Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article responds to Cedric Ryngaert's commentary on the treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction in the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. With respect to prescriptive jurisdiction, the article explains that the Restatement (Fourth) has not abandoned reasonableness as a rule of customary international law, although its 'genuine connection' requirement differs from the interest-balancing approach of the Restatement (Third). With respect to adjudicative jurisdiction, the article explains that the Restatement does not exclude the possibility of limits under customary international law but simply finds that no such limits currently exist, apart from the rules on foreign sovereign immunity. In each case, the Restatement reflects a modest approach to the customary international law of jurisdiction that insists on state practice and opinio juris.

1. The Mediterranean and Adriatic as enclosed or semi-enclosed seas -- 2. Development of the concept of enclosed or semi-enclosed seas at UNCLOS III and its reflection in the contemporary law of the sea -- 3. Extension of coastal State jurisdiction in the Mediterranean : an Adriatic and EU perspective -- 4. Delimitation of maritime boundaries in the (Eastern) Adriatic Sea : border bays, uti possidetis and an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea -- 5. Present and future co-operation of Adriatic states : has Part IX of UNCLOS been implemented in the Adriatic? -- 6. Current state and possible way forward.