The title of this diploma thesis is "Provisional Measure in International Procedural Law". The purpose of provisional measures is a preservation of the rights of each party pending the settlement of the dispute which means pending the definitive decision in the case. It helps to protect the object of the litigation and to maintain in its state as it existed on the initiation of the proceedings. Furthermore, the function is a preservation of the integrity of the final judgment and the prevention of violent self-help. I chose the issue of provisional measures as a topic of my diploma thesis because it is an essential instrument to enable any international court or tribunal to perform its functions. The aim of the thesis is to analyze law containing provisions relating to order of provisional measures and practice of particular international courts and tribunals. The diploma thesis is divided into five chapters. First chapter defines provisional measure and explains its using in International Procedural Law. Second chapter focuses on the exercise of provisional measures in international arbitration especially in respect to proceedings before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. On the other hand, third part deals with proceeding concerning provisional measures before two...

Le régime juridique relatif à la conservation de la biodiversité dans les zones maritimes internationales est actuellement au cœur des discussions entre États au sein des Nations Unies. En effet, la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, véritable «Constitution des océans», ne permet pas d’assurer une conservation effective de la biodiversité dans la Zone et en haute mer. En 1982, lorsqu’elle a été adoptée, la notion de «biodiversité» n’existait pas encore, la Convention s’y référant alors uniquement de manière indirecte. Certaines ressources comme les ressources génétiques marines ne sont ainsi pas couvertes par la Convention, de même que certaines activités, ou outils de protection tels que les aires marines protégées. De plus, la division des océans en différentes zones aux régimes juridiques distincts et fragmentés ne permet pas aux États de mettre en œuvre leurs obligations conventionnelles de manière efficace. L’adoption d’un nouvel accord de mise en œuvre de la Convention dans le cadre des Nations Unies pourrait permettre, dans une certaine mesure, de pallier ces diverses insuffisances. Cependant, l’issue des négociations reste encore incertaine. Finalement, il conviendra d’observer que seule une approche plus globale, fondée sur la reconnaissance de l’existence d’une obligation générale de conservation de la biodiversité dans les zones maritimes internationales, pourrait permettre de dépasser les limites inhérentes à une approche exclusivement spatiale de la conservation de la biodiversité dans des espaces communs à tous les États, aux régimes distincts voire opposés. / Marine biodiversity conservation beyond national jurisdiction is currently subject of discussions in the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the «Constitution of the Oceans», is not sufficient to protect marine biodiversity efficiently, in the high seas and the Area. In 1982, the word «biodiversity» did not exist yet, so the Convention only refers to marine pollution or biological resources conservation or management. Some resources, as marine genetic resources, are not covered by the Convention, as well as certain activities or conservation and management tools like marine protected areas. The division of the oceans in different maritime zones, moreover, with distinct and fragmented legal regimes, does not allow States to accomplish their conventional obligations dealing with biodiversity conservation. The adoption of a new implementing agreement related to the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea and dealing with marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use beyond national jurisdiction would clearly improve the cur-rent regime. However, such an agreement could turn not being enough toward this objective, and the achievement of the process of negotiation remains uncertain. Finally, it appears necessary to build a more global approach, resting on the identification of an international general obligation of conservation of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Such a global approach helps to overcome the limits of the actual regime of conservation, which is centered on a spatial approach of marine biodiversity conservation in common spaces, having opposed legal regimes.

Bien que ni le crime de piraterie maritime ni sa répression ne soient récents, la résurgence de cette forme de criminalité séculaire mais renouvelée la présente sous des aspects inédits, nécessitant la réadaptation de l’arsenal juridique la régissant à sa réalité nouvelle. Son régime traditionnel dérogatoire aux règles classiques du droit de la mer et aux règles de compétence et de juridiction, a pu ainsi s’étoffer par de nouvelles règles intégrant et reflétant les modes contemporains de production normative de la société internationale, ainsi que l’action des structures et acteurs non-étatiques. N’étant cependant pas un problème juridique stricto sensu mais aussi bien le reflet d’une situation présentant des problématiques structurelles plus générales, il demeure évident que la lutte plus durable contre la piraterie nécessite l’adoption d’une approche « globale » ou « holistique », associant à court et à moyen termes un point de vue sécuritaire et judiciaire mais visant également et surtout, une sortie de crise pérenne allant au-delà de l’endiguement de cette menace transnationale. / Neither the crime of piracy nor its repression are recent. The upsurge of this ancient form of criminality underlines new aspects which call the readaptation of the legal rules governing its repression. In addition to its traditional regime, new rules were consequently developped, reflecting contemporary modes of normative production and incorporating the action of non-State structures and actors. Because piracy is not exclusively a legal issue but rather encompasses several broader structural problematics, the fight against piracy requires on the other hand a global and comprehensive approach. This approach associates short-term security and judicial aspects, as well as long-term strategies going beyong simply containing piracy as a transnational threat to maritime security to ensure further stability.

