Search

Copyright of Journal of Anatolian Environmental & Animal Science is the property of Bulent Verep and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Determining the existence of a dispute is key to establishing and exercising jurisdiction in international adjudication by international courts and tribunals. Much has been written on the definition and emergence of a dispute, but there has been almost no scholarly consideration of the question of the ending of a dispute. This article contends that the extinction of a dispute is a separate and independent legal process, distinct from the mere non-fulfilment of the criteria for the definition of a dispute. It conducts a thorough study of the different means of extinguishing a dispute as recognised thus far in the case law of the ICJ and ITLOS, identifying and analysing three methods by which a dispute may be extinguished. It then demonstrates that each such method is deeply rooted in core legal principles related to the international judicial function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines a crucial argument in seventeenth-century maritime law: the concept of mare tutum , or 'the secure sea'. According to this idea, the sea was characterized by chaotic piracy and required a strong central governing authority to impose order. Once the sea was secure, the ruler would reap the rewards of commerce and tariff revenues. Mare tutum espoused the idea of sea sovereignty for the goal of economic growth. Crucial to this idea was Thucydides' account of the Cretan King Minos. The jurists Nicolaes Bonaert, Pietro Battista Borghi, and Giovanni Palazzi used the model of Minos' Aegean thalassocracy to argue for Portuguese, Genoese, and Venetian control of the seas. The article illuminates the hitherto unknown importance of Thucydides in maritime law. It also complicates the traditional mare liberum / mare clausum framework by positing a third option which focused on control of the seas as a means to fostering trade and economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which governs cleanup, oil recovery, and damage claims related to oil discharge into US navigable waters. It explains the jurisdictional limits of the Act and the types of damages that can be recovered. The article also discusses the concept of admiralty jurisdiction and the definition of "navigable waters." It highlights the Supreme Court cases that have shaped the extent of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, including the regulation of wetlands adjacent to navigable waters. The article concludes by noting that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provides claimants with more rights of recovery than under General Maritime Law, but requires them to pursue an administrative remedy before filing a lawsuit. [Extracted from the article]

This article proposes a new methodology for engaging with early modern legal metaphor. It argues that a full account of the trope must integrate its legal-historical, cultural, literary, and philosophical dimensions. After discussing what makes early modern legal metaphor unique (and thus uniquely challenging to decipher), I consider various philosophical, legal, cognitive, and literary approaches to the rhetorical figure and demonstrate how each perspective adds additional insight to its untangling in juridical contexts. The article culminates in a reading of a single metaphor taken from lawyer John Exton's treatise "The maritime dicæologie, or, the Sea-jurisdiction of England" (1664): "The ship dieth at sea." Ultimately, I argue that this metaphor references admiralty actions in rem, which were integral to the functioning of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English High Court of Admiralty, an interpretation that emerges only when accounting for the trope in both its textual and intertextual frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article takes the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an opportunity to reflect on the role that the compulsory dispute settlement system under Part XV of the Convention plays in maintaining the legal order for the ocean. It posits that, in addition to the more traditional understandings of the dispute settlement function and law-ascertainment function of international adjudication, a clear governance function can be discerned. By developing a three-fold typology of ways in which this governance function manifests itself in the use and exercise of compulsory jurisdiction under Part XV, the aim is to shed light on the multifaceted role of compulsory dispute settlement in maintaining the legal order for the ocean in a way that accounts for the changing expectations of States Parties over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maritime jurisdiction in Canada has to contend with the division of powers between the federal and provincial levels. At times, this fact has challenged Canadian courts in explaining what should be the interface between federal and provincial law in dual aspect cases and in determining the applicable law or finding complementary applications of federal and provincial law. This essay reflects on the evolution of maritime law jurisdiction in Canada since the establishment of the Federal Court of Canada in 1971. It discusses the imperative of stability and reality of change in maritime law jurisdiction since then with a focus on Canadian courts' evolving understanding of that jurisdiction and the interface between federal and provincial law over time. With the emergence of the constitutional doctrine of cooperative federalism, courts administering maritime law have often faced difficulties in dual aspects cases and pursuing uniformity in Canadian maritime law. The essay concludes that cooperative federalism appears to be leaving lingering questions about the scope of application of Canadian maritime law and jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intersection of climate change and international law has emerged as a critical arena, necessitating international