making histories, it is argued that regional treaties have issues of legitimacy, democracy, and science and are not conducive to sustainable management. It is concluded that the BBNJ Agreement is better suited to the comprehensive and sustainable management of high seas MPAs and can overcome the limitations of regional treaties. As the BBNJ Agreement does not undermine existing instruments and frameworks, the management of high seas MPAs will face the co-existence of different legal regimes. In the context of "not undermining", the Agreement should be applied preferentially, ensuring the universal participation of stakeholders in decision-making and the role of soft law for non-contracting parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers how the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) applies to the production of energy from wind in waters under national jurisdiction, with a focus on the nascent regulatory frameworks for offshore wind in Australia and New Zealand. It explores the particular characteristics of offshore wind—which raise different regulatory issues than traditional offshore activities such as fishing and oil and gas exploitation—and explores how key provisions of UNCLOS will affect the way in which coastal states regulate offshore wind in their waters. Against this backdrop, it considers how the international law framework might apply in the specific context of Australia and New Zealand, where domestic legal frameworks are currently being established to regulate vast and valuable offshore wind resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Freedom of navigation and the rights of coastal states in zones extending from their shores are two of the foundational pillars of the law of the sea regime. However, these two foundational pillars are in tension when it comes to innocent passage, especially the innocent passage of warships. Traditional maritime powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom assert the right to virtually unrestricted passage by warships around the globe. Rising powers such as China and India, on the other hand, protest these activities as threatening their security and global peace and as a violation of their rights in their maritime zones. Conflict over these issues is not new, and history shows how such disagreement can lead to the brink of war. For example, the collision between Soviet and U.S. warships in the Soviet territorial sea in 1988 increased the already heightened tensions of the Cold War. This article explores the positions of Russia, China, and India regarding the passage of warships through the territorial sea. Looking at the history of these countries, we argue that the legacies of colonialism and imperialism have produced national collective senses of insecurity and trauma vis-à-vis their maritime frontiers. Thus, it should not be assumed that, like past great powers, India and China will eventually support the unrestricted innocent passage of warships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how the Indo-Pacific powers, China and India, respond to international law and evaluates how effectively international law influences each state's behavior. The role of norms and international legal regimes in the major Indo-Pacific flashpoints has become an inseparable justification of contestants' claims over the years. We suggest that a state actor's response to international law can be assessed using three criteria: the internalization, interpretation, and implementation of international law. The article investigates China and India as state actors and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a case of international law. We assess these criteria by comparing the development of domestic laws by China and India in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (internalization), their declarations submitted to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions (interpretation), and their reaction to third-party arbitrations (implementation). By connecting the domestic and international legal actions of rising powers in the Indo-Pacific region, the article suggests that a state actor's internalization, interpretation, and implementation of international law significantly indicate how international law impacts an individual state's behavior in the international security arena. Thus, this article establishes critical connections between emerging security order, regional politics, and normative developments in the Indo-Pacific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legal status of Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) has been regulated through the High Seas Treaty as a common heritage of humankind. However, there still exist problems related to overlapping areas above the Extended Continental Shelf (ECS). In such areas, a significant continental shelf would fall within national jurisdiction, whereas the water column would be under the regime of the high seas, and BBNJ would be the common heritage of humankind. We argue that, in order to address the overlapping of areas within the superjacent waters in the ECS, a given sui generis status is required, so that the coastal state has a sovereign right to conserve the BBNJ in these areas. This study concludes that the sui generis arrangement should be implemented in the context of an overlapping ECS and its water column. The efforts of the Indonesian government to extend the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles constitute an important step in preserving natural resources for future generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 12 December 2022, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) received a request from the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS) to