international law of the sea study guide

8/19/2019 International Law of the Sea Study Guide

1/28

ANU COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE STUDY GUIDE

INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA

LAWS2224

Semester 1, 2013

THIS GUIDE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THECOURSE.

PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.


2/28

Page 2

1. Contact Information

Course Convenor

Name: Professor Donald R. Rothwell

Room: 301Telephone: X58948; 0414 546 830

eMail address: [email protected]

Consultation

Times:

By appointment

Tutors – To Be Advised

2. Class Schedule

The course shall be taught via the following means:

Lectures: Thursday 4-7 Law Theatre

Tutorials: Times TBC

Seminars: Thursday 4-7

Note: The lecture in Week 1 will NOT be held on Thursday 21 February. An Introductory class

will be held on Monday, 18 February from 6-7 (Venue – TBC)

3. Texts and Materials

The required textbook for this course is

Donald R. Rothwell and Tim Stephens

International Law of the Sea (Hart, Oxford: 2010)

…available from the Co-Op Bookshop

Other reference worksThe following have been placed on Closed Reserve in the Library:

Baird and Rothwell (eds), Australian Coastal and Marine Law (2011)

Churchill and Lowe, The Law of the sea 3rd (1999)

Lowe and Talmon, The Legal Order of the Oceans: Basic Documents on the Lawof the Sea (2009)

O’Connell The International Law of the Sea 2 vols (1982, 1984)

Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (2012)

Van Dyke and


3/28

Page 3

You may also benefit from consulting:

Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (available electronically via theLibrary) http://www.mpepil.com/

The following journals are also recommended:

Australian Year Book of International Law (AYBIL)

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (IJMCL)

Marine Policy (MP)

Ocean Development and International Law (ODIL)

Ocean Yearbook

A principal source for primary documentation associated with the international law of the sea

is the United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UNDOALOS), the

URL for which is:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

This site provides access to:

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

International Seabed Authority

relevant state practice

4. Preliminary Reading

It is recommended that students consult the following:

Donald R. Rothwell and Tim Stephens., The International Law of the Sea (Hart, 2010)

Chapter 1

Donald R. Rothwell, Stuart Kaye, Afshin Akhtarkhavari and Ruth Davis, International

Law: Cases and Materials with Australian Perspectives (Cambridge University Press:

2010) Chapter 10

5. Course Description and Rationale

The International Law of the Sea is one of the oldest distinctive areas of public international

law with Hugo Grotius being one of its leading publicists. In the Twentieth Century the law of

the sea moved from an area of international law dominated by customary international law, to

one in which treaties gained prominence. This occurred first with the adoption of the four 1958

Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, and then with the 1982 United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This course covers the major areas of the law of the sea as reflected in the provisions of the

1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, additional international conventionsand agreements, and current state practice. Each of the major maritime zones are assessedin addition to a review being undertaken of specific sectoral and related issues. While the

http://www.mpepil.com/http://www.mpepil.com/http://www.mpepil.com/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htmhttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htmhttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htmhttp://www.mpepil.com/


4/28

Page 4

course will primarily deal with international law, where appropriate, reference will be made to Australian practice and relevant Australian legislation dealing with the law of the sea. Thecourse includes discrete assessment of current topical issues in the international law of thesea which will form the focus of consideration during seminars.

6. Course Objectives and Expected Learning Outcomes

The primary objectives of this course are to:

(a) introduce you to the basic concepts, principles and terminology of the international law of

the sea;

(b) ensure you have a clear understanding of the key components and principles of the 1982

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(c) provide you with an overview of the processes by which the international law of the sea is

formed and its most important bodies and institutions;

(d) provide you with insights into the most important decisions of international courts and

tribunals concerning the international law of the sea;

(e) show the relevance of the international law of the sea to current political and social

developments at international, regional and national levels; and

(f) provide you with an introduction to sources and methods of research in the field of the

international law of the sea.

