Law

This article addresses maritime boundary delimitation concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The focal point is how the foot of the continental slope can be used as the point of departure in drawing the provisional equidistance line in outer continental shelf boundary delimitations between neighboring states. The article examines the strength and weaknesses of this approach and asks whether the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea indirectly rejected this approach in the 2012 Bangladesh v. Myanmar Case.

"The article analyses the trends in continental shelf boundary
agreements that extend beyond 200 nautical miles. The focus is on three issues: first, the delimitation method; second, whether States have acted on the basis that they have to delineate the limits between the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and the international seabed area before they engage in a boundary delimitation with neighbouring states; and third, how the end point of the boundary line has been defined. The goal of the analysis is
to find out whether any rule of customary law has emerged which seems not to be the case."

This article is a late response to Bjørn Kunoy’s article “The Admissibility of a Plea to an International Adjudicative Forum to Delimit the Outer Continental Shelf Prior to the Adoption of Final Recommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”, published in the International Journal of Marine & Coastal Law 2010 (25 IJMCL 237). It argues against Kunoy’s assertion that delineation and delimitation are not only two separate steps, but also temporally differentiated, and that the delineation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles must come first before it is delimited with respect to adjacent and coastal before an international court or tribunal.

"The study approaches the Loophole dispute between Iceland, Norway and Russia
from an Icelandic perspective. The focus is mainly on four issues; the underlying legal framework
of the dispute, the question why Iceland engaged in these fisheries, the negotiation process and
how dramatically Iceland’s stance on high sea fisheries has shifted since the mid-1990s. The study
attempts to answer if Iceland respected its obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention in the
dispute. The study concludes that it is questionable if Iceland behaved as a responsible fisheries
nation in the Loophole dispute and that Iceland even violated its obligation under Article 300 of
UNCLOS whereas she did not respect Law of the Sea Convention’s due regard obligation.
"

Although most provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea are regarded customary international law and the
United States views most of its provisions as such, the outsider status
of the United States causes problems in some areas, especially
concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. This article
asks whether it is possible for the United States to establish the outer
limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in line with
international law without becoming a state party to the convention,
and if that is possible, how could the United States proceed?

Established within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982), 1 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) 2 is a permanent judicial body, competent to adjudicate disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the said Convention. 3 In some specific circumstances, it can render advisory opinions. It is operational only since August 1996, following the entry into force ofUNCLOS. 4 Seated in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal is governed by its Statute set out in Annex VI of UNCLOS, and by Part XV and some provisions in Part XI section 5 of the Convention. The Tribunal is open to State parties to the Convention, amounting to 161 (162 with the European Union) in June 2011, 5 but also in some specific circumstances, to international organizations, individuals, and corporations. The Tribunal is composed of twenty-one judges elected by the State parties 6 for renewable nine-year terms "from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence

Established within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982), 1 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) 2 is a permanent judicial body, competent to adjudicate disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the said Convention. 3 In some specific circumstances, it can render advisory opinions. It is operational only since August 1996, following the entry into force ofUNCLOS. 4 Seated in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Tribunal is governed by its Statute set out in Annex VI of UNCLOS, and by Part XV and some provisions in Part XI section 5 of the Convention. The Tribunal is open to State parties to the Convention, amounting to 161 (162 with the European Union) in June 2011, 5 but also in some specific circumstances, to international organizations, individuals, and corporations. The Tribunal is composed of twenty-one judges elected by the State parties 6 for renewable nine-year terms "from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence

Convention). The 1958 Continental Shelf Convention is one of four conventions adopted in Geneva in 1958 which are the predecessors to UNCLOS. 8 The international seabed area is usually referred to as the Area. Article 1(1) of UNCLOS defines the Area as 'the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction'. The definition is a negative one 'for in order to know the exact extent of the Area, one needs to know up to where exactly coastal states have extended their national jurisdiction at sea'. Erik Franckx, 'The International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritage of Mankind: The need for States to Establish the Outer Limits of their Continental Shelf' (2010) 25 IJMCL 543, 552. Article 140 of UNCLOS provides that '[a]ctivities in the Area shall ... be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole'. 9 These two terms should not be confused with the term demarcation which is important in land boundary delimitations. The demarcation of a land boundary 'amounts to laying it down, as mutually defined, by means of boundary pillars, monuments and buoys, and permanent erections of other kinds, along the topographical conformations of the territories to be separated by it'. A. Cukwurah, The Settlement of Boundary Disputes in International Law (Manchester University Press 1967) 28. Demarcation is of limited practical value in outer continental shelf delimitations since the importance of visually showing the boundary line on the seabed itself is very limited. 10 Article 9 of Annex II to UNCLOS. 11 Article 83 of UNCLOS.

The study approaches the Loophole dispute between Iceland, Norway and Russia from an Icelandic perspective. The focus is mainly on four issues; the underlying legal framework of the dispute, the question why Iceland engaged in these fisheries, the negotiation process and how dramatically Iceland's stance on high sea fisheries has shifted since the mid-1990s. The study attempts to answer if Iceland respected its obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention in the dispute. The study concludes that it is questionable if Iceland behaved as a responsible fisheries nation in the Loophole dispute and that Iceland even violated its obligation under Article 300 of UNCLOS whereas she did not respect Law of the Sea Convention's due regard obligation.

WORKING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FULBRIGHT ARCTIC INITIATIVE ENERGY GROUP A MessAge froM LeAd schoLArs dr. ross VirginA And dr. Mike sfrAgA The Arctic faces complex sustainability challenges that are critical to the social and economic well-being of its communities. There is a critical need for more interdisciplinary research designed to inform policy decisions in areas such as community health, energy development, environmental protection, climate change response, infrastructure, and governance. The work presented here is an outcome of the Fulbright Arctic Initiative sponsored by the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. This initiative was created in 2015 to initiate new research broadly supportive of the U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship (2015-17) priorities in the focal areas of improving economic and living conditions for Arctic communities; Arctic Ocean safety, security and stewardship; and addressing the impacts of climate change. The Fulbright Arctic Initiative brings together 19 scholars in diverse fields from the 8 Arctic nations to work on individual research projects and in teams on energy, water, health, and infrastructure problems. The scholars were organized into thematic research teams with the goal of creating interdisciplinary dialog and diversifying international perspectives on solutions to pan-Arctic problems. The research of the Energy Group focuses on understanding the impacts of extractive industries and the transition to renewable energy in the Arctic. The tensions between economic, energy, and environmental security continue to be central to the future development of energy resources in the Arctic, and continue to make the transition to renewables difficult. The Energy Group drew upon respective national perspectives, comparative research exchange experiences, the literature, as well as each scholar's past research and diverse disciplinary strengths, to collaboratively identify a set of significant policy recommendations to support the development and deployment of renewable energy in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. The primary goal of these recommendations is for the Arctic Council to consider establishing guidelines to facilitate the development of renewable energy in Northern areas. The Fulbright Program was established in 1946 "to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries." The work produced by the Fulbright Arctic Initiative demonstrates the power of international cooperation and interdisciplinary collaboration to create policy relevant research to solve problems facing the Arctic and the world.

This article addresses the grey areas in the Bay of Bengal, unique judgemade maritime zones that involve considerations concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Such grey areas will arise whenever the entitlements of two States to the continental shelf extend beyond 200 nautical miles and relevant circumstances call for a boundary somewhere other than the equidistance line, at or beyond the 200 nautical miles limit, in order to provide an equitable delimitation. The grey areas discussed in the article are the outcome of litigations in the dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar, decided by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India that went before an arbitral tribunal. Grey areas create practical inconveniences concerning the enforcement and management of natural resources. These need to be resolved through specific agreement or the establishment of appropriate cooperative arrangements. The main goal of this article is to explain the phenomenon and ask whether grey areas create more problems than they solve. It is argued that grey areas are justifiable in special circumstances. In the Bay of Bengal-due to its geography-it was necessary to adjust the provisional equidistance line between the parties involved to reach an equitable solution. In brief, the grey areas in the Bay of Bengal were a necessary inconvenience because they were a precursor to an equitable solution.