Erik Franckx

Maritime claims in the Arctic : Canadian and Russian perspectives

List of Figures. List of Appendixes. List of Abbreviations. Foreword. Preface. 1: Introduction. Topic Delimitation. Topic Justification. 2: Canada. Introduction. Land. Water. 3: Russia. Introduction. Land. Water. 4: Unilateral Action versus Cooperation in the Arctic. Canadian--U.S.S.R. Maritime Claims: a Comparison. International Cooperation. 5: Conclusions. Summary. Submissions. Appendixes. Index.

Dots and Lines in the South China Sea: Insights from the Law of Map Evidence

On 7 May 2009, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) protested Vietnamese and joint Malaysian-Vietnamese submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). In support of Chinese claims, a map was annexed to the letter of protest portraying a dotted U-shaped line engulfing the greater part of the South China Sea. Following a brief primer on the genesis of the U-line, this article aims to decipher the text of the protest letter accompanying the U-line, suggesting several possible interpretations. This contribution argues that the map is of doubtful probative value in the light of various factors fleshed out in international jurisprudence regarding map evidence. Attention will be paid to the reactions of third-party states to the U-line. This article maintains that effective protest on the part of regional states has prevented the map from becoming opposable to them.

The International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritage of Mankind: The Need for States to Establish the Outer Limits of their Continental Shelf

The principle of the common heritage of mankind was introduced in international law to internationalize certain common spaces beyond national jurisdiction. It has found a certain application in outer space as well as in the Antarctic, but it is with respect to the oceans that it has so far found its fullest exposition. Since the principle is very much tied to the Area in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, i.e., the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, it can be said to have triggered that convention, but at the same time was also almost responsible for its demise. As a consequence, its content has changed over the years. The present article intends to have a closer look at how this principle at present relates to the obligation of broad-margin states to establish the outer limit of their continental shelf.

The 1998 Estonia-Sweden Maritime Boundary Agreement: lessons to be learned in the area of continuity and/or succession of states

The recently concluded agreement between Estonia and Sweden concerning the delimitation of their maritime zones in the Baltic Sea, the latest in the Baltic Sea region, raises interesting questions with respect to the continuity and/or succession of States. This is the first agreement concluded since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in late 1991 that is totally governed by this intricate area of international law. The present article, starting from the opposite theoretical opinion both countries had on this issue, tries to illustrate how the idea of continuity has been mitigated in order to arrive at a practical solution between the parties.

Finland and sweden complete their maritime boundary in the baltic sea

Finland and Sweden recently completed their maritime boundary by concluding a second maritime delimitation agreement in 1994. Only the injunction point with Estonia still remains to be settled. This new agreement, which relates only to the Aland Sea and the northern Baltic Sea, relies heavily on its 1972 predecessor, which only concerned continental shelf jurisdiction. The latter agreement not only played an important role in the 1994 agreement itself, but its field of application was also extended to fishery and exclusive economic zone jurisdiction in other areas by means of an attached protocol. Two main problems had to be solved by this new agreement: The first relates to the relationship between continental shelf and fishery jurisdiction, which strained relations ever since the parties started claiming extended fishery zones. Second, a solution had to be found concerning the issue of the Bogskar island group.

Marine scientific research and the Soviet Arctic

Scientific cooperation in the Arctic has gained momentum during the last two years. Thechanging attitude of the Soviet Union, the most advanced Arctic state in this respect, has played a crucial role in this evolution. This article, which focusses on non-Soviet research efforts in Soviet Arctic waters, concludes that the Soviet Union has lately given a clear signal by allowing foreigners, after many years of repeated refusal, to conduct marine scientific research close to its own coasts. In doing so the Soviets have further clarified the legal status of their northern waters.

Should the Law Governing Maritime Areas in the Arctic Adapt to Changing Climatic Circumstances

The legal regime of the Arctic maritime areas has for a long time remained on the backburner of international norm creating activities. This can primarily be explained by the inhospitable climate which created natural barriers for human activities and imposed limits on the usefulness of the available technology.

Gaps in Baltic Sea Maritime Boundaries

Does the submission that the Baltic Sea is the world’s most regulated international marine area also apply to maritime boundary delimitations? Probably so, according to this chapter, which addresses existing and past boundary agreements in the Baltic Sea. Following a general review of the law applicable to maritime boundary delimitation, it is concluded that even if the Baltic Sea is already fully covered by coastal zones, and that the areas of high seas or deep seabed have thus disappeared, there are still some outstanding issues and overlapping claims. Nevertheless, such a degree of completeness is unique in international comparison and, what is more, all boundary agreements in the Baltic Sea have been settled by negotiations, outside courts and tribunals.

Introduction: The South China Sea: An International Law Perspective

This piece offers the Guest Editors’ Introduction to this Special Issue of The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law—dedicated to the South China Sea. It outlines the history of the 2015 Brussels Conference at which the papers in the Special Issue were first presented, notes the key presentations and introduces the authors. Four subject matters are addressed: fisheries, navigation, the regime of islands, and international dispute settlement.

The Shape of Things to Come: The Russian Federation and the Northern Sea Route in 2011

AbstractThe Arctic has recently been catapulted from the back burner of international attention to the forefront of the global agenda. The dissolution of the Soviet Union as well as climate change seem to be responsible for a marked heating up not only of its physical environment, but also of the political tensions concerning the exact legal regime to be applied there. While the universal 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been accepted by the five Arctic rim countries as the applicable legal framework, on the regional level these same states have tried to ward off possible external interference as much as possible by means of the Ilulissat Declaration of 2008. Shipping has been at the heart of these developments, especially in view of the fact that the year 2007 was characterized by the most extensive summer melt ever since satellite measurements started in 1979, which in turn undoubtedly enhanced the attractiveness of Arctic navigation. It will be argued that the increased interest in promoting Arctic navigation, as evidenced by a thorough analysis of the 2011 shipping season along the Eurasian continent, stands in stark contrast with the applicable Russian legal framework, which in essence dates back to the 1990s, a time when this route had not yet been used for international commercial trade linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (the secrecy still surrounding the icebreaking fees at present being a case in point).