Suchergebnisse

This lex ferenda article examines EU efforts to change the criticized and now-repealed 2002 ''topdown'' management regulation with its discard system, vessel decommissioning, fishing effort management, and quota allocations. The 2013 regulation's objective is to remedy the Common Fisheries Policy's ''five structural failings.'' Unfortunately, the new regulations have failed toimprove the situation. Political obstruction, lax enforcement, transitional costs, and the weight of the status quo hamper future amendments.(Published: 6 November 2015)Citation: P. Ørebech. ''''Getting It Right'': The Birth of aNew EUCommon Fishery Policy? – Legislative and Legal Perspectives on the Annulling of the ''Five Structural Failings''''. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2015, pp. 111–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v6.93

This lex ferenda article examines EU efforts to change the criticized and now-repealed 2002 ''topdown'' management regulation with its discard system, vessel decommissioning, fishing effort management, and quota allocations. The 2013 regulation's objective is to remedy the Common Fisheries Policy's ''five structural failings.'' Unfortunately, the new regulations have failed toimprove the situation. Political obstruction, lax enforcement, transitional costs, and the weight of the status quo hamper future amendments.(Published: 6 November 2015)Citation: P. Ørebech. ''''Getting It Right'': The Birth of aNew EUCommon Fishery Policy? – Legislative and Legal Perspectives on the Annulling of the ''Five Structural Failings''''. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2015, pp. 111–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v6.93

Journal home page at https://msupress.com/en/catalogue/magazines/politika-en/1444/ . ; Introduction. This is an article on whether Crimea's declaration of independence is illegal or not. Is it contradictory to international law? My working hypothesis is that "people's" right to selfdetermination and selfgovernment are part of its "residual rights". Referendum confirms the authenticity of the popular will; declaring independence. The main topic is whether remedial secession is contrary to international law. Materials and methods. The legal basis are the Articles 1.2, 55, 73 and 76 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and the practice of the International Court of justice in the Hague confirming the since ancient times "general principles of law". Discussion. "Peoples" benefitting from principle of sovereignty and unilateral secession from other states do include diverse amalgamated groups, i.e. territory inhabited by different ethnic, linguistic and religious residents. A wide range of cases illustrates this, i.e. practice of Lithuania, Croatia, Kosovo etc. Thus, a mixed multicultural or ethnical group at a defined territory is a people. Results of the study. Therefore, the question arises whether the Crimea elected representatives declared independence, confirmed by referendum, contradicts international law. This is made evident by the cases of Armenia, Bangladesh and Kosovo, while the former is acknowledged by the international societies of states, the latter is also confirmed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. However, it does not require independence in international recognition de facto or de jure ("acting declaring political realities"). Another objection is that there is no provision for a declaration of independence. As stated by the ICJ, this cannot be justified: "Thus, the sphere of operation of the principle of territorial integrity is limited to the sphere of relations between states" [1, p. 437]. Conclusion. Thus, a geographically defined mixed multicultural or ethnic group declaring independence from its mother country, is a people that lawfully is practicing its residual rights. The Serbian constitutional rule of territorial integrity did not prevent the Kosovar Albanian population from seceding from Serbia.

Sovereignty acquired by occupation entails "recognize[d] title based on discovery," "a reasonable period [of] … effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered" and "the continuous and peaceful display of State authority." Only terra nullius is subject to occupation. A territory inhabited by indigenous groups that sustain social and political organization may impede an occupying power because the terra nullius requirement fails. While sovereignty over thinly populated areas are often lax, case law requires less public involvement in these sparsely inhabited areas. This study reveals that the Dano-Norwegian Kings regarded the Inuit as "our subjects." The Kings' pretention of absolutum dominium and jurisdiction involved both the Norse and Inuit ethnic groups and "bygð ok ubygð" (settled and unsettled) land. The exodus of the Norse peoples in 1450 AD for 200 years did not undermine the acquired sovereignty of the Dano-Norwegian Crown, which as a result, spoiled the 1931 Norwegian pretentions to legally occupy East-Greenland. Denmark's triumph in the 1933-East Greenland case resulted from a "zero-sum principle." More than a 100 years earlier, the Danish Kingdom lost a succession of countries and dependencies. The 1814 Kiel Treaty transferred mainland Norway to Sweden, but explicitly states that none of the ancient Norwegian dependencies, Greenland, Iceland and Faroe Islands would follow suit. Thus, these territories remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark.(Published: May 2016)Citation: P. T. Ørebech. "Terra nullius, Inuit Habitation and Norse Occupation – With Special Emphasis on the 1933 East Greenland Case." Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2016, pp. 20–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v7.262