Depuis la création de l'Union soviétique jusqu'à sa dissolution, la mer Caspienne appartenait à l'Iran et à l'URSS, qui constituaient ses deux seuls États riverains. Ces derniers avaient convenu de gérer la Caspienne «en commun », selon un régime de condominium, dans deux accords bilatéraux signés en 1921 et 1940. Cependant, après le démembrement de l'Union soviétique en 1991, trois nouveaux États indépendants et riverains de la Caspienne (1'Azerbaïdjan, le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan) se sont ajoutés à l'équation, et ont exigé une révision du régime juridique conventionnel en vigueur. Ainsi, des négociations multilatérales ont été entamées, lesquelles ont mis en relief plusieurs questions juridiques faisant l'objet d'interprétation divergente: Le régime juridique conventionnel de 1921 et de 1940 (établissant une gestion en commun) est-il toujours valable dans la nouvelle conjoncture? Les nouveaux États riverains successeurs de l'Union soviétique sont-ils tenus de respecter les engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran quant à la Caspienne? Quel est l'ordre juridique applicable à la mer Caspienne? Serait-ce le droit de la mer (UNCLOS) ou le droit des traités? La notion de rebus sic stantibus - soit le « changement fondamental de circonstances» - aurait-elle pour effet l'annulation des traités de 1921 et de 1940? Les divisions administratives internes effectuées en 1970 par l'URSS pour délimiter la mer sont-elles valides aujourd'hui, en tant que frontières maritimes? Dans la présente recherche, nous prendrons position en faveur de la validité du régime juridique établi par les traités de 1921 et de 1940 et nous soutiendrons la position des États qui revendiquent la transmission des engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran aux nouveaux États riverains. Pour cela nous effectuerons une étude complète de la situation juridique de la mer Caspienne en droit international et traiterons chacune des questions mentionnées ci-dessus. Le droit des traités, le droit de la succession d'États, la Convention des Nations Unies du droit de la mer de 1982, la doctrine, la jurisprudence de la C.I.J et les positions des États riverains de la Caspienne à l'ONU constituent nos sources pour l'analyse détaillée de cette situation. / From the creation of the Soviet Union to its dissolution, the Caspian Sea belonged to Iran and the USSR, which were its only two littoral States. The Caspian was, during this period, governed by two bilateral agreements signed in 1921 and 1940, in which the two States had agreed to “jointly” manage the Sea. However, after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 gave birth to three newly independent States (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) with coast lines along the Caspian Sea, these three new actors demanded with insistence that the existing treaty-based regime be revised. During the course of the ensuing negotiations, several legal questions have been raised: Is the treaty-based legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties still valid in the new regional configuration? Are the newly independent States, successors to the USSR, obliged to respect the former Union's legal obligations towards Iran? If not, what is the appropriate legal regime applicable to the Caspian? Is it the law of the Sea (as defined mostly in the UNCLOS) or the law of treaties? Considering the new regional configuration, does the concept of rebus sic stantibus - or the fundamental change of circumstances - invalidate the 1921 and 1940 treaties? Will the internal administrative divisions established in 1970 by the former Soviet Union with regards to the Caspian become - de jure - the new international maritime frontiers? In this thesis, we argue in favour of the validity of the legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties and we support the position of those States which assert the transmissibility of the obligations of the former Union to the newly independent littoral States. In doing so, we will provide a complete analysis of the legal dilemma at hand and suggest appropriate analytical answers to the aforementioned questions. The law of treaties, the law of the succession of States, the 1982 United Nations' Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), doctrinal commentaries, case law of the I.C.J, and official U.N documents revealing the positions of each littoral States will be thoroughly conversed in this regard.

Didėjantis tarptautinis bendradarbiavimas jūros aplinkos apsaugos srityje skatina intensyvesnį duomenų apie jūros aplinką rinkimą bei palankesnių sąlygų sudarymą MJT vykdymui. Šiame darbe siekta išanalizuoti MJT reguliavimą atskirose jūros erdvėse bei įvertinti Baltijos jūros šalių praktiką ir reglamentavimo trūkumus. Buvo išanalizuota 1982 m. Jungtinių Tautų jūrų teisės konvencija, ypač nuostatos susijusios su MJT, Helsinkio komisijos rekomendacijos, papildančios MJT teisinį režimą, apžvelgti Baltijos jūros valstybių, įskaitant Lietuvos, norminiai aktai. Darbe išanalizuotos MJT charakteristikos, Jūrų teisės konvencijoje naudojamos tyrimų sąvokos, pagrindiniai MJT reguliavimo principai, MJT praktika Baltijos jūros šalyse bei MJT ir jų teisinio reguliavimo svarba ES mastu. Tyrimų rezultatai parodė, kad Baltijos šalyse vis dėlto egzistuoja nemažai trūkumų MJT reglamentavime, ypač leidimų išdavimo procedūrose. / Growing international cooperation in marine protection field intensifies marine data collection and creation of more favourable conditions for marine scientific research activities. This scientific work analyses MSR regulation in separate maritime zones and assesses Baltic States practice and gaps in regulation. UNCLOS, especially provisions related to MSR, recommendation of HELCOM that complements legal regulation of MSR, Baltic States’ and Lithuanian national legal instruments were taken into account. Work presents MSR characteristics, research definitions which are used in Convention, the main MSR regulation principles, Baltic States practice regarding MSR and interest by EU on importance of legal regulation. Results of analysis have showed the existing gaps in MSR regulation in Baltic States, especially within permits issuing procedures.

