Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references: p. 377-421.

Thesis (M.M.S.-Res.)--University of Wollongong, 2007. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references: leaf 135-149.

A presente tese pretende analisar uma possível proibição de utilização de métodos letais em pesquisas científicas com baleias em alto-mar, no sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar, inserida em um contexto marcado por uma binariedade ou dualidade normativa entre Estados pró e contra a pesca internacional da baleia. A fim de responder esse problema de pesquisa estabelecido, a tese desenvolve, em um primeiro momento, a noção inovadora do Direito Internacional do Mar como sistema. Para tanto, partiu-se da noção do Direito Internacional como um sistema social de validação normativa, onde as noções de técnica positiva de resolução de controvérsias internacionais, função, processo, comunicação social e tempo, tornamse a sua gramática comum. Em tal perspectiva sistêmica e social do Direito Internacional, são demonstradas as comunicações normativas e institucionais para caracterizar o Direito Internacional do Mar como um sistema funcional de regulação global dos oceanos. Tal compreensão, desenvolvida na primeira Parte da tese, levará a um segundo momento de análise em torno da proteção jurídica das baleias no sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar. Baseada na observação do regime tradicional de proteção jurídica das baleias, enquanto fenômeno de produção de sentido normativo, a tese desenvolve as principais controvérsias estabelecidas antes e após a Segunda Guerra Mundial – entre estabilidade e transformação –, bem como o regime jurídico da Convenção Internacional para a Regulamentação da Pesca da Baleia de 1946. Em uma leitura da proteção jurídica das baleias vinculada ao sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar, serão reveladas as (in)suficiências normativas do Artigo VIII, parágrafo 1º, da Convenção de 1946 e as suas relações com o julgamento do Whaling in the Antarctic pela Corte Internacional de Justiça (ICJ), em 2014. Por fim, a partir de uma metodologia sistêmico-pragmática de análise, será desenvolvida a tese da proibição de utilização de métodos letais em pesquisas científicas com baleias em alto-mar, vinculada ao sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar e, mais especificamente, com base na Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar (UNCLOS). / This thesis analyses the possibility of prohibition against the use of lethal methods in scientific whaling on the high seas under the current International Law of the Sea system, which is marked by a normative binarity or duality between states both for and against international whaling. In order to answer the research question proposed, this thesis develops, at first, the innovative notion of the International Law of the Sea as a system. For such purpose, this thesis initiates with the notion of International Law as a social system for normative validity, whereby the elements of positive technique for international settlement of disputes, function, process, social communication and time become its common syntax. In such a systemic and social perspective of International Law, this thesis demonstrates the normative and the institutional conveyance for characterizing International Law of the Sea as a functional system for the global regulation of the oceans. Such understanding, developed within the first part of this thesis, will lead to the analysis of the legal protection of whales within the International Law of the Sea system. Based on the observation of the traditional regime of legal protection of whales as a normative phenomenon, this thesis examines the main controversies that were established both before and after the Second World War – amid stability and transformation – as well as the legal regime of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Within the scope of the legal protection of whales attached to the normative system of the International Law of the Sea, this thesis reveals the normative (in)sufficiency of the paragraph 1 of Article VIII of the 1946 Convention and its relationship to the 2014 Whaling in the Antarctic judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Lastly, within a systemic-pragmatic methodology of analysis, this thesis develops the prohibition theory of the use of lethal methods in scientific whaling on the high seas as established through the International Law of the Sea system and, more specifically, on the basis of the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

