108. 61. 116). State Regulation of Air Pollution From Offshore Ships Is Upheld in Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. Goldstene,” 66 University of Miami Law Review (2001), p. 70, criticizes the application of the effects doctrine due to the lack of intention to cause harm and the broad spectrum of allowed regulation “allowing a state to regulate based on remote repercussions of lawful activity wholly performed outside the state's territory could potentially provide nearly limitless regulatory power.”, 159. 115. R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 73, notes “logically, all exercises of jurisdiction that are not based on the territoriality principle are exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction.” See also ILC Report on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, supra note 5, p. 520. See also J.T. 242. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2244/2003 of 18 December 2003 laying down detailed provisions regarding satellite-based Vessel Monitoring Systems, supra note 81. The VMS system applies to “all fishing vessels that fish for highly migratory fish stocks on the high seas within the Convention Area” (article 6 (a)). Fish Stocks Agreement, supra note 82, article 18(3)(g) (iii). 1484, Section D. 99. 45. Ibid., para.

Efficient Use of the Earth’s Natural Resources, Mediterranean Sea Turtles Die Choking on Plastic Bags. 40. Ringbom (2011), supra note 49, p. 632, does not preclude that the effects doctrine might be relevant but stresses the difficulties in assessing the impact with respect to scientific evidence. 166. 147–157). Palma, M. Tsamenyi, and W. Edeson, Promoting Sustainable Fisheries The International Legal and Policy Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (Brill, 2010), pp. 76. 35–6 (fn. 142. Rothwell, “Compulsory Pilotage and the Law of the Sea: Lessons Learned From the Torres Strait,” ANU College of Law Research Paper No.

Common law countries argue that the port state has jurisdiction in such cases but chooses not to exercise it as a matter of comity. A. Miola et al., “Regulating Air Emissions From Ships: The State of the Art on Methodologies, Technologies and Policy Options” (2010), p. 41, at ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc_reference_report_2010_11_ships_emissions.pdf. 51. See, for example, NAFO, ibid., Conservation and Enforcement Measures, article 43(7). 114. 16–17, and H. Caminos and V.P.

“If done right, we can turn the tragedy of the global commons into an opportunity.

129.

F. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” 162 Science (1968), p. 1243. To secure a safe and just future for humanity we need urgent action at an unprecedented scale to protect and restore the global commons. 122.

McDorman, supra note 1, pp.

308–323 ,and Lowe and Staker, supra note 17, p. 329. 220–222. See also R.A. Leflar, “Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law,” 41 NYU Law Review (1966), pp. 18 (v) (a) (b), both available on CCAMLR website, supra note 90.

116. T.L. The Court noted the difference with “an attempt to regulate ships in Shanghai Harbor because of their effects on global climate change.”. SS Lotus, P.C.I.J. Moreover, oceans … Reports 3, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, p. 78. 235.

Under this approach, the analysis of substantive content is central and not merely an aspect of an otherwise territory- or sovereignty-based approach. 1254–6, and Scott, supra note 11, p. 88. United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, DS58/AB/R, Report of Appellate Body, available on the WTO website, at www.wto.org. 1–22; A.V. 187.

Brunée argues, supra note 227, p. 566, that. 28–31, and R.R. See U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, article 7(7) (3), available on the FAO website, at www.fao.org; FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, para. We use cookies to improve your website experience. Ibid., p. 91, she links presence with the fact that states. Churchill and A.V. 209. 81. McDorman, “Regional port state control agreements: some issues of international law,” 5 Ocean and Coastal Law Journal (2000), p. 210: “within the ports a state has the same (territorial) jurisdiction which it would have over a foreign citizen visiting (temporarily on holiday or on business) the territory.”. T. Cottier et al., “The Principle of Common Concern and Climate Change,” 52 Archiv des Völkerrechts (2014), pp. 218.

U.S. Third Restatement, supra note 14, provides “(1) Even when one of the bases for jurisdiction under para. M. Hayashi, “Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Non-Members,” in T.M. 107, preamble, “Acknowledging that change in the Earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind” and “Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions.”. Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 Amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to Include Aviation Activities in the Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community, Official Journal L 8/3 (13.01.2009). 206. ), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), p. 351. 23. (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp.

If the presence of a person within a state is capable of constituting an autonomous basis for the exercise of territorial jurisdiction, this means that territorial jurisdiction may be exercised over natural or legal persons who are present even where the conduct in question takes place abroad.

Under this approach, in other words, a court faced with a choice-of-law problem will resolve it by choosing a law rather than a jurisdiction.