By the conclusion of this course, it is expected that students who have successfully

completed all of the course requirements should be able to:

(a) Define, explain, distinguish and apply the basic concepts and terminology of the

international law of the sea;

(b) Define and distinguish amongst the variety of processes by which the international law of

the sea is formed and the roles played by the most important bodies and institutions;

(c) Define, explain and apply the relevant principles of the international law of the sea found

in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(d) Explain and demonstrate through particular cases the relevance of the international law of

the sea to current political and social developments at international and national levels;

(e) Select and apply a range of approaches in written communication, and apply critical

thinking required to bring about creative solutions to complex law of the sea problems;

and

(f) Use, interpret and apply a wide range of legal and related materials in both on-line and

traditional media from international and national sources.


5/28

Page 5

7. Course Content

Knowledge

The course has been divided into the following topics for review in lectures and seminars:

Lecture/Seminar Topics

A. History of the Law of the Sea and National Maritime Zones

B. Resource Maritime Zones

C. High Seas and Deep Seabed

D. Shipping and Navigation

E. Dispute Resolution

F. Islands and Rocks

G. Maritime Boundaries

H. Archipelagic States

I. Fisheries Management

J. Marine Environmental Protection

K. Maritime Regulation and Enforcement

L. Southern Ocean Law of the Sea Issues

M. Australia and the Law of the Sea

Lecture/Tutorial/Seminar Outline

Week Beginning Format Topic

Week 1

18 February

Lecture (1hr) Introduction

Week 2

25 February

Lecture (3hr) Topic A: History of the Law of the Sea and

National Maritime Zones

Week 3

4 March

Lecture (3hr) Topic B: Resource Maritime Zones

Week 4

11 March

Lecture (3hr)

*Lecture (3hr)

Topic C: High Seas and Deep Seabed

Topic D: Shipping and Navigation

Saturday: 16 March – 10am-1pm [TBC]

Week 5

18 March

Lecture (3hr)

Tutorial

Topic E: Dispute Resolution + Guest Lecturer

Tutorial 1

Week 6

25 March

Tutorial Tutorial 2

Mid-semester

Break

Week 7

15 April

Tutorial

Mid-SemesterExamination

Tutorial 3

Thursday, 18 April


6/28

Page 6

Week 8

22 April

Reading Week

Week 9

29 April

Seminar Seminar Topics F & G

Week 10

6 May

Seminar Seminar Topics H & I

Week 11

13 May

Reading Week

Week 12

20 May

Seminar Seminar Topics J & K

Week 13

27 May

Seminar Seminar Topics L & M

Skills

By the conclusion of the course you should be able to have mastered the basic principles of

the international law of the sea and offer a sound interpretation in its development, and be

capable of analysing and researching complex theoretical and practical issues relating to the

law of the sea, and in particular applying skills of treaty interpretation to the 1982 UN

Convention on the Law of the Sea and related international instruments giving effect to the

law of the sea. You should also be familiar with the use of both on-line and traditional primary

materials relating to the law at the sea at an international, regional and national level.

8. Teaching and Learning Approach and Activities

The approach adopted in this course is one which seeks to blend a range of teaching

components including:

traditional lectures focussing on key concepts and principles (face-to-face or online)

tutorials with an emphasis on problem solving

seminars with an emphasis on advanced learning and discussion of contemporary

controversies

The Learning Activities are as follows:

A. A one hour Introductory lecture in Week 1

B. Lectures in ‘semi-intensive’ mode during Weeks 2-5

a. In the allocated 3 hour lecture blocks from 4-7pm Thursday

b. During an additional 3 hour lecture block scheduled for 10am-1pm on

Saturday, 16 March

C. A series of one hour tutorials in Weeks 5, 6, 7


7/28

Page 7

D. A series of four 3 hours seminars in Weeks 9, 10, 12, and 13

E. Dedicated ‘Reading Weeks’ in Weeks 8 and 11 to undertake research related to final

assessment tasks

The course convenor will aim for different delivery modes in the lectures and the seminars,

with the seminars intentionally designed to be more interactive with high levels of student

engagement in class discussion. Seminars will be heavily reliant on careful and thorough

student preparation.

All lectures in this course will be subject to digital capture in accordance with the University

Code of Practice for Teaching and Learning. Lectures in digital format will be made available

as follows:

Powerpoint Slides: Will be uploaded onto WATTLE and be available all semester;

Audio of Lectures: Will be uploaded onto WATTLE and be available within 24 hours

following delivery of the lecture.

