Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Working Paper Publishing Institution The Goettingen Journal of International Law

1. The Many Facets of EEZ Fisheries Disputes and their Resolution under UNCLOS

Author:
Natalie Klein
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The core question being posed for this symposium was whether the ‘exception swallows the rule’ in relation to disputes concerning fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This question emerges because of the starting point that disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1 may be subject to compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions – arbitration or adjudication – at the request of a party to the Convention. However, while this ‘rule’ is the start, it is immediately important to point our that there are exceptions and limitations to this proposition; the grant of compulsory jurisdiction in UNCLOS is limited in significant ways.2 The ‘exception’ of concern to this symposium is set out in Article 297(3) of UNCLOS, which excludes fisheries disputes from adjudication or arbitration in the following situation: “the coastal State shall not be obliged to accept the submission to such settlement of any dispute relating to its sovereign rights with respect to the living resources in the exclusive economic zone or their exercise, including its discretionary powers for determining the allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of surpluses to other States and the terms and conditions established in its conservation and management laws and regulations.“3 Pursuant to Article 298(1)(b), States also have the option to exclude ‘disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal’ under Article 297(3).4 The symposium papers that follow seek to improve our understanding of these exceptions to compulsory jurisdiction; do they swallow the ‘rule’ of compulsory jurisdiction? This introduction aims to explain the relevance of the exception (Part B), situate the papers that are part of the symposium (Part C) and indicate what has been jurisprudentially achieved despite the exception (Part D).
Topic:
International Law, Sovereignty, Fishing, and Disputes
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Promoting the Rule of Law Through the Law of Occupation? An Uneasy Relationship

Author:
Andreas Th. Muller
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
A core objective of the law of occupation has traditionally been that the occupying power should heed rule of law standards in the administration of the occupied territory. Less clear is whether it should also seek to inculcate rule of law standards into the local government. To be sure, the pertinent rules of the law of occupation provide for far-reaching competences of the occupying power. However, given the predominately negative, security-focused and conservationist nature of the occupier’s powers, its involvement in the “rule of law transfer” business should not be overrated. While it is true that two major post-1945 developments, i.e. international human rights law and the involvement of the UN Security Council, have contributed toward broadening, recalibrating, and dynamizing the applicable legal standards in situations of occupation, it is nonetheless crucial to resist the temptation to concede, in the name of promoting the rule of law, too much legislative leeway to the occupying power. Thus, the question whether, and to what extent, the law of occupation mandates the occupying power to engage in promoting the rule of law in the occupied territory, calls for a differentiated, and cautious, answer.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, United Nations, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Law as an Antidote? Assessing the Potential of International Health Law Based on the Ebola-Outbreak 2014

Author:
Robert Frau
Publication Date:
11-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The Ebola-Outbreak of 2014 has put international health law in the limelight. This contribution assesses the measures taken by the international community with regard to the outbreak of 2014 with a special focus on the World Health Organization and the UN Security Council. International law provides different actors with means to cooperate in order to fight the outbreak. The list of actors does not include the UN Security Council, which has addressed the outbreak in one resolution under chapter VII without taking any effective legal remedies. In addition, the relevant human right to health has not been addressed by actors, creating leeway in further emergencies.
Topic:
International Cooperation, United Nations, World Health Organization, Ebola, Public Health, and Pandemic
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Opening the Forum to the Others: Is There an Obligation to Take Non-National- Interests Into Account Within National Political and Juridical Decision-Making-Processes?

Author:
Sergio Dellavalle
Publication Date:
08-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Decisions taken in a national forum affect the interests of individuals who, as non-citizens, are excluded from the decision-making-process. In the contemporary world, individuals and social groups can be severely harmed as a result of decisions taken far away from the place where they live and often even without any direct intervention. The issue of the consideration of non- national interests within national decision-making-processes is thus becoming increasingly important. The contribution begins with a brief analysis of the concept of solidarity, as the legal obligation to take into account non-national interests has been labelled in the international law scholarship. In contemporary international law, solidarity is a principle to be interpreted and further developed, rather than a right articulated in firm rules. Yet, from the epistemological point of view the legal system is always based on extra-legal concepts and reasoning. Thus, the reference in legal principles to non-legal arguments should not be regarded as a disadvantage but as a precious contribution to the inescapable link between legal and extra-legal discourses. On the basis of this assumption, the article concentrates on the main extra-legal reasons that have been brought into the debate in order either to deny both the existence of a duty of solidarity within the lex lata as well as the necessity to introduce it de lege ferenda; or, on the contrary, to maintain the paramount importance of such a duty. The analysis will end with some considerations on how the political and juridical forum could be concretely opened up, through proper legal and institutional arrangements, to a deliberation that gives access to the arguments of the others.
Topic:
International Law, National Security, and Legal Theory
Political Geography:
Global Focus