Tarptautinis jūrų teisės tribunolas- įsteigtas 1982 m. Jungtinių Tautų jūrų teisės konvencijos ir yra joje įtvirtinto kompleksiško ginčų sprendimų mechanizmo dalis. Naujos teisminės institucijos atsiradimo tarptautinėje teisėje poreikis analizuojamas pirmajame šio darbo skyriuje, kartu aptariant Tribunolo sudėtį ir struktūrą. Antrajame skyriuje nustatomos Tribunolo kompetencijos ribos. Aptariama Konvencijos privalomųjų ginčų sprendimo procedūrų pasirinkimo laisvė ir valstybių pareiškimų pagal Konvencijos 287 straipsnį turinys. Šioje vietoje atkreipiamas dėmesys į tai, kad bylos Tribunolui dažniausiai perduodamos atskiru šalių susitarimu nepaisant to, kokia privalomoji procedūra turėtų būti taikoma. Todėl faktas, kad Tribunolas nėra pasirinktas kaip privalomoji institucija iš Konvencijos kylančių ginčų sprendimui, neužkerta kelio ginčo nagrinėjimui šioje teisminėje institucijoje. Kitoje skyriaus dalyje analizuojama Tribunolo kompetencija skiriant laikinąsias apsaugos priemones bei sprendžiant sulaikytų laivų ir įgulų paleidimo klausimus. Nagrinėjamos laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių skyrimo sąlygos ir jų taikymas Tribunolo praktikoje. Atskleidžiamas aktyvus Tribunolo vaidmuo skatinant šalis bendradarbiauti. Taip pat apibrėžiama Tribunolo kompetencija spręsti sulaikytų laivų ir jų įgulų paleidimo bylas. Aptariamas laivo nacionalinės priklausomybės klausimas, kuris yra lemiamas Tribunolo jurisdikcijai pagal Konvencijos 292 straipsnį kilti. Toliau darbe kalbama apie Tribunolo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a new court created by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the judicial institution which is an integrate part of dispute resolution mechanism composed in this bilateral agreement. The first section of this paper discusses main reasons for establishing the new Tribunal, the composition of this judicial institution and the structure of it. The competence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the sea is enclosed in the second chapter. Primarily it is analyzing the choice of procedure under Article 287 of the Convention and the declarations of States under this article. At this point, it is noted that only one case, the M/V “Louisa” was instituted before the Tribunal on the basis of such declarations. And nevertheless, the fact that arbitration would be the only mandatory means available to the parties to a dispute, does not prevent them from agreeing to transfer the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. Further it is analyzing the competence of the Tribunal to deal with request for the prescription of provisional measures ant to deal with applications for the prompt release of vessels and crews. The requirement for prima facie jurisdiction and other conditions to be met for the grant of provisional measures are discussed in this paper, along with application of these requirements in Tribunal‘s practice. In this section also jurisdiction and the scope of the procedure under Article 292 of the Convention... [to full text]