Seminars will not be subject to digital audio capture, though supporting Powerpoint Slides willbe uploaded to WATTLE.

Effective learning in this course will be achieved by a combination of:

1. Reading, analysing and critically reflecting upon the required readings each week- together with recommended and other related written and online materialswhere appropriate;

2. Critically reflecting upon and engaging with the ideas and group discussiongenerated in seminars;

3. Preparing and participating thoughtfully and creatively in the tutorials andseminars, including critically reflecting upon and engaging with the seminarpresentations;

4. Engaging in additional informal discussion with your peers and others about theissues and ideas encountered in this course

Lectures

Lectures in Weeks 1-5 are designed to provide an overview – a roadmap – of the field of the

International Law of the Sea. They will seek to introduce you to some of the core concepts, to

deepen your understanding of issues raised by the primary and secondary materials and

readings, and to place those issues and readings in a wider context. You should not,

however, expect lectures to merely summarise the required readings.

Tutorials

Tutorials in Weeks 5, 6, and 7 will be interactive with a particular focus upon problem solving

in key areas of the law of the sea, with specific focus upon the provisions of the 1982 United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and appreciating relevant state practice giving

effect to the Convention. You should register in ONE Tutorial group via Wattle once

registrations open.

Seminars

The Seminars in Weeks 9, 10, 12 and 13 will be interactive, and provide an opportunity for

critical and collaborative reflection upon the major topics being addressed. You will be


8/28

Page 8

advised in advance of the particular class discussion or activity that is planned so you can

adequately prepare.

9. Study requirements and expectations

International Law of the Sea is a challenging subject, and you need to take every opportunity

to hone your capacity to take more and more responsibility for your own learning. At the least,

this means being diligent about doing all reading from the text, consulting the primary

materials, and making notes before class. In the seminars especially, you are expected to be

well enough prepared to actively and persistently contribute in an informed and thoughtful

way to the unfolding discussion. Your first task is to read – indeed scrutinise - this Course

Study Guide. You should also remember to check the course WATTLE site on a regular

basis.

Effective participation in this course requires a commitment of approximately 10 hours each

week, comprised of attending lectures, tutorials, reading and preparing for seminars. Students

are expected to prepare for both lectures and seminars and to engage critically in the

discussion that takes place there, especially in the seminars. It is, in part, by means ofenhancing your capacity to listen and offer meaningful peer feedback during these

discussions, that you will become better able to hear, distinguish and evaluate the

increasingly nuanced points that go to the heart of key issues in the International Law of the

Sea.

Any extensions for the completion of assessment tasks are to be made consistently with

College policy (for details see the ANU College of Law LLB and JD Handbook 2013). As a

general rule, genuine extensions that are sought well in advance of deadlines will be more

favourably considered.

10. Assessment

There are two pieces of assessment for LAWS 2224: International Law of the Sea. In

summary they are:

Compulsory, non-redeemable mid-semester examination (Value - 50%) scheduled for

Thursday, 18 April

Compulsory, non-redeemable end-of-semester research essay (Value - 50%) to be

submitted on Thursday, 6 June

Failure to complete any one of these assessments will result in an NCN (a non-

complete fail grade). These assessments tasks are closely linked to the course objectives,

and in particular will assess your ability with respect to:

(a) Your understanding of the basic concepts and terminology of the international law of the

sea;

(b) Your understanding of the processes by which the international law of the sea is formed

and the most important bodies and institutions involved in the legal system;

(c) Your understanding of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and its

associated instruments and its relevance to current events;

(d) The application of customary international law and relevant treaties relating to the

international law of the sea to problem-type scenarios faced by governments in dealing

with law of the sea issues;

(e) Your appreciation of some of the various theoretical perspectives on the formation and

operation of the international law of the sea;

(f) Your capacity to work with various sources and methods of research in the field of the

international law of the sea.


9/28

Page 9

The details on these individual items of assessment are as follows:

1. Compulsory, non-redeemable mid-semester examination (Value - 50%) scheduled forThursday, 18 April

The exam, to be held in-class on Thursday, 18 April, will be 1 hour in length, plus 20 minutesreading time and will contain two hypothetical problem-type questions of which you are tocomplete ONE. Both questions are valued at 50% of the final course assessment.