collaboration to ensure sustainability and mitigate climate-related impacts. The most notable development is the recent advisory opinion on climate change by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which has stimulated substantial discourse in international law, particularly regarding climate change, environmental protection, and oceans. On June 28, 2024, the School of Law at Dalian Maritime University in China and the School of Law at Durham University in the United Kingdom jointly hosted a specialized workshop on 'The Impact of the ITLOS Climate Change Advisory Opinion on the Evolution of International Law'. The speakers dissected the controversial subjects of 'jurisdiction', 'science and law', 'precautionary approach', and 'due diligence' in the ITLOS Climate Change Advisory Opinion from both 'procedural and scientific' and 'substantive' perspectives, and provided insights on how to address the evolving integration of climate change law with international law of the sea and international environmental law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now clear that a dispute concerning sovereignty over land territory does not fall within the scope of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), unless the external issue arose as an incidental question in the application of the Convention. Less clear, however, is under what circumstances the competence of LOSC tribunals extend to the determinations of law that are ancillary/incidental to the main issue regarding a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. This article brings together recent developments in LOSC jurisprudence regarding the issue of mixed disputes and points to some of the current uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses two court decisions on jurisdiction in the U.S. maritime law. The first case, Nederland Shipping Corp. v. United States, raised the question whether or in what forum the U.S. itself may be sued. The second case, Finney v. Bd of Commer's of Port of New Orleans, raised the question whether an in personam lawsuit commenced in state court may be removed to federal court along with an in rem claim that was later dismissed.

The Arctic region has been the focus of considerable attention in recent years, often concerned with maritime claims and an alleged race for the region's resources. Against this narrative, the article focuses on the practices of Canada and the Russian Federation with respect to their maritime jurisdictional claims and the delimitation of maritime boundaries with their Arctic neighbours. The article provides an overview of the Arctic region and the international law of the sea with an emphasis on the baselines and maritime claims of the Arctic coastal states. Discussion then turns to the maritime boundary agreements that have been concluded in the Arctic region before overlapping claims to areas of continental shelf underlying the central part of the Arctic Ocean are appraised. The article concludes that Canada and the Russian Federation have enjoyed considerable success in resolving overlapping maritime claims and their pragmatic and innovative approaches coupled with existing regional cooperation bode well for finding peaceful solutions to Arctic Ocean governance challenges in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, S.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines maritime trade litigation tied to a typical New England jurisdiction – New London County, Connecticut – to reveal two important eighteenth-century trends. First, decision-makers prioritized honouring contract promises – a critical shift from earlier Puritan ideals that privileged fairness in agreements. This transition was essential to developing what became the will theory of contract, in which promise and performance replaced equity as the measures of valid agreements. This shift appeared in Connecticut nearly a century before scholars have suggested it did in the United States. The second trend involves litigants' choice of court. Despite the availability of several tribunals for pursuing maritime-based legal actions, parties regularly chose the county court to resolve their issues. In an expanding and increasingly impersonal Atlantic marketplace, parties preferred the flexible and familiar proceedings of the local court because judges and jurors treated mariners as if they carried Connecticut's legal protections with them on their distant travels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to contribute to the emerging literature concerning the application of belligerent occupation in maritime zones of the occupied State. It supports the approach that the law of occupation and the law of the sea apply simultaneously in case of occupation of coastal States, offering a new perspective on the jurisdiction of the occupying power to exploit marine resources in the occupied State's continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. This perspective highlights some issues that have been ignored in the literature thus far to better understand the rights and obligations of the relevant Parties with respect to maritime zones of the occupied State. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The events of November 23–26, 2018, in the Black Sea near the entrance to the Kerch Strait, resulted in Russia's detention of Ukrainian Navy ships and sailors. This crisis confronted the community of experts of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and third countries with a host of thorny questions. How legitimate were Russia's actions in terms of international law? Did it overstep its authority? Was there a planned provocation by Ukraine? Who bears the greater responsibility for the incident? What political and legal consequences could come out of it? The article explores answers to these questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a system for compulsory and binding dispute resolution. Article 288(2) of UNCLOS allows the dispute resolution system of Part XV to be used by the parties to another international agreement in accordance with the terms of that other agreement, as long as that agreement is related to the purposes of UNCLOS. This article examines the treaty practice under Article 288(2) to assess how those other agreements (which are mostly regional fisheries management organization agreements) provide for access to Part XV. The article examines these agreements within the following analytical framework: (1) Are these agreements related to the purposes of UNCLOS? (2) What jurisdiction, ratione materiae, do the agreements confer on the court or tribunal? (3) How do the agreements provide for submission? (4) How do the agreements deal with applicable law issues? (5) How do the agreements deal with the availability of provisional measures? