D. M. McRae

Coastal State “Rights” Within the 200-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone

The determination of the nature of a coastal state’s right over the living resources of its 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is important to an understanding of the “right” or “interest” the coastal state can assign either domestically to its own nationals or internationally to the vessels of foreign states. Complete or unfettered freedom to allocate shares in the resources of its 200-mile zone implies that a state has “full” or “sovereign” rights over that zone. However, it is not clear that such freedom is absolute. This paper will trace the development and the nature of the right of a coastal state over the resources of its 200-mile EEZ, and the application of a concept of coastal state rights to the specific problems of highly migratory species and transboundary stocks. It will conclude with a discussion of some of the economic implications of these rights.

Transnational Legal Orders. Edited by Terence C. Halliday and Gregory Shaffer. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 2015. Pp. xii, 542. Index.

like legal tradition, domestic interpretive practices, or state foreign policy objectives have greater predictive power). In that case, the question of optimal interpretive approach is rendered largely moot; whatever form or substance of rule we select matters little for treaty uniformity concerns. If, however, as many of the contributors to this volume imply, reliance on international interpretive rules does matter, the stakes are high for how those rules are specified (e.g., textualism versus contextualism versus pro persona), the specificity of international legal obligations31 (specific rules versus vague principles), and with whom the legal obligation lies (all municipal bodies, or only external state behavior). Then, if uniformity of substantive interpretative outcome is normatively desirable (an unclear proposition, as some of the volume’s contributors note), it would behoove international lawyers to set forth clear, simple rules of interpretative approach and to clarify that those rules bind interpretative processes—including those of legislatures, executives, and courts— not just the external state behavior that results from those interpretive processes. They could do so not only in the “treaties on treaties” but also in specific treaties. Thus, if the parties to a treaty want their plain language to trump all other considerations, they can presumably override the VCLT rules by stating as much in the treaty’s final clauses. They could do similarly if disagreement over precise provisions has prevented the parties from clearly defining terms. In that case they may signal to interpreters to rely heavily on the object and purpose and/or travaux records and give relatively little weight to the ordinary meaning of the language. Without a systematic study of international interpretive rules’ impact on domestic court interpretations, we cannot know for certain which of these assumptions is right. In the meantime, Aust andNolte’s volume advances the comparative international law project by raising several important questions of interpretative procedure, even if many of the answers remain elusive.

139.

Written by distinguished scholars from Canada and abroad, the essays cover topics in four different fields that reflect some of Cohens principal academic interests and concerns: international law, public law, legal history, and legal education. From discussion of the development of United Nations law in the recent Gulf Conflict, the International Court of Justice, and the Cohen Committee on Hate Propaganda, to habeas corpus and legal education, the essays break new ground and demonstrably add, as Maxwell Cohen has done, to knowledge in their respective fields. The collection contains a preface by former Chief Justice Brian Dickson and essays by Anne Bayefsky, William Black, Irwin Cotler, Dale Gibson, Annemieke Holthuis, Julius Grey, William Kaplan, Louis Knafla, David McDonald, Roderick Macdonald, J.P.S. McLaren, Donald McRae, Edward McWhinney, Donat Pharand, Shabtai Rosenne, Oscar Schachter, Robert Sharpe, and William Stevenson. Maxwell Cohen was a former Dean of Law at McGill University. He is currently Scholar-in-Residence at the University of Ottawa.

Law, Policy and International Justice: Essays in Honour of Maxwell Cohen

Surveying developments in and approaches to international legal studies, Professer Richard Falk has stated that “one of the major issues challenging time-honoured approaches to international law is the development of a more adequate theory of the basis of legal obligation in international society.” His context was a discussion of the difficulties involved in ascertaining new kinds of rules to govern violence during the cold war period and, particularly, the disputed normative effect of resolutions of the General Assembly. A year later, Dr. Oscar Schachter identified a number of factors that have given “enhanced importance to problems of indeterminacy of obligation” in the last few years. These included the quasi-legislative activities of United Nations institutions, the development of “rules of the game” in great power relationships, the increase in social revolution within states, the increase in patterns of co-operation as a resuit of the growing interdependence of states, the narrowing of the scope of the traditional concept of domestic jurisdiction, and the expansion of science and technology.

Legal Obligations and International Organizations

The Canadian Council on International Law held its third Annual Conference in Ottawa on October 18-19, 1974. The theme of the Conference was International Terrorism and three sessions were devoted to it. The first session on October 18 focused on a paper delivered by Professor Paul de Visscher of the University of Louvain, Belgium, entitled, “Le Terrorisme International: Ses Effets sur l’Ordre Juridique International.” The paper was commented upon by Professor L. C. Green of the University of Alberta, Professor Jordan J. Paust of the University of Houston, and Brigadier J. M. Simpson of the office of the Judge Advocate General. The afternoon session on October 18 dealt with International Terrorism and Civil Aviation. A paper was prepared and presented by Dr. Gerald L. Fitzgerald of the Department of Justice, with comments from Professor Alona Evans of Wellesley College, Mr. Lorne Clark of the Department of External Affairs, and Professor Ivan Vlasic of the Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University.