Search results

On October 3, 2018, the so-called "Arctic Five plus Five" concluded the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA, CAOF Agreement or Ilulissat Agreement). The CAOFA establishes a precautionary framework for the regulation of fisheries in the high seas of the central Arctic Ocean (CAO), including a temporary moratorium on unregulated commercial fishing. The purpose of this debate article is not to discuss the CAOFA's provisions on fisheries as such, but to take a look at a number of interesting and novel provisions concerning the interests of indigenous and local communities, particularly with respect to incorporation of indigenous and local knowledge into science-based fisheries management in the CAO.

Russia was the first Arctic coastal state to make an official submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in 2001. The purpose of Russia's submission was the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean in accordance with UNCLOS Article 76. The area claimed by Russia is a large portion of the seabed extending even to the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Canada. However, Russia's actions regarding delineation in the Arctic Ocean have led to criticism from several Russian experts in the field of international law. This paper is a response to a series of articles by Ivan Zhudro and Alexander Vylegzhanin. It argues against their assertion that Russia and the other Arctic states could have established the outer limits of their continental shelf in the absence of CLCS recommendations through the delimitation procedure in accordance with UNCLOS Article 83. The article rejects the argument that during the delimitation the Arctic states could have used meridian lines (sectors) to exclude the existence of an international seabed area in the Central Arctic Ocean. The author challenges the position that the result of delineation under UNCLOS Article 76 would not be fair since the US has not ratified UNCLOS.

Die Autoren dieses Bandes beschäftigen sich mit Geschichte, Politik und Europäischer Integration derjenigen Staaten, die einst dem Wahrschauer Pakt angehörten. In den Beiträgen, die auf einem Kolloquium der Fakultät für Europastudien der Universität Klausenburg basieren, wird insbesondere das Verhältnis zu Deutschland und der EU aufgegriffen

A review essay on books by (1) Kenneth J. Campbell, A Tale of Two Quagmires. Iraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War (Boulder & London: Paradigm, 2007); & (2) Mel Gurtov, Superpower on Crusade. The Bush Doctrine in US Foreign Policy (Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner, 2006).

A review essay on books by (1) Mai'a K. Davis Cross, The European Diplomatic Corps. Diplomats and International Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); (2) Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat: Dispatches from an Unnaccountable Elite (London: Hurst & Co., 2007); (3) Brian Hocking and David Spence [Eds], Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) & (4) Graham Ziegner [Ed], British Diplomacy: Foreign Secretaries Reflect (London: Politico's, 2007).

A review essay on books by (1) Neill Nugent (Ed), European Union Enlargement (Basingtoke, UK: Palgrave, 2004); (2) Karen E. Smith, European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World (Cambridge: Polity, 2003); & (3) Timothy Garton Ash, Free World. Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time (London: Allen Lane, 2004). Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by (1) Ben Tonra & Thomas Christiansen, Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy (Manchester, UK: Manchester U Press, 2004); (2) Walter Carlsnaes, Helene Sjursen, & Brian White (Eds), Contemporary European Foreign Policy (London: Sage, 2004); & (3) Karl Von Wogau (Ed), The Path to European Defence (Antwerpen, Belgium: Maklu, 2004). 27 References. Adapted from the source document.