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the protection and preservation of the marine environment contains provisions that are worded in a general manner. As "the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole", these provisions need to be interpreted in harmony with the wider corpus of international law. However, when marine environmental disputes are brought before the UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies, their jurisdiction is limited to disputes arising under UNCLOS. The tribunals, therefore, have to navigate between deciding disputes in a hollistic manner and remaining within their jurisdictional limits. This article discusses the techniques used by UNCLOS tribunals to resort to other sources of international law when settling marine environmental disputes. It will then assess whether, in doing so, the tribunals have remained within their jurisdictional parameters and the wider implications of this practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In addition to the local people's courts at different levels, China has gradually established maritime courts specifically to adjudicate maritime claims and disputes. However, although the legal framework regulating the bifurcation of jurisdiction of first-instance civil and commercial cases seems clear and straightforward, conflicts may continue to arise in choosing a maritime court or a local people's court when deciding a maritime dispute. This article aims to conduct a comprehensive study of Chinese maritime courts and to examine the reasons for jurisdictional conflicts between them and the local people's courts. It concludes that, despite all the legislative efforts made so far, uncertainties continue to arise concerning the appropriate jurisdiction over maritime disputes and claims. Greater clarity and direction from the relevant authorities are thus needed for a better and more efficient system for deciding the jurisdiction of maritime cases in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The physical security of submarine cables is under multiple sources of threats from private activities, but the law of the sea does not provide sufficient jurisdiction for the coastal state to regulate these threats. International investment law, however, provides cable investors with the possibility of invoking the full protection and security (FPS) standard against the cable-landing state in international arbitration. This standard requires the cable-landing state to take all reasonable measures to protect the physical security of submarine cables from physical damage, but its application is subject to some limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The jurisdiction ratione materiae of an international court or tribunal in a particular dispute settlement system relies on a sensitive balance between the safeguard of the consensual basis of jurisdiction and the need for the effective settlement of international disputes. Thus, the scope of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of an international court or tribunal constitutes a crucial issue in international adjudication. This issue was vividly raised in the 2020 Enrica Lexie Incident arbitration between Italy and India. In this case, the arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea held that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue of immunity that necessarily arose as an incidental question in the application of the Convention. However, the validity of the Tribunal's approach needs careful consideration. Therefore, this article critically examines the Arbitral Tribunal's approach in the Enrica Lexie Incident arbitral award. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interrelated notions of adjacency and creeping coastal State jurisdiction have been a key driver in the historical development of the international law of the sea. Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) managed to bring an end to unilateral coastal State claims to new and broader maritime zones, creeping coastal State jurisdiction per se continued, both unilaterally and multilaterally. This article focuses on so-called multilateral creeping coastal State jurisdiction – which originates predominantly from intergovernmental bodies – and in particular on the role of this phenomenon in the currently ongoing negotiations on an agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction under the LOSC (BBNJ Agreement). The article contains a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions in the draft BBNJ Agreement of 18 November 2019 and subsequent text proposals by delegations, in light of the historical development of the law of the sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The technological race to obtain genetic material from the ocean floors has been led by the economically advanced states of the global North. It has been a race for obtaining mineral resources among states, dominated by Inter-State competition for land, people and money. However, when the issue concerns mineral resources found in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). there is potential for either competition or cooperation among nation-states. Deep-sea mining and bioprospecting are particularly divisive. Very early on states recognised