Šiame darbe yra analizuojama ginčo sprendimo organų jurisdikcija pagal 1982 m. JT Jūrų Teisės Konvenciją. Ši Konvencija nustato planetos jūrų ir vandenynų naudojimo teisinį rėžimą. Todėl, siekiant suderinti valstybių interesus ir pasiekti kiek įmanomą platesni Konvencijos pripažinimą, Konvencijos nuostatos dėl ginčo sprendimo procedūrų suteikia valstybėms laisvę rinktis pageidaujamas ginčo sprendinio procedūras ir platų spektrą pasirinkimo galimybių. Tačiau dėl šios aplinkybės Konvencijos nuostatos tapo labai sudėtingos ir apibrėžti ginčo sprendimo organų jurisdikciją tapo labai sudėtinga. Pirmiausia, Konvencijos nuostatos įtvirtina ginčo šalių savanoriško ginčo sprendimo prioritetą. Nepasiekus tokio sutarimo, pradeda veikti privalomos ginčo sprendimo procedūros, numatančios įpareigojančius sprendimus. Šiame darbe detaliai išanalizavus ginčo sprendimų procedūras, autorius konstatuoja, kad nors ir galima bendrais bruožais apibrėžti ginčo sprendimo organų jurisdikciją, tačiau tikslaus atsakymo dėl jurisdikcijos negalima pateikti abstrakčiai. Išvada, patvirtinanti darbo tezę yra tokia, kad į klausimą ar konkrečiu atveju atitinkamas teismas ar arbitražas turės jurisdikciją, gali atsakyti tik tas teismas ar arbitražas, išsamiai išnagrinėjęs visas bylos bei su bylos šalimis susijusias aplinkybes. / Present thesis aims to define jurisdiction of dispute settlement forums under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention embodies the regime-building conception for the two thirds of the planet, covered by the seas and oceans. Therefore in order to achieve high number of participating States in the Convention, it provides wide choice of dispute settlement procedures and freedom for the States Parties to choose their preferred means for dispute settlement. However this poses a problem of defining jurisdiction of the dispute settlement forums for the disputes under the Convention. First, it should be noted, the provisions of the Convention reflects the underlying view, that voluntary resolution of disputes are preferred. Where no such resolution has been reached, compulsory procedures, entailing binding decisions comes into play. Although the provisions of the Convention provides the framework to establish jurisdiction of the dispute settlement forum, the question whether the particular forum will have jurisdiction, could not be answered in abstract. Hence the author concludes that final answer whether particular dispute settlement forum under the Convention will have jurisdiction or not could be given only by that forum after thoroughly consideration on the merits of the dispute and legal relations of the dispute parties.

This thesis evaluates the impact of the Canadian 200-mile fisheries zone from biological, economic and social perspectives. The factors and events leading to the 200-mile zone are examined. The Canadian management regime post-extension is described. Canada derived significant benefits from the 200-mile zone including increased management authority over a vast area with major fish resources, the displacement of foreign fisheries, the development of Canadian fisheries in areas and for species not previously utilized by Canada, and the opportunity to rebuild overfished fish stocks. However, various problems and constraints have led to continued fisheries instability. These include: (1) Natural resource variability, (2) The common property nature of the resource and resultant overcapacity, (3) Fluctuations in market conditions, (4) Heavy dependence on the fisheries in isolated coastal communities, and (5) Recurrent conflict among competing users and conflicting objectives for fisheries management. / Despite Canada's abundant marine fishery resources, various combinations of these factors have contributed to a recurrent boom-and-bust pattern in many marine fisheries. Extended jurisdiction did not provide a panacea for the problems of the fisheries sector. Continued periodic fluctuations in Canada's marine fisheries and demands for government assistance can be expected unless viable alternative economic opportunities can be developed in the coastal regions.

One of the central purposes of the international law of the sea is to define various maritime zones, their extent and limits. One of these zones is the continental shelf. The continental shelf in modern international law has two aspects: The continental shelf within 200 nautical miles from the shore of coastal States and the continental shelf beyond that limit. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles shall be submitted by the coastal State to a scientific and technical commission, namely the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commission is responsible for making recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles. If the limits of the shelf established by a coastal State are on the basis of the recommendations, they are final and binding. The establishment of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles has two main features: The establishment of the boundary line between the continental shelf and the international seabed area and the establishment of the boundary between the continental shelf of adjacent or opposite coastal States. Many questions concerning the relationship between these procedures have been left unanswered as well as the relationship between the Commission and international courts and tribunals. This thesis analyses the role of coastal States, the Commission and international courts and tribunals in the establishment of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and the interplay between them. It explores how the various sources of international law have contributed to the establishment of the current legal framework. The thesis explores the differences between the delineation and delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. It demonstrates that the role of the Commission is to curtail extravagant claims to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and protect the territorial scope of the international seabed area. It also shows that the role of international courts and tribunals in this field is essentially the same as their role in other types of disputes. It explains that the establishment of the boundary line between the continental shelf and the international seabed area and the establishment of the boundary between the continental shelf of adjacent or opposite coastal States is a separate process. Furthermore, it clarifies that the three-stage boundary delimitation method is applicable beyond 200 nautical miles. It also displays that no special rule of customary international law has evolved that is solely applicable to delimitations regarding the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. The thesis addresses the interaction of the various mechanisms within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Its main conclusion is that despite the possibility for tension to arise the relationship between the institutions is clear and precise and they together form a coherent system where each separate institution plays its own part in a larger process.

