Statsvitere fra London
In: Stat & styring, Band 26, Heft 4, S. 21-22
ISSN: 0809-750X
2849 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Stat & styring, Band 26, Heft 4, S. 21-22
ISSN: 0809-750X
In: CORE working paper 1995,7
In: Arctic review on law and politics, Band 10, S. 130-134
ISSN: 2387-4562
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.
In: Filosofiske problemer 42
In: Arctic review on law and politics, Band 13, S. 393-406
ISSN: 2387-4562
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.
In: Socialforskningsinstituttet 01,14
In: SFAHs skriftserie 52
In: CORE arbejdspapirer 1995,1
In: Internasjonal politikk, Band 65, Heft 4, S. 149-150
ISSN: 0020-577X
In: Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidskrift: The Nordic journal of cultural policy, Band 18, Heft 2, S. 162-181
ISSN: 2000-8325
In: Artikler fra Statistisk Sentralbyrå 37