Marine scientific research has not lost any of its significance for the world of today and might become even more important for the future as the knowledge in this area will be crucial for management decisions in most areas of human life. Lithuania being the coastal state should be strongly motivated to create favourable conditions for carrying out MSR. The provisions of Part XIII, 1982 UNCLOS, set out specific rights and obligations for coastal and researching States and provide guidelines on how these rights and obligations should be implemented through negotiated access by foreign research vessels into the maritime zones under coastal State sovereign rights and jurisdiction. However, there is no evidence of successful UNCLOS implementation into national law of the Republic of Lithuania. The MSR regime remains nominal for lack of practical implementation. Though the UNCLOS is considered to represent the predominant international MSR regime, there are still provisions requiring a liberal interpretation, which could be enabled both by States enacting appropriate formulations and procedures in their national legislation and by commissions and international organizations developing guidelines and standardized procedures. The study has been structured in three parts which are further outlined in chapters representing the most relevant issues of the topic under discussion. Part 1 explores the historical development of marine science regulation indicating the origin and... [to full text]

L'exploitation des ressources énergétiques et minérales terrestres rencontre des limites face à l'augmentation rapide de la population mondiale. Ce n'est qu'après la seconde guerre mondiale que les États ont compris qu'ils devaient maîtriser l'océan pour pouvoir en extraire ses ressources. 1982 marque l'adoption de la Convention des Nations-Unies sur le droit de la mer. L'espace maritime fut alors découpé en zones, sur lesquelles les États côtiers avaient le plus souvent des droits. Ce découpage permettait une meilleure exploitation des ressources maritimes. Ainsi, en mer territoriale, les États pouvaient mettre en place des systèmes de production d'électricité à partir de sources renouvelables. Plus loin, dans la zone économique exclusive, les États peuvent autoriser l'exploration et l'exploitation des hydrocarbures. Enfin, sur le plateau continental, l'évolution de la technologie nous permettra bientôt d'aller exploiter les ressources minérales marines. La question centrale qui se pose est de savoir s'il est possible d'exploiter ces ressources de façon durable sans détruire l'environnement marin. La protection de l'environnement ne peut exister sans un droit fort et appliqué. Il doit constituer un rempart contre les agissements d'entreprises ou d’États peu soucieux de l'impact à long terme de leurs actions. L'Océan, immense, aux fonds invisibles et mystérieux, est vulnérable. Sa protection ne pourra avoir lieu que lorsque le grand public, les États et les entreprises, auront compris son importance pour la survie de l'Humanité. C'est le devoir des hommes et des femmes de droit de rendre cette protection effective. / The exploitation of terrestrial energy and mineral resources is limited by the rapid increase of the world's population. It was only after the Second World War that States realised that they had to control the ocean in order to extract its resources. 1982 marks the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The maritime are: was then divided into zones, over which coastal States most often had rights. This division allowed for a better exploitation of maritime resources. In the territorial sea, for example, States could set up electricity production systems from renewable sources. Further, in the exclusive economic zone, States could allow the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Finally, on the continental shelf, the evolution of technology will soon allow us to exploit marine mineral resources. The central question is whether it is possible to exploit these resources in a sustainable way without destroying the marine environment. The protection of the environment cannot exist without a strong and applied legislation. It must be a bulwark against the actions of companies or States that have little regard for the long-term impact of their actions. The ocean, immense, with invisible and mysterious bottoms, is vulnerable. Its protection can only take place when the general public, States and companies understand its importance for the survival of Humanity. It is the duty of the men and women of law to render this protection effective.

This Master's thesis is focusing on why the United States of America never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is analysing the prevailing arguments which were used in 1982, which led to President Ronald Reagan never ratifying the Convention. As well as why the same thing happened in 1994 when the United Nations agreed on an Update to the Convention. Then the thesis is focusing on crucial parts of the Convention, which are part of the arguments for or against the ratification of the Convention, as well as those which have a great influence on the American approach to the high seas. Furthermore, this thesis is trying to offer a current insight into the problematic of why the United States still did not ratify the Convention, despite the fact that they used the Convention as an explanation why they patron the high seas as well as the right of innocent passage. At the same time, the findings are then looked at from the perspective of the South China Sea, which is a region the United States monitor. This last part is attempting to do several things. First, it is explaining the issue of the South China Sea and the interest of the United States in it. Then it is looking at the way by which the United States try to promote their interests in the region on how the fact them...

国境衝突事件において、そこで用いられる"use of force"が法執行活動の実力行使なのか、国連憲章2条4項の意味における武力の行使なのかに注目し、その接際部付近にある判例及び国家実行を分析した論文である。 / The principal aim of this thesis is that while noting they should distinguish ones of LAW ENFORCEMENT and ones of THE USE OF FORCE REFERED TO THE UN CHARTER to use a "use of force" in frontier incidents, it is to analysis jurisprudence and state practices near the connection between the two concepts. / 博士(法学) / Doctor of Laws / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University

No description available.