The exam will be open book. You may bring any material into the examination room otherthan ANU Library books and excluded electronic devices. Topics A-E only will be examinable.

Non-attendance at the examination will result in a grade of NCN being recorded, unlessthe student is able to identify that they are entitled to a special examination as per ANUCollege of Law procedures for such examinations.

Marking Criter ia

The exam will assess your basic knowledge of the course up to that point. The exam isdesigned to allow students to demonstrate proficiency in legal analysis and problem-solving. Itwill test a student’s ability to identify and critically analyse the issues raised by the exam.Students must apply controlling and other relevant law (and legal principles) to the facts athand and develop reasoned positions for the conclusions reached.

For the hypothetical problem you are advised to take note of the instructions as to whichpersons you are asked to advise and the substantive matters on which they have asked foradvice. Then you should spot all relevant issues. Finally, address those issues logically, andstructure your answer so that it may easily be understood by the marker. If you need morefacts, indicate what they are.

Marks and FeedbackThe exams will be returned via the Services Office in the week beginning 29 April. Studentswill receive feedback in the form of written comments throughout the paper.

2. Compulsory, non-redeemable research essay (worth 50% of your overall grade)

The essay and detailed instructions will be issued in week 8 of the semester. The researchessay is due by 4 pm on Thursday, 6 June 2013. The word limit is 3,000 words, and the wordlimit will be strictly enforced. Extensions will only be available in circumstances in which aspecial examination would be granted (for details see the ANU College of Law LLB and JDHandbook 2013). Penalties for late submission other than where an extension has beengranted shall be applied consistently with the LLB and JD Handbook 2013.

Failure to complete this form of assessment will result in an NCN for the course.

Format

You will be given the option of selecting a research essay question from Topics F-M in theSeminar Outline for the course, in which you can either:

A) Write your essay based on one of the nominated questions

OR

B) Write your essay based on a variation of one of the nominated questions, asapproved by the course convenor by no later than 13 May.

In researching and writing your essay, you should:


10/28

Page 10

Refer to the relevant primary and secondary sourses, especially the relevant literatureon point;

Give your opinion – where there is room for more than one answer, include all, butnote which, in your opinion, is the better view;

Where relevant provide headings and sub-headings;

Give complete URLs and date of access for any internet material referenced.

Refer to Stuhmke Legal Referencing (4th , 2011) for general style and referencing guidelines.

Footnote style should be in accordance with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (3rd

, 2010)[available online]

Marking Criter ia

1. Analysis - Your ability to fully analyse and evaluate the issues raised by your research ina critical and original manner will be assessed. Your knowledge of applicable legal rules andyour ability to apply those rules form an important part of this assessment.

2. Research - you are expected to conduct independent research (ie beyond the textbookand any materials provided by the lecturer) which should be evident in the text and referencesof your assignment. Appropriate use of relevant primary and secondary authority is important.

A bibliography, which will not count towards the word limit, must be included.

3. Structure- the essay must follow a logical structure. Your essay should have anintroduction in which the approach to the topic is set out and in which key parts of theassignment are flagged for the reader. Each sentence, paragraph and section of the essaymust lead logically to the next. Use of subheadings is advisable.

4. Literacy- the assignment should demonstrate the writing and literacy skills evident incontributions to a quality refereed law journal. To learn what the standard is, students shouldbe reading articles in such law journals as part of their research. Typographical errors,

spelling mistakes and the like are distracting and may lead to a lower mark.

5. Academic Honesty- Students are referred to the University Policy on Academic Honestywhich can be accessed at http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/.

Word Length

The word length of the research essay will be calculated in the following manner:

a. the word length must be calculated by the student using a word processing programapplied to the text (which includes headings);

b. the footnotes will not be counted, and substantive material (other than references andcitations) in the footnotes will not be assessed;

c. appendices will be treated as part of the text unless they merely reproduce primarymaterials for the aid of the examiners;

d. the word length be recorded on each page, as well as the total which is required to bespecified on the cover sheet;

e. the course convenor may ask an individual student to submit their piece of workelectronically, so as to enable a check of the word count.

Marks and Feedback

It is envisaged that the research essays will be returned to students after finalisation of resultsfor the course in late June 2013. Feedback will be provided on a sheet of paper thataddresses each of the marking criteria. Students may also be referred to written comments inthe margins throughout the paper.

