Suchergebnisse

This article proposes a model of anthropocentric ocean connectivity based on the concept of human perspective as location. Within this location, anthropocentrism can be, but is not necessarily, an exclusive or dominant valuation of the human. In fact, conceptions of both anthropocentrism and of ocean connectivity are pluralistic. These and other pluralisms are borne out in this article's content and structure, which takes the form of explorations of anthropocentric connectivity in relation to four specific ocean-related human activities. First, Jan Solski applies understandings of connectivity as "flow" in the context of strategic ocean geopolitics. Second, Iva Parlov analyzes current doctrinal issues and interactions at the international level with respect to the legal regime for places of refuge for ships in need of assistance. Third, Maria Madalena das Neves examines ocean connectivity in the context of transboundary energy trade and market integration, with particular attention to geopolitical and ecological connectivity. Finally, Julia Gaunce proposes that the making and application of transnational rules and standards for ships in polar waters enhances certain connections and disrupts others, to the detriment of oceans and people, and that broadening connectivity especially in respect of Arctic Indigenous people(s) could help address challenges faced by oceans and ocean governance.

The impacts of climate change on marine resources are well known and demand mitigation and adaptation measures in order to protect the ecosystems. This entails more than simply altering management practices; it requires altering goal setting and managing transitions to new ecosystemic conditions. In the European Union, the main legal tool for protection of the marine environment is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Greece, as a member state of the European Union, has transposed the Marine Strategy Framework Directive into its national legal order and has developed legal structures to protect its marine resources from various threats, including climate change.
The present paper aims to present the legal and policy management tools in Greece, relevant to implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and climate change adaptation. For methodological reasons, the paper is divided into two parts: The first part deals with those legal tools that apply to an initial assessment of the environmental quality of Greek marine waters, while the second part analyzes legislative activities pertinent to the design and implementation of programs and measures. The aim of the national legislation is to maintain the ecosystemic integrity of the marine waters of Greece and to preserve the unique characteristics of the aquatic environment with respect to present and future generations. However, the analysis shows that a holistic legal framework demands explicit provisions for climate change impacts, while the existing framework focuses primarily on anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment.

The 2010s was a busy decade for the Northern Sea Route (NSR). It started with the first shipping season to feature the international use of the NSR for commercial purposes, followed by a significant reform of the domestic legal regime, as well as the adoption of the Polar Code. The traffic has gradually picked up, and although the expectations of a significant surge in trans-Arctic navigation have not materialized, the NSR's annual turnover has grown beyond the old records set by the USSR. While the Russian authorities have struggled to find the most optimal means of development of the NSR, the latter has recently been re-marketed as a Polar Silk Road, part of the grand Chinese One Belt One Road initiative. While Russia has been rebuilding its military presence in the Arctic, the French Navy vessel BSAH Rhone unexpectedly navigated through the NSR, inciting strong political, but yet not legal, response. The present article aims to take stock of the last decade, paying primary attention to the Russian State practice in developing, adopting, and enforcing legislation in the NSR. By describing the current status and identifying some of the regulatory trends, the article will draw cautious predictions on the role of the law of the sea in the management of the NSR in the near future.

The Arctic has been home to Indigenous peoples since long before the international legal system of sovereign states came into existence. International law has increasingly recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples, who also have status as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. In northern Canada, the majority of those who live in the Arctic are recognized as Indigenous. However, in northern Russia, a much smaller percentage of the population is identified as Indigenous, as legal recognition is only accorded to groups with a small population size. This article will compare Russian and Canadian approaches to recognition of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights in the Arctic with attention to the implications for Arctic Ocean governance.
The article first introduces international legal instruments of importance to Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Arctic. Then it considers the domestic legal and policy frameworks that define Indigenous rights and interests in Russia and Canada. Despite both states being members of the Arctic Council and parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are many differences in their treatment of Indigenous peoples with implications for Arctic Ocean governance.

Indigenous northerners' rights in the Russian Federation are legally protected at a range of levels (federal, regional, municipal), and by a diversity of types of legal acts (laws, decrees, orders, provisions). Within the complex structure of Russian federalism, the country's regional governments elaborate upon federal laws in diverse ways and at different times. This article explores regional approaches to legislating one law on Indigenous rights, that of "Territory of Traditional Nature-Use" (territoriya traditsionnogo prirodopol'zovaniya) (TTP), identified by Indigenous leaders as the most important legal-territorial designation for protecting Indigenous livelihoods and cultures. While it is well known that legal strategies of the Russian state toward Indigenous territorial rights differ markedly from those of other Circumpolar countries, less appreciated are the ways in which these vary across space within Russia. We assert that the spatial informs the legal, documenting several illustrative approaches that regions have taken in legislating TTPs. In doing so, we demonstrate how a federal law initiative is interpreted and reimagined in place, giving rise to the potential for substantively different spatial outcomes for Indigenous persons and peoples seeking to actualize their rights to territory.

In Russia, there exist legal norms providing for the protection of indigenous small-numbered peoples' rights. Yet, indigenous small-numbered peoples face multiple challenges when it comes to the implementation of their rights. After a brief presentation of the Russian legislation on the rights of indigenous small-numbered peoples, peculiarities of the Russian legal system and impediments to the legal provisions regulating the status of indigenous small-numbered peoples, this article addresses several issues related to the implementation of indigenous small-numbered peoples' rights in Russia today. One of the core issues is the attribution of individual members of indigenous communities to indigenous small-numbered peoples. Such an attribution is still challenging despite the newly adopted amendments to the 30 April 1999 Federal Law N 82-FL: 'On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation'. Another issue is application of the notion 'foreign agent' to individuals and non-commercial organizations. Still another issue is the State's pressure on independent indigenous organizations. The final challenge is the possible impact of amendments to the Constitution approved by popular vote in July 2020 on the rights of indigenous small-numbered peoples.