that this might lead to political tensions among them and so agreed to a standard that they would adhere to in their exploration and exploitation of these resources. This led to the creation of the :Common Heritage of Mankind' principle. Although this agreement was reached in reference to mineral resources, the regulation of marine genetic resources (MGRs), particularly those mined from ABNJ. remains ungoverned. However, with the increasing incidence of ocean exploration, the use of these resources have exposed three gaps within the global framework of access and benefit-sharing stemming from the international law, biodiversity law and intellectual property respectively. Starting under the premise of the public domain, resources are being appropriated under the absence of any applicable legal regime. Chapter I attempts to answer the question who owns biodiversity by identifying the regulatory gap within the Law of the Sea. Chapter II addresses the regulatory gap under biodiversity law and identifies the problem of inefficiency within the current benefit-sharing framework. The question of whether the interlinking of the patent system and biodiversity law would alleviate this inefficiency is considered and three hindrances to such an argument are identified. Chapter III considers academic, political and stakeholder opinion on these issues by taking into account international and transnational law. This thorough analysis indicated that patent law has thus far been unable to lead to an effective and efficient solution. This paper then takes into account the existing political and stakeholder conflicts surrounding the maximisation of economic value that have so far hindered the process of reaching an efficient solution at the international arena. The author proposes that the 'nondominizim' principle could prove to be an effective solution and potentially pave the way to incentivise user countries to innovate without private appropriation of rights through patents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discuses activities of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in 2020. Topics discussed include impact of COVID-19 pandemic on activities of ITLOS; amendments to Rules permitting the President to decide as an exceptional measure, for public health, security or other compelling reasons; Ukraine's arguments to the effect that Russia's claim to sovereignty is inadmissible and implausible.

Despite the LHWCA [Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act] language, drawing the distinction between those maritime workers who should qualify as seamen and those who should not, has proved to be a difficult task and the source of much litigation--particularly because 'the myriad circumstances in which men go upon the water confront courts not with discrete classes of maritime employees, but rather with a spectrum ranging from the blue-water seaman to the land-based longshoreman. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The paper argues that the norm of sovereignty was extended to sea areas with only minor adaptations. Using an English School approach, it explores the political evolution of control over the seas, demonstrating why and how the norm of sovereignty prevailed over alternative norms and principles regulating control of the seas. The paper then compares the positions of Brazil, China and the United States on the current international regime of the ocean.

Chinese civil procedure law provides the choice of foreign courts through jurisdiction agreements in foreign-related commercial and maritime disputes. In Chinese judicial practice, foreign jurisdiction agreements may be held null and void because of the lack of actual connection between the agreed foreign jurisdictions and the foreign-related disputes. Chinese courts may, therefore, have jurisdiction when China has actual connection with the dispute, in particular when Chinese parties are involved in disputes. However, the actual connection requirement does not apply to Chinese maritime jurisdiction when China has no actual relation with the maritime disputes. Chinese courts also have maritime jurisdiction in other special ways although foreign courts are designated in contract. Conflict of jurisdiction over foreign-related disputes is thus caused. This article analyses how party autonomy is limited by Chinese civil procedure law and how Chinese court exercise jurisdiction when Chinese courts are not chosen by parties. This article argues that the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements should be adopted to replace the actual connection requirement under the Chinese civil procedure law and Chinese courts should respect party autonomy in respect of the choice of foreign court. It is also suggested that Chinese courts shall apply forum non conveniens to smooth the conflict of jurisdiction between Chinese courts and foreign courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal disputes concerning the use of airboats. Topics mentioned include the legal areas of jurisdiction, the involvement of airboats in claims for personal injury and wrongful death due to operator error, the limitation of liability, and a description of courts cases involving airboats.

The article discusses the key features of the ship arrest system in Panama, its harmonization with international law, and its comparison with the maritime law of Great Britain and Singapore. Topics include the 1982 Panamanian specialized maritime jurisdiction to enforce maritime claims, the 1952 Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships, and the 1999 International Convention on the Arrest of Ships.

The article focuses on treatment of maritime oilfield contracts by the U.S. courts. Topics discussed include analysis of subject-matter of the contract and maritime service; English limitations on maritime contracts that would have denied maritime jurisdiction over a policy of insurance; and Halliburton Co. v. Norton Drilling Co. court case on the application of maritime law to the indemnity claims.

