Search

Precautionary conservation and cooperative global governance are needed to protect Antarctic blue carbon: the world's largest increasing natural form of carbon storage with high sequestration potential. As patterns of ice loss around Antarctica become more uniform, there is an underlying increase in carbon capture‐to‐storage‐to‐sequestration on the seafloor. The amount of carbon captured per unit area is increasing and the area available to blue carbon is also increasing. Carbon sequestration could further increase under moderate (+1°C) ocean warming, contrary to decreasing global blue carbon stocks elsewhere. For example, in warmer waters, mangroves and seagrasses are in decline and benthic organisms are close to their physiological limits, so a 1°C increase in water temperature could push them above their thermal tolerance (e.g. bleaching of coral reefs). In contrast, on the basis of past change and current research, we expect that Antarctic blue carbon could increase by orders of magnitude. The Antarctic seafloor is biophysically unique and the site of carbon sequestration, the benthos, faces less anthropogenic disturbance than any other ocean continental shelf environment. This isolation imparts both vulnerability to change, and an avenue to conserve one of the world's last biodiversity refuges. In economic terms, the value of Antarctic blue carbon is estimated at between £0.65 and £1.76 billion (~2.27 billion USD) for sequestered carbon in the benthos around the continental shelf. To balance biodiversity protection against society's economic objectives, this paper builds on a proposal incentivising protection by building a 'non‐market framework' via the 2015 Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This could be connected and coordinated through the Antarctic Treaty System to promote and motivate member states to value Antarctic blue carbon and maintain scientific integrity and conservation for the positive societal values ingrained in the Antarctic Treaty System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As marine-ice around Antarctica retracts, a vast 'blue carbon' sink, in the form of living biomass, is emerging. Properly protected and promoted Antarctic blue carbon will form the world's largest natural negative feedback on climate change. However, fulfilling this promise may be challenging, given the uniqueness of the region and the legal systems that govern it. In this interdisciplinary study, we explain: the global significance of Antarctic blue carbon to international carbon mitigation efforts; the urgent need for international legal protections for areas where it is emerging; and the hurdles that need to be overcome to realize those goals. In order to progress conservation efforts past political blockages we recommend the development of an inter-instrument governance framework that quantifies the sequestration value of Antarctic blue carbon for attribution to states' climate mitigation commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. Key policy insights Blue-carbon emergence around Antarctica's coastlines will potentially store up to 160,000,000 tonnes of carbon annually. Blue-carbon will emerge in areas of rich biomass that will make it vulnerable to harvesting and other human activities; it is essential to incentivise conserving, rather than commercial exploitation of newly ice-free areas of the Southern Ocean. Antarctic blue carbon is a practical and prime candidate to build a cooperative, inter-instrument, non-market mitigation around; this should be considered at the 'blue COP' UN Climate change discussions in Spain. Allowing Antarctic fishing states to account for the carbon storage value of blue carbon zones through a non-market approach under the Paris Agreement could provide a vital incentive to their protection under the Antarctic Treaty System. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research would be the ideal body to facilitate the necessary connections between the relevant climate and Antarctic governance regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread public interest on the topic of whaling, there is at present relatively little work on how philosophy might contribute to analysis of the status of whaling in international law. When philosophers have looked at the topic of whaling, they have confined their attention to a fairly narrow set of ethical questions, such as whether international law should permit certain forms of traditional indigenous whaling or extend legal rights to whales themselves. However, there is another important issue which has so far been largely neglected by philosophy, even though it is at the forefront of current international legal disputes over the status of whaling: the issue of so-called 'scientific whaling'. This article considers the international legal dispute between Australia, New Zealand and Japan over the latter's lethal harvesting of whales in the Southern Ocean, and the recent attempt at resolution by the International Court of Justice. On its face, this required that the Court demarcate 'scientific' from 'unscientific' activity; however, it effectively baulked at this task. The authors argue that this approach of the Court was unfortunate, and that demarcating science from commerce is not only achievable in philosophy, but might also inform international legal practice. Resolving this issue is important for genuine progress to be made in the current international stand-off over Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent judgment in the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) determined that Japanese 'special permit' whaling in the Southern Ocean was not 'for the purposes of scientific research'. This is the only exemption permitted under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling's current moratorium on commercial whaling. The Court made its determination by characterising the Japanese research program as a scientific program, but failing to define what scientific research actually was or was not. This paper presents the background to the decision, and challenges the reasoning of the Court and its standard of review test. It concludes that the Court failed to take the opportunity to offer a clear determination to states on their legal–scientific obligations within international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Whaling Case (Australia v. Japan, New Zealand intervening) was greeted by the popular press, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, as a win for "good science" as opposed to "bogus science". However, in this article we argue that a closer analysis of the decision reveals that the ICJ - by sidestepping the crucial issue of how to define "scientific research" under the Whaling Convention - missed an opportunity to further the rule of law in international law, particularly as it applies to commons areas that require scientific cooperation and obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this commentary I expand upon the discussion on privacy that I set out with my colleague in the précis to this edition. In particular I consider what the impact of military technologies, designed to achieve persistent and saturation capacity surveillance over war zones might be on civil space and civil society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introductory overview is an update to the original précis paper in JLIS vol 19(1) by Gogarty & Hagger. It provides a contemporary summary of unmanned technology in use at the time of publication. Legal analysis and commentary from the original précis has been removed. Comments and responses by authors in this edition should be taken to refer to the original précis paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the periodical is presented in which the guest editor discusses the legal implications of unmanned vehicles (UVs).

In this commentary I expand upon the discussion on privacy that I set out with my colleague in the précis to this edition. In particular I consider what the impact of military technologies, designed to achieve persistent and saturation capacity surveillance over war zones might be on civil space and civil society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introductory overview is an update to the original précis paper in JLIS vol 19(1) by Gogarty & Hagger. It provides a contemporary summary of unmanned technology in use at the time of publication. Legal analysis and commentary from the original précis has been removed. Comments and responses by authors in this edition should be taken to refrr to the original précis paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including legal implications of unmanned vehicles (UV), human rights attribute of robotic technologies, and impacts of military robotics to international humanitarian law (IHL).

Recent scientific work indicates that the effects of climate change on population displacement are much greater than previously predicted. As of yet, there is no agreed framework for climate change displaced people. This article responds to the current information arising from climate change science and considers the most appropriate legal framework to deal with the looming threat of massive and unprecedented population displacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the author discusses various reports within the issue on topics including the problem associated with counterproductive technological policy, climate change displacement, and the issues created by a technological system beyond jurisdiction.

An introduction is presented which discusses changes to the journal and the books such as "Market Disclosure and Governance Challenges When Floating University Research on the Stock Market," by John Selby, "Flashpoints in 3D Printing and Trade Mark Law," by Amanda Scardamaglia, and "Patent Law and Community Interest in Public Health," by Jowa Chan.