Climate change has renewed the debate about shipping in the Arctic due to an expected reduction of ice in these sea lanes. Because of the Arctic slowly opening, allowing for more activity, navigational rights for ships have caught the attention of the world once again, including those of warships. Through analysing the navigational regime for warships in the Northwest and Northeast Passages, this article aims to introduce the different rules for navigation and the consequences for maritime operations in the Arctic, including the right to overflight. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides navigational rights for warships and overflight in peace time operations, but the matter of which navigation rules should apply in the passages is under debate. Based on an analysis of the Convention, case law, legal theory and customary law, the article aims to shed light on different interpretations of the legal regimes of navigation in the passages and which rules should apply to warships and overflight in the future.

Piracy has a long history and often arises from legitimization problems, which may cause problems in distinguishing pirates from non-pirates. Piracy can essentially be divided into three epochs: classical piracy, colonial piracy and modern piracy. Classical piracy lasted from 1492 to 1730 and was filling a proto-legal space when Protestants pirates defined the pope's authority, colonial piracy took place in the 18th and 19th century Mediterranean Sea, also backed by religious motives, and modern piracy is a phenomenon of the 21st century where the pirates utilize instable regions for their benefit. Legal, normative and conceptual definitions can be used to differentiate between pirates and non-pirates. L. Pitkaniemi

The distribution of legal authority to protect biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) has been a contentious issue. In practice, main responsibility has been allocated to LOSC, under which a new implementing agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is currently being negotiated. CBD was allocated responsibility for providing scientific information and advice on marine biodiversity, which has resulted in the identification and description of 321 Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) worldwide, within and beyond national jurisdiction. These could provide important scientific backing for a coming BBNJ instrument under LOSC, especially as regards the designation of marine protected areas and the conduct of environmental impact assessments in ABNJ. However, the process of modifying EBSAs and identifying new ones has recently been challenged by the CBD Conference of the Parties, harking back to previous disputes over the legal mandate and thereby threatening the entire mechanism that has been established. In the context of international environmental law and law of the sea, this article discusses the potential importance of EBSAs for the expected BBNJ instrument, using the Central Arctic Ocean EBSA as an example.

On June 29, 2021, the BC Supreme Court issued the verdict of the Yahey v. British Columbia litigation (S151727). For the first time in Canadian legal history, a First Nation Band (BRFN – BlueBerry River First Nation) sued a provincial Government for the cumulative effects of industrial development intertwined with Treaty 8 infringements. The proceeding lasted for six years (2015–2021), with more than 160 days of trials and dozens of hours of affidavits sworn, and it resulted in a ground-breaking verdict. The Court recognised that in authorising industrial development, the Province had been unable to consider and deal with the cumulative impacts that projects had on the traditional lifestyle of BRFN members, besides breaching its obligation to BRFN under Treaty 8.
This comment argues that by recognising that the Province cannot continue to authorise activities that breach Treaty 8 and Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution, the verdict may pave the way to a real implementation of the FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent) in the BC legal framework. The ruling provides that the BC Government and the Band engage in meaningful consultation and negotiation to enforce mechanisms to assess and manage cumulative effects on the BRFN traditional territory. The parties were given six months to negotiate based on the litigation outcomes. On October 7, 2021, a preliminary agreement between the BRFN and the BC Province was signed. Important issues had been addressed throughout the trial. From confidentiality and the duty to consult in good faith to the constitutionality of Court hearing fees and the possibility to obtain other kinds of injunctions until the trial; the outcomes of this litigation may well be considered as a milestone to advance the Canadian legal framework, further recognising essential rights of Canadian Indigenous peoples in terms of Constitutional, social, and environmental justice.

After the Liberian war ended in 2003, national and international actors have been unified behind the battle against sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). While Liberia is still suffering from general violence, SGBV is leading the dark statistics with a wide margin. The problem runs deep in the Liberian society and international actors have had a hard time changing the situation because they do not understand Liberian legal praxis and the local governments suffers from both lack of knowledge and structural problems. Despite meager results the project has been seen as a success. Rape was criminalized in 2005 and the United Nation's Security Council resolution 1325 was implemented, both significantly increasing the rights of women and children. L. Pitkaniemi

The Arctic is one of the largest regions on the globe, and is regarded as a vast storehouse of potential resources, including minerals. Both mining and tourism are rapidly growing economic sectors in the region. While the variety of tourism activities supported and offered is extensive, all of these activities are essentially forms of nature-based tourism.
Land-use conflicts between mining and tourism are likely to emerge when a new mine is opened close to a tourist area, because mining activities may dramatically change the landscape, which is essential for tourism. The impact greatly depends on the location of mining facilities, the physical size of the mining project, the mining processes used, logistics and how well the image of the mine and its end product fits in with the image of the tourist destination. While tourism and the mining industry may benefit from each other, the relationship between a mine and tourism is often asymmetrically counterproductive; where such a relationship exists, a need for regulation arises.
In this article, we assess the legal means available for resolving conflicts between the mining and tourism industries and discuss possibilities to improve these means. The two key regulatory instruments for governing such conflicts are land-use planning and mining permit processes. We illustrate the nature of conflicts and various decision-making procedures with reference to the Finnish legal framework and a case study on an ongoing mining project in the town of Kolari.