5
1
9789004326231
Establishing Continental Shelf Limits Beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States? available in Hardcover
Establishing Continental Shelf Limits Beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States?
by Signe Veierud Busch
Signe Veierud Busch
- ISBN-10:
- 9004326235
- ISBN-13:
- 9789004326231
- Pub. Date:
- 09/22/2016
- Publisher:
- Brill Academic Publishers, Inc.
- ISBN-10:
- 9004326235
- ISBN-13:
- 9789004326231
- Pub. Date:
- 09/22/2016
- Publisher:
- Brill Academic Publishers, Inc.
Establishing Continental Shelf Limits Beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States?
by Signe Veierud Busch
Signe Veierud Busch
Hardcover
$226.0
Current price is , Original price is $226.0. You
Buy New
$226.00
$226.00
226.0
In Stock
Overview
In Establishing Continental Shelf Limits Beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: A Right of Involvement for Other States?, Signe Veierud Busch undertakes a study of all coastal State submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and asks under which circumstances and to what extent States other than the coastal State may intervene in the process of establishing final and binding continental shelf limits. After analysing relevant provisions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure compared with the practice of States and the Commission, Busch raises the overall question if the possibility for other States to block the work of the Commission may in fact be undermining the mandate and functions of the Commission.
Product Details
ISBN-13: | 9789004326231 |
---|---|
Publisher: | Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. |
Publication date: | 09/22/2016 |
Series: | Publications on Ocean Development , #81 |
Pages: | 454 |
Product dimensions: | 0.63(w) x 0.94(h) x (d) |
About the Author
Signe Veierud Busch, Ph.D. (2014), University of Tromsø, is a Post-doctoral research fellow at the K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea at the University of Tromsø.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SHORT FORMSLIST OF TABLESCONVENTIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTSPART I – SETTING THE SCENE1 INTRODUCTION1.1 INTRODUCTION1.2 THE LEGAL REGIME OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF IN A NUTSHELL1.3 THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER STATES BE INVOLVED IN A COASTAL STATE’S ESTABLISHMENT OF OCS LIMITS1.4 STRUCTURE AND OUTLINE2 DEVELOPING A LEGAL REGIME FOR THE CONTINENTAL SHELF AND ITS LIMITS2.1 INTRODUCTION2.2 THE CONTINENTAL SHELF PRIOR TO UNCLOS III2.3 THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS III)2.3.1 Introduction2.3.2 Negotiating the outer limits of the continental shelf2.3.3 Establishing a Continental Shelf Boundary Commission2.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS3 THE COMMISSION ON THE LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (CLCS)3.1 INTRODUCTION3.2 THE SUBMISSION PROCEDURE TO THE CLCS3.2.1 Introduction3.2.2 The role and functions of the CLCS3.2.3 The ordinary course of making a submission to the CLCS3.2.4 The time limit for making submissions (and re-submissions) to the CLCS3.3 THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CLCS3.3.1 Introduction3.3.2 The steering documents of the CLCS3.3.3 Outputs by the CLCS3.4 TRANSPARENCY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY IN ESTABLISHING OCS LIMITS3.5 CONCLUSIONS4 INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES AND MECHANISMS FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT4.1 INTRODUCTION4.2 WHAT IS A DISPUTE?4.2.1 A general definition of a ‘dispute’ in international case law4.2.2 The scope of disputes under Part XV of the LOSC4.2.3 The scope of disputes under Rule 46 of the RoP4.3 COMPULSORY JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: THE LOSC4.3.1 Introduction4.3.2 The system for dispute settlement under the LOSC4.3.3 The principle of compulsory dispute settlement4.4 DISPUTE SETTLEMENT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE LOSC4.4.1 Introduction4.4.2 Arbitration4.4.3 The International Court of Justice (ICJ)4.5 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CLCS AND THE INSTITUTIONS FOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDER PART XV OF THE LOSC4.6 CONCLUSIONSPART II – INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER STATES DURING THE CLCS SUBMISSION PROCEDURE5 INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER STATES IN CASE OF DISPUTES RELATING TO AN OCS SUBMISSION5.1 INTRODUCTION5.2 THE SAVING CLAUSES OF THE LOSC: DEVELOPING RULE 46 AND ANNEX I TO THE ROP5.3 INITIAL ASSESSMENT: ARE THERE ANY DISPUTES IN RELATION