In the Search of an Appropriate Legal Framework to Prevent Environmental Risks Caused by Navigation in the Black Sea

in International Community Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This article addresses the legal framework pertaining to navigation in the Black Sea (including the Turkish Straits System) – which is currently one of the busiest trade routes globally – and its implications for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in this region. This framework is a comprehensive and complex system that is based, on the one hand, upon norms established by different global diplomatic conferences and international organizations that are therefore also applicable to the Black Sea and its coastal States; on the other hand, the regional cooperation fora for the Black Sea have also created specific standards for the region. In addition, the implications of the delimitation of maritime areas in the Black Sea and the international responsibility of States in the field of marine pollution caused by navigation will also be examined.

In the Search of an Appropriate Legal Framework to Prevent Environmental Risks Caused by Navigation in the Black Sea

in International Community Law Review

Sections

References

12

Data available at: Akten supra note 9 p. 296.

13

Ceyhun supra note 11 p. 18.

22

Tullio Treves“Law of the Sea” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2015) p. 13.

37

Molenaar supra note 21 p. 106.

38

Churchill and Lowe supra note 28 p. 350.

46

Harrison supra note 30 p. 159.

58

In this regard see Oral supra note 7 p. 260; Nihan Ünlü The Legal Regime of the Turkish Straits (2002) pp. 84–86.

67

Thus far Georgia (2009) is the only State to have ratified the Protocol: see <http://www.blacksea-commission.org>.

74

Tullio Scovazzi supra note 55 p. 77. Gemma Andreone and Giuseppe Cataldi consider sui generis zones “all maritime zones that have been created by coastal States to date and that […] are nevertheless associated with the zones classified by” the unclos. They therefore include amongst others Exclusive Fishing Zones Ecological Protections Zones and Mixed Zones in the category of sui generis maritime areas. In this regard see Gemma Andreone and Giuseppe Cataldi “Sui Generis Zones” in D.J. Attard M. Fitzmaurice and N.A. Martínez Gutiérrez (eds.) The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law. Volume I. The Law of the Sea (2014) pp. 217–238. Erik J. Molenaar identifies as new maritime zones those maritime areas that are neither mentioned in the unclos nor were a part of customary international law upon the entry into force of unclos in 1994 namely: Fisheries Protection Zone off Svalbard 200 Nautical Miles Zones off British Overseas Territories 200 Nautical Miles Zones in the Mediterranean Sea Contiguous Archaeological Zones Colombia’s Integral Contiguous Zone Peru’s Maritime Domain and Maritime Zones Beyond 200 Nautical Miles (such as: Chile’s Mar Presencial and Grey Areas). See Erik J. Molenaar “New Maritime Zones and the Law of the Sea” in H. Ringbom (ed.) Jurisdiction over Ships: Post-UNCLOS Developments in the Law of the Sea (2015) pp. 249–277.

91

Data available at: Akten supra note 9 pp. 291–292; “The Turkish Straits Vessel Traffic Service (tsvts) available at <http://www.afcan.org/dossiers_techniques/tsvts_gb.html>.

94

In this regard see Ruth Lapidoth“Straits, International” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2006) pp. 2 and 6; Glen Plant “Dardanelles and Bosporus” in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2012) p. 3.

96

See Luciani supra note 6 pp.13–14.

97

See Ünlü supra note 59 pp.57–83.

98

Ibid. pp. 39–55.

109

Suárez de Vivero supra note 102 p. 69.

119

Grant supra note 99 pp. 16–17. See also Enrico Milano “The non-recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea: three different legal approaches and one unanswered question” iQuestions of International Law/Questioni di diritto internazionale (2014) pp. 35–55.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 33 33 10
Full Text Views 49 49 41
PDF Downloads 4 4 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0