Submission & collection of assessment and feedback

http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/


11/28

Page 11

There is a chute marked ESSAYS below the Services Office counter. All work forsubmission is to be placed there, even if it is submitted late.

Exam scripts, essays and other assessment items will also usually be returned tostudents through the Services Office. They will be returned to students only duringdesignated times of the week. Marks will not be given out and script books will not be

returned at other times.

General Statement on Assessment

All classes (but particularly tutorials and seminars) are intended to give students theopportunity to undertake tasks and to engage in discussion in ways that are directlyrelevant to the various assessment tasks that they will be required to undertake in thecourse. Responses from tutors, teachers and class-mates should be regarded asvaluable feedback to students about their understanding of and progress in thecourse.

Students will be advised that their marked work is ready for collection via theServices Office web page at http://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessment. Please do not go to the Services Office for your work until thisnotification has been posted.

In accordance with the University’s Principles for Determination of Systems of Assessment the course coordinator or lecturer will discuss with and explain tostudents the assessment system in classes during the first two weeks of thesemester.

Information about the College’s rules and policies about assessment—includingspecial consideration and special and supplementary examinations, penaltiesassociated with exceeding word lengths and lateness—is contained in the LLB &JDHandbook – available in hard copy from the Student Administration Office or online at

http://anulaw.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbook. Links to this information will be availableon the course WATTLE site. Unless otherwise specified in the assessment schemedetailed above, the policies, procedures and penalties specified in the LLB & JDHandbook will apply to all assessment in this course.

11. Feedback and Evaluation

Students are invited to provide informal feedback throughout the duration of the course to the

Course Convenor. Constructive feedback is most welcomed.

Students will also have the opportunity to engage in formal evaluation of the course towards

the end of the semester.

12. Further Information about the Course

All further information about the course, including additional materials and study aids, will be

available via the WATTLE site

13. General Information

College of Law Rules and Policies

Further information about the College’s Rules and Policies may be found in the LLB & JD

Handbook which is available in hard copy from the Law School Office or online at

http://law.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbook. The ANU Handbook for students can be found athttp://students.anu.edu.au/think/publications.php.

http://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessmenthttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessmenthttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessmenthttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessmenthttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbookhttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbookhttp://law.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbookhttp://law.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbookhttp://students.anu.edu.au/think/publications.phphttp://students.anu.edu.au/think/publications.phphttp://students.anu.edu.au/think/publications.phphttp://law.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbookhttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/llb/llb-handbookhttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessmenthttp://anulaw.anu.edu.au/servicesoffice/undergraduate-assessment


12/28

Page 12

Academic Honesty and Plagiarism

Students are reminded to familiarise themselves with the University policies and procedures

on academic honesty and plagiarism which can be accessed at

http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/

Library

Information about the Law Library, including opening hours, can be found at

http://anulib.anu.edu.au/subjects/law/collection/collect.html

Academic and Personal Support

Students experiencing academic or personal problems are welcome to discuss these with any

member of the academic staff, the Sub Dean (make an appointment at the Law School

Office), or to utilise the ANU's student support services, links to which can be found at

http://students.anu.edu.au/ (including the Academic Skills and Learning Centre athttp://academicskills.anu.edu.au, the Counselling Centre at http://counselling.anu.edu.au and

the Disability Services Centre at http://disability.anu.edu.au.)

http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/http://anulib.anu.edu.au/subjects/law/collection/collect.htmlhttp://anulib.anu.edu.au/subjects/law/collection/collect.htmlhttp://students.anu.edu.au/http://academicskills.anu.edu.au/http://academicskills.anu.edu.au/http://counselling.anu.edu.au/http://counselling.anu.edu.au/http://disability.anu.edu.au/http://disability.anu.edu.au/http://disability.anu.edu.au/http://disability.anu.edu.au/http://counselling.anu.edu.au/http://academicskills.anu.edu.au/http://students.anu.edu.au/http://anulib.anu.edu.au/subjects/law/collection/collect.htmlhttp://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/