The initial focus of the thesis is on Ireland, a small militarily neutral state, but one with a long tradition of contributing to peacekeeping operations. Despite its significant contribution to peace support operations to date, there is little research on the past and future implications of this for Ireland. This thesis seeks to address some of the key legal and political issues confronting Ireland, and to provide a unique perspective on the dilemmas and problems confronting many small states of the UN in the post cold war era. The thesis uses two case studies, Somalia and Lebanon, to conduct a comparative analysis of traditional peacekeeping and that of peace enforcement The conduct of UN forces in Somalia, and the outcome of the UN mandated operations there, had a profound effect on the willingness of states to support UN peace support operations in the post cold war period. UNOSOM II was one of the most ambitious and controversial multidimensional operations ever mounted by the UN. It reflected the optimism associated with the dawn of a 'new world order' and an effective Security Council. The UN operation in Lebanon (UNIFIL), in contrast, was a less ambitious traditional peacekeeping mission, but it too was controversial and the Force encountered serious difficulties implementing the apparently more straightforward mandate. Both operations show that whatever the nature of a peace support operation, its role and effectiveness is dependent upon support from the Security Council. Without political support and adequate resources, especially at the time of its establishment, a UN force remains at the mercy of the parties to the conflict. Both operations also highlighted serious difficulties that arise in the command and control of UN peace support operations, although the larger more complex UNOSOM II mission presented significantly more serious dilemmas in this regard. These problems are often exacerbated by deficiencies in the municipal laws and domestic political concerns of contributing states. An important distinguishing feature between traditional peacekeeping operations and that of more robust peace enforcement operations is the policy regarding the use of force. Nevertheless, both Lebanon and Somalia presented remarkably similar difficulties regarding devising and adopting appropriate rules of engagement, and the differing interpretations of what action justified the resort to, and the degree of force deemed appropriate in a UN multi-national operation. The thesis seeks to draw lessons from the experiences of UNIFIL and UNOSOM in regard to these and related issues. The matter of the applicability of international humanitarian law to UN forces was also relevant to both sets of operations. Despite the recent adoption of the Convention on the Protection of UN Personnel, and a Secretary-General's bulletin on the applicability of humanitarian law to UN forces, the situation remains unsatisfactory.

Univ., Diss.--Heidelberg, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. 11 - 32.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2007. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references: leaf 317-342.

In my thesis, I investigate the effectiveness of international law in helping to settle territorial disputes. My hypothesis is that international bodies and laws fail to ameliorate territorial conflict because they fail to provide sufficient incentives to overcome political hurdles to resolution. To analyze this topic, I will examine three territorial disputes in Northeast Asia. The three cases in question are all quite longstanding. All three have had ample time and opportunity to be arbitrated or adjudicated by an international body. Yet this has not occurred. I will postulate reasons why they this is the case, using information drawn primarily from scholarly journals, and other reputable sources in the field of political science which are listed in the bibliography herein. I have also reviewed the text of relevant treaties that apply to the nations under examination. While all three of the cases that I describe take place in the same geographic region, one may apply the lessons learned from these three cases more globally because the same root problem that prevents these three Northeast Asian examples from being resolved through international law also exists in other cases—namely insufficient incentive to change the status quo in spite of potential consequences and unwanted concessions.