A presente tese pretende analisar uma possível proibição de utilização de métodos letais em pesquisas científicas com baleias em alto-mar, no sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar, inserida em um contexto marcado por uma binariedade ou dualidade normativa entre Estados pró e contra a pesca internacional da baleia. A fim de responder esse problema de pesquisa estabelecido, a tese desenvolve, em um primeiro momento, a noção inovadora do Direito Internacional do Mar como sistema. Para tanto, partiu-se da noção do Direito Internacional como um sistema social de validação normativa, onde as noções de técnica positiva de resolução de controvérsias internacionais, função, processo, comunicação social e tempo, tornamse a sua gramática comum. Em tal perspectiva sistêmica e social do Direito Internacional, são demonstradas as comunicações normativas e institucionais para caracterizar o Direito Internacional do Mar como um sistema funcional de regulação global dos oceanos. Tal compreensão, desenvolvida na primeira Parte da tese, levará a um segundo momento de análise em torno da proteção jurídica das baleias no sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar. Baseada na observação do regime tradicional de proteção jurídica das baleias, enquanto fenômeno de produção de sentido normativo, a tese desenvolve as principais controvérsias estabelecidas antes e após a Segunda Guerra Mundial – entre estabilidade e transformação –, bem como o regime jurídico da Convenção Internacional para a Regulamentação da Pesca da Baleia de 1946. Em uma leitura da proteção jurídica das baleias vinculada ao sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar, serão reveladas as (in)suficiências normativas do Artigo VIII, parágrafo 1º, da Convenção de 1946 e as suas relações com o julgamento do Whaling in the Antarctic pela Corte Internacional de Justiça (ICJ), em 2014. Por fim, a partir de uma metodologia sistêmico-pragmática de análise, será desenvolvida a tese da proibição de utilização de métodos letais em pesquisas científicas com baleias em alto-mar, vinculada ao sistema de Direito Internacional do Mar e, mais especificamente, com base na Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar (UNCLOS). / This thesis analyses the possibility of prohibition against the use of lethal methods in scientific whaling on the high seas under the current International Law of the Sea system, which is marked by a normative binarity or duality between states both for and against international whaling. In order to answer the research question proposed, this thesis develops, at first, the innovative notion of the International Law of the Sea as a system. For such purpose, this thesis initiates with the notion of International Law as a social system for normative validity, whereby the elements of positive technique for international settlement of disputes, function, process, social communication and time become its common syntax. In such a systemic and social perspective of International Law, this thesis demonstrates the normative and the institutional conveyance for characterizing International Law of the Sea as a functional system for the global regulation of the oceans. Such understanding, developed within the first part of this thesis, will lead to the analysis of the legal protection of whales within the International Law of the Sea system. Based on the observation of the traditional regime of legal protection of whales as a normative phenomenon, this thesis examines the main controversies that were established both before and after the Second World War – amid stability and transformation – as well as the legal regime of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Within the scope of the legal protection of whales attached to the normative system of the International Law of the Sea, this thesis reveals the normative (in)sufficiency of the paragraph 1 of Article VIII of the 1946 Convention and its relationship to the 2014 Whaling in the Antarctic judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Lastly, within a systemic-pragmatic methodology of analysis, this thesis develops the prohibition theory of the use of lethal methods in scientific whaling on the high seas as established through the International Law of the Sea system and, more specifically, on the basis of the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The interest of suppressing migrant smuggling at sea is to be considered as part of state sovereignty and the state’s right to migrant control. This combat against criminal activity at sea is a balance between state security interest and ensuring the safety of migrants on board suspected vessels. There are a rising number of voluntary rescue organisations at sea that face trials, suspected of aiding migrant smugglers. This is a problematic fact against the big need for search and rescue operations. Despite the perilous nature of sea-crossings, maritime migration is a common phenomenon. Betweenyear 2014 and year 2020 there were20 959people reported dead in the Mediterranean Sea. Public international law provides the duty to render assistance at sea. The legal area of maritime rescuealsocoversthe coastal state dutyto promote the establishment and maintenance of adequate and effective search and rescue service. This thesis aims to analysethe conflict between the, within state sovereignty, right to control immigration and the state duty to render assistance at sea. Using aninternational legal perspective, it examines the extent of the state duty of maritime rescue.Furthermore, it examines the regulation concerning migrant smuggling and asks whether the measures taken by states against the smuggling of migrantsat seais in line with international law. The analysis concerns areas within international law of the sea, international refugee law as well as international human rights law. Vital regulations are the principle of non-refoulement and the right to life.The examination shows that the right to life reinforces thestate duty to render assistance at seaand that the principle of non-refoulement collides with extraterritorial migration control. Furthermore, it shows that the criminalisation of voluntary organisations at sea collides with the state duty to promote an effective search and rescue service. In summarythis analysis displaysthat the state interest of combating migrant smuggling wrongfully takes priority over the duty to render assistance and the respect for human rights concerning migrants at sea

No description available.

Areas beyond national jurisdiction or the high seas are vital areas for biodiversity and marine resources in our oceans, yet the protection and conservation of this global resource is insufficient due to absence of international agreement concerning the matter. Therefore, the new Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement was recently agreed upon, with the objective of ensuring protection for these resources.This study endeavours to assess the applicability of Ostrom's and Stern'sprinciples, as the theoretical frameworks for sustainable governance of global commons, on the BBNJ agreement. By employing deductive reasoning, this study compares and contrasts the principles proposed by Ostrom and Stern, using them as lenses to examine the agreement. As a case study, this research investigates the utilization of international agreements as integral components of international law for the governance of shared resources. Conducted as a qualitative desk study, the analysis involved scrutinizing the BBNJ agreement to identify keywords and themes associated with eachprinciple. The study’s findings reveal that Ostrom's and Stern's principles exhibit varying degrees of applicability. Despite sharing certain similarities, they embody distinct foundational approaches, with Stern's principles demonstrating better applicability to the governance of global commons. The study suggests that the BBNJ agreement holds the potential to govern the global commons in a sustainable manner.