render an advisory opinion in order to clarify the obligations of States under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to protect and preserve the marine environment in relation to climate change, including ocean warming, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. Although ITLOS has dealt with environment-related issues in the past, it has not yet specifically dealt with climate change and its (in)direct impacts. This contribution, drawing on the first opinion delivered by the Tribunal in 2015, aims to scrutinize some critical legal questions that the request will inevitably face, engaging particularly with its main procedural and substantive aspects. Since it is unlikely that ITLOS will encounter any unsurmountable obstacles to render the opinion, it would be expected that the Tribunal will take this opportunity to shed light on the implications of climate change for the legal regime of the sea, but also on the role of the Tribunal itself, to definitively clarify its advisory function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to challenges to Asia's security order, regional powers such Australia, India, and Japan have adopted new "Indo-Pacific" strategic narratives to promote and defend the "rules-based order." These narratives use China's maritime disputes with smaller neighbors in the South China Sea as a key example of Beijing's revisionist intentions. Yet such narratives expose "rules-based order" advocates to risks of "rhetorical entrapment" as other actors compel them to abide by the standards they have set. To what extent have Indo-Pacific powers been forced to follow the rules in their own asymmetrical maritime disputes? This article examines three Indo-Pacific cases: Timor Sea Compulsory Conciliation between Australia and Timor-Leste, the Chagos Island Marine Protected Area Arbitration between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, and the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between India and Bangladesh. To varying degrees, this article finds that strategic narratives constrained the policy options of all three Indo-Pacific powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The danger of piracy has been around for ages, and this fact is worth highlighting. Because it has been legalized and then declared illegal over the course of several centuries, it will be difficult to eradicate totally in a short period of time. However, this does not indicate that it is impossible to remove. Positive prospects and initiatives for secure trade, both regional and international, are necessary for the eradication of piracy. The coastal state bears a heavy burden for ensuring the security of maritime trade in the event of criminal activity at sea. Most maritime crimes are committed by locals (criminals) who are citizens of the country where the crimes occurred, hence coastal states need to keep a tight eye on their neighboring zones. The growth of international trade depends on the elimination of piracy. UNCLOS 1982 states that all nations must work together to combat maritime piracy on international waters. Pirates today may seize ships in places like Somalia and Africa, but they conduct negotiations, ransom talks, and other business in more industrialized nations. To eliminate this threat, all advanced and developed governments must work together to enact legislation that is mutually advantageous for all states so that they may maximize their use of the ocean's free resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of vessels engaging in the dark market of trading sanctioned goods has been on the rise, especially after a new wave of sanctions is placed on a country. Dark ships are tankers that would prioritise deceptive practices to engage in illicit activities and present a serious threat to maritime security, safety and the marine environment of the region. This Article will explore the current international legal regime, as stipulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) and regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as well as sanction regimes established by the international community in relation to dark ships. The Article proposes that measures taken under the UNCLOS are unlikely to resolve this issue and, instead, solutions should be sought under the IMO's ambit to prevent and deter dark ships in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 31 May 2003, President Bush announced the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in Krakow, Poland, which aims to counter the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). At present, there are 106 States endorsing the Statement of Interdiction Principles and are participants of the U.S.-led initiative. The PSI participating States are asked to inspect ships suspected of carrying WMD-related cargoes that sail to or from the States or non-State actors of proliferation concern. While all ASEAN members have participated in the PSI activities and most of them are PSI partners, they have doubts about the legality for PSI interdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This article examines the development of the PSI, legality for PSI interdiction, and explore possible ways to reduce ASEAN Members' concerns about legal authorities for interdiction actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the 2022 annual reports of the IMO and regional piracy reporting centers in Southeast Asia, the number of incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships (ARAS) in the Singapore Strait was the highest in the world. However, when these reports are examined in light of the definitions of piracy and ARAS, the number of incidents in the reports is greatly exaggerated. Consequently, changes should be made to the reports of incidents so that they more accurately reflect the legal definitions of piracy and ARAS. In addition, States bordering the Singapore Strait and ship owners and operators should take steps to reduce the number of incidents of unauthorized boarding of ships transiting the Singapore Strait. