Traditionally, international law of the sea has been based on the zonal approach. The traditional approach purports in essence to divide the ocean into several jurisdictional spaces on the basis of two opposing principles, namely, the principle of sovereignty and the principle of freedom. It is now apparent, however, that the traditional zonal approach is insufficient to resolve the problems encountered in the management of ocean space. Hence, the need for a new integrated management approach is increasingly emphasised in international instruments as well as in the opinions of writers. Nevertheless, it appears that the concept of the integrated management approach remains obscure in international law. Thus, this study purports to examine this concept at three levels: the ecological, normative and implementation levels. Finally, on the basis of these considerations, this study will present a perspective that the international law of the sea should be considered as a dialectic legal system between the zonal approach and the integrated management approach.
The Annex vii Arbitral Tribunal, in its arbitral award of 12 July 2016, ruled that China’s claims to historic rights with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the “nine-dash line” are contrary to the un Convention on the Law of the Sea. To support this conclusion, the Tribunal undertook detailed review with regard to the concept of historic rights and the relationship between China’s claimed historic rights and the Convention. The temporal or historical element can be regarded as a key element to establish historic rights. However, the Tribunal took an approach that minimises the role of the temporary element when examining the legality of China’s claimed historic rights. The Tribunal’s view provides an important insight into the concept of historic rights in the international law of the sea.
The aim of this Agora contribution is to examine the role of conciliation in maritime delimitation by analysing the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation. First, this contribution addresses the applicability of the compulsory conciliation procedures to the Timor Sea dispute. It then considers the role of the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation Commission in maritime delimitation and in resource governance, respectively. Next, it examines role of conciliation in maritime delimitation by comparing the Timor-Leste/Australia conciliation to the Iceland/Jan Mayen conciliation. Finally, it reveals that the Timor-Leste/Australia Conciliation Commission significantly influenced the establishment of maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea.
In 2010, the Contracting-Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) created six marine protected areas (MPAs) on the high seas beyond 200 nautical miles with a view to protecting marine biological diversity. This is a significant step toward conservation of biological diversity on the high seas. The creation of high seas MPAs seems to provide a useful insight into the protection of community interests in marine spaces beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. At the same time, however, the creation of MPAs on the high seas raises some legal issues with regard to, inter alia, its legal ground, opposability to non-Contracting Parties, legitimacy, and practical implementation. Thus, this contribution seeks to examine legal issues regarding two types of MPAs on the high seas, namely: MPAs on the high seas which fall within potential exclusive economic zone of coastal States (the Mediterranean model) and MPAs on the high seas beyond 200 nautical miles (the North-East Atlantic model), respectively.
An environmental impact assessment (eia) can have a valuable role in effectuating substantive rules of international law of the environment, such as the obligation of due diligence and the precautionary approach. Thus this article seeks to examine the interlink between an obligation to perform an eia, the obligation of due diligence, and the precautionary approach, focusing on temporal elements of international law of the environment. First, this article examines the interlink between an obligation to conduct an eia and the obligation of due diligence. Second, this article addresses the interlink between an obligation to conduct an eia and the precautionary approach. Third, the timing of triggering the obligation to conduct an eia must be considered. Finally, this article examines the issues of breach of the obligation to conduct an eia, before offering conclusions.
The existence of a sense of common or community interests is a prerequisite to establishing an order in a society, national or international. In this connection, it is notable that the protection of community interests is increasingly important in international law and the law of the sea is no exception. The increasing need for protecting community interests necessitates a new paradigm in the law of the sea. The legal issues regarding the marine Arctic should also be considered in the context of changing paradigms in the law of the sea. Thus this article seeks to overview principal issues of the international law governing the marine Arctic from the viewpoints of a dual paradigm, that is, the law of divided oceans (paradigm I) and the law of our common ocean (paradigm II).