13/28

COURSE READING GUIDE

A. HISTORY OF THE LAW OF THE SEA AND NATIONAL MARITIME ZONES

A1. HISTORY OF THE LAW OF THE SEA

1. Development of Maritime Zones

1.1 Grotius and Selden debate1.2 The 'freedom of the seas'2 Development of State Practice3 Development of Convention-based laws4 Work of the International Law Commission5 First UN Conference on the Law of the Sea5.1 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone5.2 Convention on the Continental Shelf5.3 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas5.4 Convention on the High Seas6 Second UN Conference on the Law of the Sea7 Continued Development in Customary International Law

8 Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea9 Finalisation of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea9.1 Political difficulties9.2 Interim status of the Convention9.3 1994 Settlement

READINGS:

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 1

Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 499 UNTS 311Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas 559

UNTS 285Geneva Convention on the High Seas 450 UNTS 82Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone [1963] ATS 12Crawford and Rothwell eds., The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region (1995, Martinus

Nijhoff)Lumb, The Law of the Sea and Australian Off-Shore Areas, 2nd (1978, Queensland UP)McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans (1987, New Haven)Oxman, “The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea” (2006) 100 American Journal of

International Law 830-851Stevenson & Oxman, "The Future of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"

(1994) 88 AJIL 488-499

A2. NATIONAL MARITIME ZONES

1 Internal Waters1.1 Ports and Harbours

2 Bays & Bights2.1 Historic Bays3 Baselines and Closing Lines3.1 Normal Baseline3.2 Straight Baselines3.3 Low-Tide Elevations3.4 Rocks, Shoals, Reefs, Islets, Cays4 Territorial Sea4.1 Historical Development4.2 12 mile limit4.3 Coastal State Sovereignty4.4 Coastal State Regulation and Management

5 Contiguous Zone5.1 Coastal State Jurisdiction


14/28

Page 14

READINGS

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 2 & 3

Fisheries case (United Kingdom v Norway) [1951] ICJ Rep 116Keyuan, “China’s U-Shaped Line in the South China Sea Revisited” (2012) 43 ODIL 18-34Miyoshi, “China’s ‘U-Shaped Line’ Claim in the South China Sea: Any Validity Under

International Laws” (2012) 43 ODIL 1-17Westerman, The Juridical Bay (1987)

B. RESOURCE MARITIME ZONES

B1. CONTINENTAL SHELF

1. Development of the concept1.1 Truman Declaration2. 1958 Geneva Convention2.1 Definition of the Continental Shelf2.2 Resource Sovereignty

2.3 Boundary Delimitation3. 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea3.1 Definition

3.1.1 Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf

3.1.2 Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf3.2 Resource Sovereignty3.3 Resource Management3.4 Relationship with EEZ4. State Practice4.1 Australia's Extended Continental Shelf

READINGS

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 5North Sea Continental Shelf Cases [1969] ICJ Reps 3Brekke and Symonds, “Submarine Ridges and Elevations of Article 76 in Light of Published

Summaries of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the ContinentalShelf” (2011) 42 ODIL 289-306

Hong Thao and Amer, “Coastal States in the South China Sea and Submissions on the OuterLimits of the Continental Shelf” (2011) 42 ODIL 245-263

McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans (1987, New Haven)Macnab, “Submarine Elevations and Ridges: Wild Cards in the Poker Game of UNCLOS Article

76” (2008) 39 ODIL 223-234

Pedersen, “The Svalbard Continental Shelf Controversy: Legal Disputes and Political

Rivalries” (2006) 37 ODIL 339-358

Rothwell, “Issues and Strategies for Outer Continental Shelf Claims” (2008) 23 IJMCL 185-211Rothwell “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Its Establishment and

Subsequent Practices” presented at International Seminar The Thirtieth Anniversary

of the UNCLOS from the Perspective of the Commission on the Limits of the

Continental Shelf as its Organ, Ocean Policy Research Foundation, Tokyo, Japan, 11

July 2012 available at http://www.sof.or.jp/en/topics/pdf/02-3.pdf (28 August 2012)

Serdy, “Towards Certainty of Seabed Jurisdiction beyond 200 nautical miles from the