Sovereignty acquired by occupation entails "recognize[d] title based on discovery," "a reasonable period [of] … effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered" and "the continuous and peaceful display of State authority." Only terra nullius is subject to occupation. A territory inhabited by indigenous groups that sustain social and political organization may impede an occupying power because the terra nullius requirement fails. While sovereignty over thinly populated areas are often lax, case law requires less public involvement in these sparsely inhabited areas. This study reveals that the Dano-Norwegian Kings regarded the Inuit as "our subjects." The Kings' pretention of absolutum dominium and jurisdiction involved both the Norse and Inuit ethnic groups and "bygð ok ubygð" (settled and unsettled) land. The exodus of the Norse peoples in 1450 AD for 200 years did not undermine the acquired sovereignty of the Dano-Norwegian Crown, which as a result, spoiled the 1931 Norwegian pretentions to legally occupy East-Greenland. Denmark's triumph in the 1933-East Greenland case resulted from a "zero-sum principle." More than a 100 years earlier, the Danish Kingdom lost a succession of countries and dependencies. The 1814 Kiel Treaty transferred mainland Norway to Sweden, but explicitly states that none of the ancient Norwegian dependencies, Greenland, Iceland and Faroe Islands would follow suit. Thus, these territories remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Sovereignty acquired by occupation entails "recognize[d] title based on discovery," "a reasonable period [of] … effective occupation of the region claimed to be discovered" and "the continuous and peaceful display of State authority." Only terra nullius is subject to occupation. A territory inhabited by indigenous groups that sustain social and political organization may impede an occupying power because the terra nullius requirement fails. While sovereignty over thinly populated areas are often lax, case law requires less public involvement in these sparsely inhabited areas. This study reveals that the Dano-Norwegian Kings regarded the Inuit as "our subjects." The Kings' pretention of absolutum dominium and jurisdiction involved both the Norse and Inuit ethnic groups and "bygð ok ubygð" (settled and unsettled) land. The exodus of the Norse peoples in 1450 AD for 200 years did not undermine the acquired sovereignty of the Dano-Norwegian Crown, which as a result, spoiled the 1931 Norwegian pretentions to legally occupy East-Greenland. Denmark's triumph in the 1933-East Greenland case resulted from a "zero-sum principle." More than a 100 years earlier, the Danish Kingdom lost a succession of countries and dependencies. The 1814 Kiel Treaty transferred mainland Norway to Sweden, but explicitly states that none of the ancient Norwegian dependencies, Greenland, Iceland and Faroe Islands would follow suit. Thus, these territories remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark.(Published: May 2016)Citation: P. T. Ørebech. "Terra nullius, Inuit Habitation and Norse Occupation – With Special Emphasis on the 1933 East Greenland Case." Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2016, pp. 20–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v7.262

Published version. Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v6.93 . >. License in accordance with the journal's policy - CC-BY-NC . ; This lex ferenda article examines EU efforts to change the criticized and now-repealed 2002 "top-down" management regulation with its discard system, vessel decommissioning, fishing effort management, and quota allocations. The 2013 regulation's objective is to remedy the Common Fisheries Policy's "five structural failings." Unfortunately, the new regulations have failed to improve the situation. Political obstruction, lax enforcement, transitional costs, and the weight of the status quo hamper future amendments.