In the Republic of Croatia significant amendments of the Maritime Code are being prepared. Among the provisions outlined in the Draft proposal for amending the Maritime Code of August 2018 there are the provisions on marine casualty investigation (defining the concept of marine casualty, dividing marine casualties on very serious marine casualties and serious marine casualties, regulating the procedure of conducting marine casualty investigations and jurisdiction for their enforcement) adopted to improve maritime safety. In view of a continuing trend towards increasing numbers of marine casualties in EU, in this paper the author points out the importance of the topic and critically analyses certain provisions of the national legal system on marine casualties safety investigation activities (Draft proposal for amending the Maritime Code of 2018, Regulation on the manner and conditions for conducting safety investigations of marine casualties and incidents of 2015 and Coast Guard Law of the Republic of Croatia of 2007). The aim of this scientific research is to detect the deficiencies in the national normative framework of Coast Guard support in marine casualty investigations (jurisdiction of the Coast Guard overlapping with jurisdictions of other authorities - nondefinition of competent authorities' joint affairs - nondefinition of the power, methods and procedures of Coast Guard assistance in the investigation of marine casualties) whose removal would contribute to the improvement of the system of safety investigations into marine casualties, identification of the causes of marine casualties and quality performance of the Coast Guard which is at the forefront of ensuring maritime safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, there was considerable optimism that the Convention would usher in a new age of marine environmental protection. This article argues that, while UNCLOS did contain important innovations for marine environmental protections, key structural problems prevented the Convention from fulfilling more optimistic predictions of success. Concepts such as freedom of the high seas and exclusive flag state jurisdiction as well as the lack of an effective institution with competence over the law of the sea generally have impeded progress. Instead, states have relied on incremental development to seek improvements in the law. The article evaluates whether two recent developments will progress the goal of marine environmental protection. First, a number of recent international judicial decisions interpreting treaty and customary principles of international law have clarified and extended state environmental obligations. Second, negotiations for a new treaty on the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction offer hope that gaps in UNCLOS might be filled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The dynamic and unfolding relationship between the oceans and humans underwrites a general narrative of oceans in 'crisis' and the need for new governance and regulatory frameworks to attend to it. As concerns surrounding marine space have proliferated, sovereignty, territory and property in the oceans remain imprecise and subject to controversy, presenting challenges (and opportunities) for oceans governance. This special issue employs the concept of ocean frontiers as a pivot into these concerns because of the eroding, but still frequent, portrayal of the oceans as a planetary space separate from humans and because the concept offers entry points for navigating the unfolding dimensions of ocean conservation and exploitation. Deducing from the eight contributions from the special issue, we develop four inter‐related arguments. First, while ocean frontiers pre‐exist the epistemological, jurisdictional and commodification categories that we conceptualize in this editorial introduction, we find that these categories, which may be understood as intersecting in ocean regimes, play central roles in closing the spatial and socially‐constituted ocean frontier, bringing it closer to human purview. Second, the materiality of oceans – their mobile and volumetric elements ‐ influences all of these emerging and intersecting oceanic processes. Third, contributing authors have developed innovative methodological approaches to the study of the oceans, revealing oceans not as 'siteless', but multi‐sited, and demonstrating that the social sciences are well suited methodologically to bring unfolding ocean processes into view. Last but not least, drawing from the insights set out by the contributors, we argue for ongoing interdisciplinary social (and natural) science research on the oceans as they and human‐ocean relations unfold in a period of dramatic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia is deeply connected to the ocean. A uniquely large island nation with a long coastline and few close neighbours, Australia benefits from an immense maritime domain, the third largest in the world. However, with relatively few maritime enforcement resources and an extreme dependence on sea bourne trade, maritime enforcement Australia faces an extremely difficult task in monitoring and ensuring compliance with national laws throughout its maritime jurisdiction. We highlight current threats to Australia's marine environment including protection of natural resources, piracy, terrorism and illegal arrivals, and examine Australia's capabilities, legislation and approach to combating these risks. Essential to Australia's strategy is collaboration across domestic civil and defence agencies, use of innovative approaches and technologies, and regional and international partnerships through creative agreements and treaties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Investigaciones Historicas is the property of Universidad de Valladolid, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)