A l'aube d'un nouveau siècle, la Chine joue un rôle de plus en plus important sur la scène internationale. Elle est devenue un enjeu pour l'équilibre mondial dans tous les domaines, y compris les affaires maritimes. La recherche présente est consacrée à la politique juridique chinoise relative aux affaires maritimes pour éclairer la position de la Chine dans les relations internationales ainsi que ses influences. Le Professeur Wang Tieya commence son cours sur le droit international et la Chine, à la Haye, en 1990, en citant l'art. 9 du statut de la Cour internationale de Justice qui prévoit que les membres de la Cour «assurent dans l'ensemble la représentation des principaux systèmes juridiques du monde ». Selon lui, le droit international lui-même doit être le reflet des différentes civilisations du monde. Il faut toujours prendre en considération les différents systèmes juridiques et ne pas céder à une approche ethnocentrique. Ce n'est pas à travers la seule perspective occidentale que la politique juridique chinoise sera observée. En revanche, notre recherche vise à comparer et, dans les cas nécessaires, confronter les notions occidentales avec les points de vue chinois pour mieux analyser le raisonnement juridique chinois. La politique juridique extérieure d'un Etat définit son attitude à l'égard du droit international, son élaboration, son interprétation et son application. Chaque gouvernement prend des décisions sur l'aspect juridique de ses relations extérieures, en consentant à se lier par un traité international ou en faisant un acte unilatéral. / At the dawn of a new century, China plays an increasingly important internationally. It has become a challenge for the global balance in all areas, including maritime affairs. The present research is devoted to the chinese legal policy on maritime affairs to illumate the position of China in international and influences relations.

This thesis seeks to answer the question of how can insur-gent networks of/networked jihadist violent non-state actors be legally conceptualized, what limits are imposed by international and US domestic law on campaigns against such networks, and do those limits allow for effective and legitimate counter-terrorism? It will employ a basic interdisciplinary research de-sign, as defined by Mathias Siems, which uses a legal research question as a starting point, but relies on insights from other disciplines to reach an informed analysis. The thesis will first establish the insurgent nature of ji-hadist groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State by taking the claim of their desire to re-establish the Caliphate seriously. It will establish that 'jihadist international relations' — as op-posed to the broader notion of Islamic international relations — divide the world into the dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, and the dar al-harb, the territory of war, which are in a perpetual state of war. It will show that the attempts to pursue this in-surgent aim are increasingly carried out by affiliate organiza-tions. It will then move on to address the gap in the legal litera-ture, which relates to the problem inherent in the United States' 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorizes the use of force against al Qaeda and increas-ingly groups connected to it, but does not provide a mechanism to legally conceptualize when such groups are covered by the AUMF. It will put forward a legal framework to conceptualize re-lationships between the al Qaeda and Islamic State core groups and their affiliate and associate organizations by drawing on Is-lamic principles of statehood and by drawing an analogy to es-tablished principles on the responsibility of states and interna-tional organizations for wrongful acts. It will argue that affiliate organizations, through offering an oath of allegiance, become de jure members of the overall network and that attribution of their conduct to the overall network should therefore not de-pend on the level of command and control exercised. Actions of associate groups, on the other hand, should only be attributable to such groups if they exercise overall control. The thesis will then move on to investigate the use of force against affiliate organizations under the jus ad bellum, arguing that such of force is possible in self-defence and with the con-sent of the host state. It will establish that states that become the victim of an armed attack can use force if the host states is unable and unwilling to suppress an imminent armed attack by such groups, and that states can, in certain circumstances, rely on the accumulation of events doctrine, provided that such at-tacks are carried out by members of the same network. It will furthermore argue that the jus ad bellum's necessity require-ment should be understood to mandate non-lethal responses, which the thesis refers to as extraterritorial law enforcement, in certain circumstances. The thesis will then move on to the jus in bello. It will reengage with the idea of a "global" armed conflict frequently invoked by the United States. However, the thesis will argue that such conflicts do not encompass the entire globe, but are, in line with the Tadić decision of the International Criminal Tri-bunal for the Former Yugoslavia, limited to the territory under the control of a party to this conflict. It will then draw heavily on US case law to establish when individuals are part of such organizations, and on principles of the law of armed conflict to establish when strikes against those members are lawful. Finally, it will establish the possibility of extraterritorial law enforcement against such organizations, which refers to extra-territorial operations that have the primary aim of apprehend-ing individuals suspected of unlawful activity, or contribute to such operations, for the purpose of criminal prosecution. It will be stablished that such operations are lawful in self-defence for the purpose of preventing an imminent armed attack and that US law does not put up any significant obstacles for prosecuting individuals brought to the United States in such a manner.