Trans-Tasman Resources Limited v. Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board
In: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal LawSearch for other papers by Robert A. Makgill in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by James D. Gardner-Hopkins in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Natalie R. Coates in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
On 3 April 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment quashing a decision to approve a seabed mining proposal within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This article discusses the judgment’s background, its references to the law of the sea and other international law, and the Court of Appeal’s four key findings. These findings include that the seabed mining approval: (a) failed to ensure protection of the marine environment from pollution; (b) failed to favour caution and protection where information is uncertain or inadequate; (c) failed to integrate decision-making between the EEZ and territorial sea; and (d) failed to adopt an approach to effects consistent with indigenous rights. The article concludes with some observations on the judgment’s relevance to State practice and seabed mining under international law.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1105 | 114 | 15 |
| Full Text Views | 129 | 36 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 282 | 66 | 1 |
Trans-Tasman Resources Limited v. Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board
In: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal LawSearch for other papers by Robert A. Makgill in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by James D. Gardner-Hopkins in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Natalie R. Coates in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
On 3 April 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment quashing a decision to approve a seabed mining proposal within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This article discusses the judgment’s background, its references to the law of the sea and other international law, and the Court of Appeal’s four key findings. These findings include that the seabed mining approval: (a) failed to ensure protection of the marine environment from pollution; (b) failed to favour caution and protection where information is uncertain or inadequate; (c) failed to integrate decision-making between the EEZ and territorial sea; and (d) failed to adopt an approach to effects consistent with indigenous rights. The article concludes with some observations on the judgment’s relevance to State practice and seabed mining under international law.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1105 | 114 | 15 |
| Full Text Views | 129 | 36 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 282 | 66 | 1 |