Suchergebnisse

During the decolonization period, the order of the ocean changed as remarkably as that of land. Yet, the developments in the law of the sea usually receive less prominent consideration. In this short essay, I examine firstly the ways in which literatures in history and international law engage with the sea, and the changes it underwent during decolonization. Secondly, with the understanding that the law of the sea consolidated an extractive imaginary of the ocean, I suggest that the making of this law nevertheless offers insights into the contingencies and counter-currents of the decolonization moment. Among other things it reveals fluid political geographies, alternative models within extractivism, and divergent understandings of epistemic community. Their flickering and foreclosures are well worth further study; particularly as unsettling our understandings of oceanic lines becomes necessary in the present times.

Abstract
In this article, I argue for a critical recognition of the law of the sea, as it developed from the post-war period, as fostering a 'grab' of the ocean floor via national jurisdiction and international administration. I discuss why we should view what might be discussed otherwise as an 'enclosure' or 'incorporation' of the ocean floor within the state system as its grab. I then trace the grounds on which the ocean was brought within national and international regimes: the ocean floor's geography and economic value. Both were asserted as givens – that is, as purely factual, but they were, in fact, reified through law. The article thus calls attention to the law's constitutive effects. I examine the making of this law, showing that law-making by governments was influenced by acts of representation and narrative creation by many non-state actors. It was informed by both economic and non-economic influences, including political solidarity and suspicion, and parochial as well as cosmopolitan urges. Moreover, the law did not develop gradually or consistently. In exploring its development, I bring into focus the role played by one influential group of actors – international lawyers themselves.

On May 18, 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) granted provisional measures in the Jadhav Case brought by India against Pakistan. This unremarkable order is in line with the Court's ordinary approach to requests for interim relief in death penalty cases. The Court ordered Pakistan to stay the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national, pending a final decision in the proceedings instituted by India. It reiterated that orders on provisional measures are binding on the parties to whom they are addressed.

The International Court of Justice (Court or ICJ) delivered three judgments in 2015. The first, delivered on February 3, 2015, determines claims of genocide made by Croatia and Serbia against each other. The second, delivered on September 24, 2015, addresses Chile's preliminary objection in a case brought against it by Bolivia, which asserted that Chile had violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith to secure Bolivia's sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The third, delivered on December 16, 2015, concerns the joined cases brought by Costa Rica and Nicaragua, each party alleging territorial violations and transboundary environmental harms by the other. This review highlights notable points of interest in the judgments and draws attention to particular insights and critiques afforded by the individual opinions that accompany each judgment.