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anthropogenic underwater noise (AUN) is a growing concern for governments and international institutions around the world. This emerging issue signifies a rapid environmental change and raises questions about the applicability and effectiveness of current instruments. A key question to be addressed is whether the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) can address the challenges posed by AUN. While AUN is not explicitly mentioned in the UNCLOS, this article argues that some of its provisions are applicable to the problem. Part XII of the UNCLOS is proposed as a governing framework for protecting the marine environment from AUN. As a result, several options are presented to strengthen the regulation of AUN under the UNCLOS, including the adoption of a new implementing agreement, addressing AUN through the existing implementation agreement, and regulating through the rules of references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Seabed Authority will decide whether to provisionally approve a plan of work submitted by a Canadian-registered company to commence mining the deep seabed of the Pacific Ocean for polymetallic nodules. A decision in favour of the company would open the door to destroying the last wilderness on planet earth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International Relations (IR) scholars generally focus on disputes on land when they study international affairs. However, disputes on the sea are also very common in IR, and the states try to establish global and regional hegemonies over the seas in their regions. In retrospect, in case of Turkey, maritime disputes have been important factors in Turkish foreign policy. The Turks will celebrate the centennial of the Republic in 2023, and maritime disputes have been an unchanging factor in Turkish foreign policy in this last 100 years, in relation to neighbors and great world powers. Therefore, one may stipulate that Turkey has been both an important sea power, and that maritime disputes have also shown a continuous recurrence in its foreign relations. Due to Turkey’s strategic location in between significant seaways like the Aegean Sea, Mediterranean, Black Sea and Turkish Straits, and between the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa, maritime disputes have always been on the agenda, as items of Turkish foreign policy. In this context, this paper analyses maritime disputes in Turkish foreign policy as a continuous element of Turkey’s relations with its neighbors and the rest of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal frameworks have historically used a colonial territorialist approach to governing ocean space. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) represents a theoretical departure from colonial territorialism. Instead, UNCLOS employs a functionalist logic approach that is based on principles of sovereignty and consent and uses administrative reasoning as a basis for decision-making. This paper investigates what ontological principles are employed in the development of UNCLOS and asks how these are reproduced in other frameworks. I consider whether ontologies can be extrapolated and studied as latent but agential positions in ocean law and governance frameworks and examine how they might be obstructive to the development of effective regional ocean governance. Lastly, I ask whether ontological principles can be reformed, and through what type of interventions this might be achieved. Results show that tenets of colonial territorialism persist in UNCLOS as terrestrialising practices that are reappropriated towards marine communities. Further, that there are fundamental ways in which ontological principles are obstructive to conservation goals in ocean governance frameworks. Lastly, while the structural reproduction of ontological principles between frameworks resists intervention, evidence suggests that interventionist legal mechanisms that displace anthropocentrisms may offer distinct opportunities for reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The July 12, 2016 award issued by an arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has generated a lot of reaction. It settles a dispute between the Philippines and the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea (SCS) and sanctions the Chinese authorities on many points. Beyond the geopolitical stakes of this ruling, this article questions one of its facets: the UNCLOS capacity to improve the protection and preservation of marine environments.Based on a corpus drawn from Chinese scientific journals, the authors note that most of the arguments reinforce and legitimize the very firm position of the PRC authorities. The latter have contested the entire arbitration procedure and rejected its conclusions. In their view, the dispute with the Philippines is a matter of sovereignty. It is therefore not within the jurisdiction of UNCLOS. By highlighting the issue of sovereignty, the PRC authorities have avoided commenting on the criticisms contained in the award. They also remained silent about their responsibilities and failures to protect the marine environment. This analysis of the receipt of the July 12, 2016 award illustrates the Convention’s difficulties in achieving its full effects, despite the urgency of the environmental crisis. This conclusion supports the voice of those who call for a profound reform of UNCLOS.