TO THE SUBMISSION?5.3.1 Introduction5.3.2 Information submitted by the coastal State5.3.3 The legal basis for involvement by States other than the coastal State5.3.4 A requirement of legal interest for submitting information to the CLCS5.4 THE PROCEDURE OF ANNEX I TO THE ROP5.4.1 Introduction5.4.2 Non-consideration of a submission5.4.3 Prior consent5.4.4 Partial submissions5.4.5 Joint or separate submissions5.5 CURRENT DISPUTES CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OCS LIMITS5.5.1 Introduction5.5.2 Delimitation disputes5.5.3 Disputes concerning the title to territory5.5.4 Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the LOSC5.5.5 Disputes due to other treaty obligations5.5.6 Disputes concerning scientific or technical issues5.6 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT5.7 CONCLUSIONS6 CONTINENTAL SHELF DELIMITATION DISPUTES6.1 INTRODUCTION6.2 THE WORDING OF RULE 466.2.1 Introduction6.2.2 Continental shelf delimitation and Rule 46 in practice6.2.3 Is an unresolved boundary delimitation a ‘dispute’?6.2.4 The thresholds for invoking Paragraph 5(a) due to unresolved delimitation6.3 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT6.3.1 The admissibility of delimitation disputes to judicial settlement in the absence of CLCS recommendations6.3.2 The Bay of Bengal case6.3.3 Nicaragua/Colombia Delimitation I6.4 CONCLUSIONS7 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE TITLE TO TERRITORY7.1 INTRODUCTION7.2 EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE SAVING CLAUSES OF THE LOSC7.3 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE TITLE TO TERRITORY IN PRACTICE7.3.1 Introduction7.3.2 The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (United Kingdom/Argentina)7.3.3 The Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands and Kalayaan Island Group (Vietnam, Malaysia, China/Taiwan, Philippines)7.3.4 The Senkaku Islands (China/Taiwan and Japan)7.3.5 Essequibo River (Guyana/Venezuela)7.4 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT7.5 CONCLUSIONS8 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THE LOSC8.1 INTRODUCTION8.2 THE INTERPRETATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE CLCS8.3 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 768.3.1 Introduction8.3.2 Current disputes concerning the natural prolongation criterion8.3.3 Are disputes concerning Article 76 relevant disputes for the purpose of the CLCS?8.3.4 The extent of the CLCS interpretative competence in relation to Article 768.3.5 The competence of the CLCS in disputes concerning Article 768.4 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THE STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING8.4.1 Introduction8.4.2 The Statement of Understanding8.4.3 Potential disputes concerning the Statement of Understanding8.4.4 Are disputes concerning the Statement of Understanding relevant to the purpose of the CLCS?8.5 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 121(3)8.5.1 Introduction8.5.2 The Oki-no-Tori Shima dispute8.5.3 The interpretative competence of the CLCS on Article 121(3)8.5.4 Is a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of Article 121(3) a ‘land or maritime dispute’?8.5.5 What is required to constitute sufficient interest in a matter concerning the encroachment of the Area?8.6 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 78.6.1 Introduction8.6.2 Current disputes concerning invalid baselines8.6.3 The CLCS’ interpretative competence regarding Article 78.6.4 Is a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of Article 7 a ‘land or maritime dispute’?8.7 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT8.7.1 Introduction8.7.2 Disputes within the interpretative competence of the CLCS8.7.3 Disputes outside of the interpretative competence of the CLCS8.8 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS9 DISPUTES DUE TO OTHER TREATY OBLIGATIONS: THE ANTARCTIC TREATY9.1 INTRODUCTION9.2 THE CURRENT REGIME FOR ANTARCTIC CLAIMS9.3 CURRENT CONTROVERSIES ABOUT ANTARCTIC CONTINENTAL SHELF SUBMISSIONS9.3.1 Introduction9.3.2 Submissions by Australia, Argentina and Norway9.3.3 Submissions by France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom9.3.4 Preliminary information submitted by Chile9.4 ARE DISPUTES CONCERNING ANTARCTICA ‘LAND OR MARITIME DISPUTES’?9.4.1 Introduction9.4.2 Do Antarctic coastal States exist?9.4.3 How can a ‘sufficient interest’ be established in relation to Antarctic territory?9.4.4 Overlapping claims to Antarctic territory9.4.5 Overlapping entitlement to the continental shelf9.5 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT9.6 CONCLUSIONS10 INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER STATES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RULE 4610.1 INTRODUCTION10.2 CURRENT STATE PRACTICE: STATE REACTIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RULE 46?10.3 NOTES VERBALES ADDRESSING SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ISSUES10.3.1 A legal basis for notes verbales addressing scientific and technical issues10.3.2 Advice by specialists10.3.3 Coastal State responses to notifications on scientific and technical issues from other States10.3.4 Optional consideration for the CLCS10.4 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT10.5 CONCLUSIONS11 THE CLCS AND THE ROLE OF NON-PARTIES TO THE LOSC11.1 INTRODUCTION11.2 THE ROLE OF STATES NON-PARTIES AS COASTAL STATES11.2.1 Introduction11.2.2 The entitlement of non-parties to a continental shelf11.2.3 The spatial scope of the entitlement to a continental shelf11.2.4 The requirement of ‘natural prolongation’ and ‘outer edge of the continental margin’ in customary international law11.2.5 Can a non-party make an OCS submission to the CLCS?11.2.6 Are there any alternatives to recourse to the CLCS procedure?11.3 THE ROLE OF STATES NON-PARTIES HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE OCS LIMIT LOCATION11.4 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT11.5 CONCLUSIONSPART III – INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER STATES IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CLCS SUBMISSION PROCEDURE12 DISPUTES RELATING TO OCS LIMITS NOT ESTABLISHED ‘ON THE BASIS OF’ CLCS RECOMMENDATIONS12.1 INTRODUCTION12.2 THE PHRASE ‘ON THE BASIS OF’12.2.1 Introduction12.2.2 A legal obligation to establish OCS limits ‘on the basis of’ CLCS recommendations12.2.3 What is required for OCS limits to be established ‘on the basis of’ CLCS’ recommendations?12.2.4 The case of the OCS limits of Brazil12.2.5 Practical consequence of non-compliance with CLCS recommendations: lack of ‘final and binding’ OCS limits12.3 JUDICIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT12.3.1 Introduction12.3.2 Potential lack of information12.3.3 The competence of courts or tribunals to consider OCS limits12.4 CONCLUSIONS13 DISPUTES RELATING TO ‘FINAL AND BINDING’ OCS LIMITS13.1 INTRODUCTION13.2 REVIEWING ESTABLISHED OCS LIMITS13.2.1 Introduction13.2.2 Competence to evaluate coastal State compliance with substantive requirements of Article 7613.2.3 Competence to evaluate the validity of CLCS recommendations13.3 MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS OF ‘FINAL AND BINDING’ LIMITS13.3.1 Introduction13.3.2 Final limits – addressing the coastal State13.3.3 Binding limits – addressing States other than the coastal State13.3.4 When do OCS limits become ‘final and binding’?13.4 COASTAL STATES CHALLENGING CLCS RECOMMENDATIONS13.5 ‘FINAL AND BINDING’ LIMITS ESTABLISHED NOT ‘ON THE BASIS OF’ CLCS RECOMMENDATIONS13.6 CONCLUSIONSPART IV – CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS14 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS14.1 INTRODUCTION14.2 INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER STATES DURING THE CLCS PROCEDURE14.2.1 The scope of involvement by other States14.2.2 The consequences of involvement by other States14.3 INVOLVEMENT BY OTHER STATES IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CLCS PROCEDURE14.3.1 The scope of involvement in the aftermath of the CLCS procedure14.3.2 The consequences of involvement by other States14.4 THE ROLE OF NON-PARTIES TO THE LOSC14.5 PARTICULAR CHALLENGES RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OCS LIMITS14.5.1 Introduction14.5.2 Transparency of the CLCS procedure14.5.3 The time frame and workload of the CLCS14.5.4 The status of the limits in the intermediate stage between submission and recommendations14.5.5 The relationship between the CLCS and decisions by international courts or tribunals14.6 THE LOSC – A ‘COASTAL STATES’ CONVENTION’?APPENDICESAPPENDIX I: CONTINENTAL SHELF SUBMISSIONS AND REACTIONS BY OTHER STATESAPPENDIX II: PRELIMINARY INFORMATION AND OTHER STATES’ REACTIONSAPPENDIX III: CURRENT NON-PARTIES TO THE LOSCBIBLIOGRAPHYLITERATUREDOCUMENTS:UNCLOS III DocumentsOther UN DocumentsYearbooks of the International Law CommissionDocuments of the Meetings of States Parties to the LOSC (SPLOS) Documents of the CLCSOCS Submissions and relevant notes verbales submitted to the CLCSPreliminary Submissions to the CLCSRecommendations issued by the CLCSReports, papers and handbooksOther documentsTABLE OF CASESInternational Court of JusticePermanent Court of International JusticeInternational Tribunal for the Law of the SeaArbitrationONLINE SOURCESINDEXFrom the B&N Reads Blog
Page 1 of