Creeping jurisdiction beyond 200 miles in the light of the 1982 law of the sea convention and state practice

Kwiatkowska, Barbara

doi:10.1080/00908329109545954

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The United States has been developing this practice in the North Pacific in relation to Korea and Taiwan under bilateral agreements and in relation to Japan under the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission and other arrangements, with the Soviet Union following a similar albeit more limited practice. 25 It would not be surprising if the same right of boarding and inspection is claimed in the near future in relation to other species or situations where conservation is seriously affected by unregulated high seas operations. The same policy of boarding and inspection has been followed by the United States in relation to vessels suspected of engaging in narcotic drugs traffic.…”

Section: Other Expressions Of Coastal State Interest In the High Seasmentioning

confidence: 95%

Toward an effective management of high seas fisheries and the settlement of the pending issues of the law of the sea

Vicuña

1993

Ocean Development & International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Other Expressions Of Coastal State Interest In the High Seasmentioning

confidence: 95%

Toward an effective management of high seas fisheries and the settlement of the pending issues of the law of the sea

Vicuña

1993

Ocean Development & International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…121), and therefore generate rights to EEZ, brought features such as the Paracel and Spratly groups at the centre of the South China Sea into spotlight. Yet, expanding claims to territorial seas and exclusive economic zones, and concomitant rights to enforce provisions for the marine environmental protection and the regulation of maritime transport, sometimes referred to as 'creeping jurisdiction' (Kwiatkowska, 1991a), have been preoccupying UNCLOS negotiators for decades. Therefore, the developed states made sure for UNCLOS to codify the freedom of navigation according to the customary legal norm based on Mare Liberum, Hugo de Groot's (Grotius) treatise in defence of the Dutch Empire's access to Southeast Asia against Imperial Portuguese and Spanish attempts to monopolize trade routes.…”

Section: Australian Conceptions Of International Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose ‘Freedom of Navigation’? Australia, China, the United States and the making of order in the ‘Indo-Pacific’

Wirth

2018

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The so-called freedom of navigation through the Malacca straits and the South China Sea, some of the world's busiest trade routes, has long been of concern to scholars and practitioners of international politics in the region. Increasing tensions around territorial disputes recently propelled the issue to the forefront of global foreign and security policy making. Yet, despite the frequent invocation of threats to the 'freedom of navigation' for the justification of military measures to protect the 'liberal rules-based order', the substance of this rule or norm remains ambiguous and the nature of the threatened order unclear. Located at the confluence of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Australian discourses represent a suitable case for clarifying both. Starting from the original provisions on navigational regimes in international law, this study analyses the meanings that officials, think tank analysts and academics have been attributing to the freedom of navigation and contextualize them in the evolving debate about order. Focusing on political rather than legal discourses, it finds that concerns with the freedom of navigation are largely unrelated to the safety of maritime transport. Instead, they serve as proxy for an increasingly static imagination of international orderwritten backward in timeto be secured.

show abstract

“…164 Kwiatkowska expressed doubt in 1991 as to whether the "highly technical" provisions of Article 76 were even capable of entering into customary law. 165 As of 1995, McDorman considered it "difficult to accept that . .…”

Section: Formation Of the Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Under Customary International Law

Baumert

2017

Am. j. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract“Seldom has an apparent major change in international law been accomplished by peaceful means more rapidly and amidst more general acquiescence and approval,” Lauterpacht observed of continental shelf claims nearly seventy years ago. When considered today, this observation merits a caveat, as the question of how far the continental shelf extends into the sea is not yet fully settled. This article explores the customary international law applicable for determining continental shelf limits and also examines the legal procedures used by states to gain international acceptance of those limits.

show abstract

Creeping jurisdiction beyond 200 miles in the light of the 1982 law of the sea convention and state practice

Cited by 30 publications

References 35 publications

Toward an effective management of high seas fisheries and the settlement of the pending issues of the law of the sea

Toward an effective management of high seas fisheries and the settlement of the pending issues of the law of the sea

Whose ‘Freedom of Navigation’? Australia, China, the United States and the making of order in the ‘Indo-Pacific’

The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf Under Customary International Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About