A new international legally-binding instrument, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction has recently been agreed on– the BBNJ agreement. Area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs) have an important role in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services in the current context of multiple threats to the ocean and are one of central elements of new instrument. In this work, we assessed the perspective of the scientific community, throughout the period of negotiations, on the potential of the BBNJ treaty to promote the creation of new area-based management tools, including MPAs, and fulfil acknowledged gaps in ocean governance. A systematic literature review was conducted, resulting in 80 publications then analysed in detail. From these, a total of 608 key messages were retrieved and classified into: 1) Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O) or Threats (T) for a SWOT analysis and 2) one of six categories that cover crucial aspects for the successful implementation of the ABMTs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. A Sentiment Analysis (SA) to these key messages shows that the instrument has been perceived by the scientific community as an opportunity for conserving and achieving sustainable use of biodiversity. However, the scientific community also feels that agreement needs stronger provisions to ensure effective measures, which is reflected by the small number of identified strengths. An overall decrease in sentiment score over the negotiations period, i.e. a growing pessimism, was also observed, which is supported by an increase of weaknesses and threats identified in the final stages of the negotiations. Our results suggest that despite its potential to promote conservation in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the instrument should include a unified definition of MPA, address fishing activities and clarify conflicting terms in its provisions, such as the term “not undermine”. Further, we show that sentiment analysis is a useful tool to evaluate opinion trends and facilitate the integration of different and subjective perspectives into final provisions of complex social-political-environmental agreements, identifying positive and negative attitudes that can enable better solutions to address existing governance challenges in international waters.

BM Deniz Hukuku Sözleşmesiyle (BMDHS) kodifiye edilen münhasır ekonomik bölgede (MEB) kıyı devletine başta bölgenin doğal kaynakları üzerinde olmak üzere çeşitli haklar ve yetkiler verilmiştir. Buna mukabil, diğer devletlerin de, MEB’de, açık denizlerde öteden beri tanınan serbestliklerden bir kısmına -Sözleşmenin ilgili hükümlerine tâbi olarak- sahip olduğu kabul edilmiştir. Sözleşme, kıyı devletine veya diğer devletlere verilmeyen hak ve yetkilerle ilgili ihtilafların ise, olayın koşulları ve ilgili tarafların menfaatleri gözetilerek hakkaniyet temelinde çözümünü öngörmektedir. Kapsamlı ve değişik ihtimalleri dikkate alan düzenlemelerin varlığına rağmen, MEB’deki faaliyetlerin kıyı devletinin mi yoksa diğer devletlerin mi yetki alanına girdiğinin tespiti her zaman kolay değildir. Bahsi geçen hükümler, yoruma açık ifadeler içerdiği gibi, genellikle Sözleşmenin diğer ilgili maddeleriyle birlikte değerlendirilmeyi de gerektirmektedir. BMDHS’de açıkça düzenlenmeyen MEB’de yakıt ikmal faaliyetleri açısından hangi devletin ne ölçüde yetkili olduğu hususu da, çeşitli uyuşmazlıklara yol açmakta ve gerek Sözleşme hükümlerinin gerek ilgili faaliyetin amaç ve özelliklerinin dikkatlice ele alınması ihtiyacını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışma, MEB’de yakıt ikmal faaliyetlerinin hukukî durumunu, ilgili hak ve yetkilerin dağılımı, yargı kararları ve akademik yaklaşımlar ışığında incelemeyi, değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

In 2020, the Government of Indonesia enacted Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining, which amended Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. Under this amendment, Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining expands the definition of mining law territories, as stipulated under Article 1, number 28a. This provision covers the mining law territories of the Indonesian archipelago, seabed area, and continental shelf. This study explores the legal consequences of the term “seabed area” in Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining, to determine whether the law paves the way for deep seabed mining. Through normative and descriptive approaches, this study found that despite the broader definitions of mining territories, Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining is insufficient to initiate deep seabed mining. This is because seabed mining requires a detailed governance structure, especially on the rights and duties of every party involved. Therefore, this paper recommends that the activity be regulated by a distinctive law that specifically addresses seabed mining.