Underwater cultural heritage (UCH) sites are unique in how their artifacts and archaeological contexts differ from terrestrial heritage sites, but UNESCO notes that UCH sites in less-actively regulated areas, like international waters, are at a high risk of having their material culture remains destroyed, pillaged, or commercially exploited, especially as technological innovations continue to increase access to the deep sea and its resources. International treaties like UNESCO's 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage demonstrate efforts by the international community to protect UCH, however many maritime states including the U.S. have not signed it out of a concern that the treaty oversteps the international legal framework established by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In order to better understand how UCH is (or is not) protected in international waters around the world, this thesis examines the threats facing UCH in international waters as well as the contemporary legal frameworks designed to protect this cultural heritage. Several solutions aimed at addressing key threats facing UCH in international waters caused by these legal and regulatory systems and which can be taken by the U.S. and international community at large are also proposed. / Master of Arts / Underwater cultural heritage including shipwrecks, sunken port architecture, and even entire sunken cities provide important information about humanity's history of using the world's oceans and seas. Unfortunately, many of these underwater cultural heritage sites are highly at-risk of being accidentally destroyed or pillaged by people who are more interested in selling antiquities than learning about them. This problem is particularly exasperated in international waters, in which no country has the sole right to make or enforce laws to protect these cultural resources. While there are several international laws and treaties designed to protect underwater cultural heritage sites, some countries, including the U.S., have refused to sign them. To better understand why, this thesis discusses the risks facing underwater cultural heritage sites in international waters and the legal options available to help protect them. Several solutions aimed at addressing primary threats facing underwater cultural heritage sites and which the U.S. could adopt are also proposed.

This thesis examines the process applied by international tribunals for delimiting Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf boundaries under international law. Maritime delimitation is governed by articles 74 and 83 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which are customary international law. However, owing to the vagueness of such legal provisions, international tribunals have been developing a standard process for delimiting maritime boundaries. The delimitation process has evolved significantly since the 1969 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in North Sea Continental Shelf. The ICJ re-stated this process in its 2009 Black Sea judgment as being constituted of three stages: first, an equidistance line is provisionally drawn; second, this line is adjusted should relevant circumstances so require; third, the overall equitableness of the boundary is evaluated by assessing the proportionality between the length of the relevant coast and the marine areas appertaining to each state. This thesis analyses each stage of the delimitation process as re-stated in Black Sea. By way of introduction, chapter 1 outlines the relevant legal provisions and the historical evolution of the delimitation process through the jurisprudence of international tribunals. Chapter 2 discusses both the notions of the relevant coast and of the relevant area, and the practical methods for their identification. Since Black Sea, international tribunals have tended to identify the relevant coast and the relevant area prior to establishing a provisional equidistance line. Chapter 3 discusses the issues concerning the drawing of the provisional equidistance line. Chapter 4 examines relevant circumstances and the methods for adjusting an equidistance line. Chapter 5 discusses proportionality. Using doctrinal legal research methodologies, this thesis aims to assess the degree of consistency in the international tribunals’ application of the three-stage delimitation process. It argues that, while great leaps forward have been made since 1969, there is still a number of unresolved issues, in relation to which this thesis endeavours to provide some workable solutions.

This thesis seeks to systematically examine the contributions made by the dispute settlement bodies established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to the development of the law of the sea. The two main research questions to be answered are: (i) what kind of contribution have UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies made to the development of the law of the sea? and (ii) what are the factors that impact the performance of UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies in developing the law of the sea? To that end, Chapter 1 provides a working definition for the concept of 'judicial development of international law' in order to establish a framework for an assessment of the contributions of UNCLOS tribunals. Based on this working definition, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 examine the significance of UNCLOS tribunals' decisions in the development of three main areas of the law of the sea, respectively the law on fisheries, the law on the outer continental shelf and the law on marine environmental protection. Based on the findings of these chapters, Chapter 5 analyses the factors that help explain the contributions of UNCLOS tribunals to the law of the sea as identified in the preceding chapters. These factors include: (i) the jurisdictional scope of UNCLOS tribunals, (ii) the institutional design of UNCLOS, (iii) the interpretative method employed by UNCLOS tribunals in deciding their cases and (iv) the perception that UNCLOS tribunals hold regarding their roles. Chapter 6 concludes by taking stock of the contribution of UNCLOS tribunal in these areas and offering some final observations on the role of UNCLOS tribunals in the development of the law of the sea.