Cottier et al., supra note 9, p. 319, state: “Territoriality often will be a matter of practical expediency as states are largely dependent upon attachment to their territory one way or another in implementing laws and measures.”, 199. 120. 228. 293–324, and D. Shelton, “Common Concern of Humanity,” Iustum Aequum Salutare V.2009, pp. Ibid., Section 404: “offences recognised by the community of nations as of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks on or hijacking of aircraft, genocide, war crimes and perhaps certain acts of terrorism.”.

Port State Measures Agreement, supra note 101, article 4(1)(b) and see also article 18(3). Broder and J.M.

See, for example, Directive 2002/59/EC of 27 June 2002, supra note 84, article 13(2), which requires that vessels notify EU ports of any dangerous or polluting goods on board before arrival at the latest upon departure from the loading port. A creative agency driving major media partnerships and creating products and tools to support a transformation of worldviews. To achieve coherence in global governance, all three dimensions of sustainable development – sustainable economic growth, social inclusion and protection of the environment and the global commons … No. 184. Molenaar, supra note 45, suggests that “the legality or justifiability of extra-territorial port state jurisdiction depends, in addition to the abovementioned jurisdictional bases, on the type of enforcement action taken.” Ringbom (2011), supra note 49, p. 627, acknowledges the “paradoxical situation … in which it is easier for a State to defend its right to refuse entry to its ports for non-complying ships than to find a legal basis for enforcing those conditions by means of other sanctions once the ship has actually entered.” See also Ringbom (2008), supra note 49, pp.

This study relies on the effects doctrine (as an extension of the territorial principle) but distinguishes between the enforcement measures that the state can take in this respect. 3–4; and M. Akehurst, “Jurisdiction in international law,” 46 British Yearbook of International Law (1972–3), p. 151. To what extent these measures are in line with the coastal state's jurisdiction in the EEZ or a potential violation of freedom of navigation may be questioned. Parrish, “Evading Legislative Jurisdiction,” articles by Maurer Faculty, Paper 887 (2012), pp. Poulsen Case, supra note 134, para. See McDorman, supra note 1, pp. See ibid., article 22 (iv) (b) (ii) and NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (2014), supra note 109, article 55. 17. IMO, Resolution MEPC.133(53), 22 July 2005, “Designation of the Torres Strait as an Extension of the Great Barrier Reef Particularly Sensitive Sea,” MEPC 53/24/Add 2, Annex 21, available on the Australian Maritime Safety Authority website, at www.amsa.gov.au.

On the growing acceptance of the EU's interests in exercising jurisdiction over foreign activities that generate effects in the EU market, see “Developments in the Law of Extraterritoriality,” 124 Harvard Law Review (2011), pp. The obligations can be specific, i.e., rules related to conservation of fishing resources enshrined in RFMOs or more general related to the protection of the marine environment, LOSC provisions or commitments to tackle climate change. 251.

Smith, State Responsibility and the Marine Environment (Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 1005/2008 Establishing a Community System to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, Official Journal L 286/1 (29.10.2008), article 1(3). Elevating or recasting illegal harms to MLR as universal crimes would be a quite long term and probably quixotic undertaking. McDorman, “Port State Enforcement: A Comment on Article 218 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention,” 28 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce (1997), p. 322 comments: “international treaties and practice are simply shifting the burden and opportunity for enforcement from the flag state to the local (or port) state.” See also B. Marten, Port State Jurisdiction and the Regulation of International Merchant Shipping (Springer, 2013), p. 4. Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Conservation and Management Measure 2014-02, Commission Vessel Monitoring Scheme, on the WCPFC website, at www.wcpfc.int. Jennings, “Extraterritorial jurisdiction and the US Antitrust laws,” 33 British Yearbook of International Law (1957), p. 152, argues that “it is reasonable to say ... that international law will permit a state to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction provided that State's legitimate interests (legitimate that is to say by tests accepted in the common practice of states) are involved.” Oliver, supra note 148, pp. People v Weeren, 26 Cal.3d at 658–670 (Crim. One of the main questions was to what extent the specific authority of the state was pre-empted by the Submerged Land Act. 88. 692–94; and Letter from K. Silverberg, U.S.

See Churchill and Lowe, supra note 39, p. 63 who comment that: “port closures or conditions of access which are patently unreasonable or discriminatory might be held to amount to an abus de droit for which the coastal state might be internationally responsible.” See also LOSC, supra note 27, articles 24(1)(b), 25(3), 119(3) and 227.