Territorial Sea baseline: Australia’s Submission to the Commission on the Limits of

the Continental Shelf” (2005) 36 ODIL 201-217

Serdy, “The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and its Disturbing Propensity

to Legislate” (2011) 26 IJMCL 355-383

http://www.sof.or.jp/en/topics/pdf/02-3.pdfhttp://www.sof.or.jp/en/topics/pdf/02-3.pdfhttp://www.sof.or.jp/en/topics/pdf/02-3.pdfhttp://www.sof.or.jp/en/topics/pdf/02-3.pdf


15/28

Page 15

Symmons, “The Irish Partial Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental

Shelf in 2005: A Precedent for Future Such Submission in the Light of “Disputed

Areas” Procedures of the Commission?” (2006) 37 ODIL 299-317

B2. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

1. Coastal State Rights over Resources1.1 Cultural and Economic Rights2. Management of Fishery Resources2.1 Coastal State v Distant Water Fishery states2.2 Declaration of Fishery and Resource Zones2.2.1 Relationship with Territorial Sea2.2.2 Distinctive Resource zones3. 1958 Geneva Convention3.1 Fishing and Conservation Provisions3.2 Failure to adopt a Fishery Zone4. 2nd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1960)4.1 The 6 + 6 proposal4.2 Consequences of the failure to adopt

5. Evolution in State Practice5.1 Fishery Zone declarations5.2 Icelandic Fisheries Case6. 3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea6.1 Interests of the Group of 776.2 Interests of Developed States7. The UNCLOS framework7.1 General overview7.1.1 Area of application7.1.2 Delimitation7.2 Relationship with other maritime zones8. Principal characteristics of EEZ

8.1 Area of jurisdiction and sovereignty8.2 Area of Resource management8.2.1 Specific fishery stocks8.3 Area of Resource conservation9. The EEZ and Third States9.1 Coastal State jurisdiction over Third States9.2 EEZ access by third states9.2.1 Land-locked and Geographically disadvantaged states

Cases

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Iceland v. U.K) [1974] ICJ Reps 3

Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Australia v Japan; New Zealand v Japan) (Provisional Measures)ITLOS Cases No 3 & 4, 17 August 1999 (1999) 38 ILM 1624

Volga Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) ITLOS Case No 11, 23 December 2002) (2003) 42

ILM 159

READING

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 4, 9

Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (1987)Charney, "The exclusive economic zone and public international law" (1985) 15 ODIL 233-

288Dahmani, The Fisheries Regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone (1987)Hannesson, “The exclusive economic zone and economic development in the Pacific island

countries” (2008) 32 MP 886-897Hollick, "The origins of 200 mile offshore zones" (1977) 71 AJIL 494-500


16/28

Page 16

Kruger & Nordquist, "The evolution of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone in Statepractice in the Pacific basin" (1979) 19 Va JIL 321-400

Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (1989)

C. HIGH SEAS AND DEEP SEA-BED

C1. HIGH SEAS

1. Historical Review of the High Seas Concept1.1 Freedom of the High Seas: Grotius v Selden2. Customary International Law2.1 Accepted High Seas Rights2.1.1 Navigation2.1.2 Exploitation3. 1958 Geneva Convention3.1 Limitation on High Seas Rights3.2 Recognition of need to protect High Seas4. UNCLOS

4.1 Legal status of the High Seas4.1.1 Navigation rights in the EEZ4.2 Status of Ships4.3 Duties of a Flag State4.4 Warships4.5 Piracy4.6 Hot Pursuit4.7 Submarine Cables4.8 High Seas Conservation

READINGS:

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 7, 12

Haward “IUU Fishing: Contemporary Practice” in Oude Elferink/Rothwell (eds) OceansManagement in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (2004) 87-106

Kaye, Stuart, “Threats for the Global Commons: Problems of Jurisdiction and Enforcement”(2007) 8 Melbourne Journal of International Law @

Molenaar “Managing Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction” (2007) 22 IJMCL 89-124

Orrego Vicuna, The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries (CUP, 1999)Perry, “Blurring the Ocean Zones: The Effect of the Proliferation Security Initiative on the

Customary International Law of the Sea” (2006) 37 ODIL 33-53Rayfuse, Lawrence and Gjerde, “Ocean Fertilisation and Climate Change: The Need to

Regulate Emerging High Seas Uses” (2008) 23 IJMCL 297-326Song, “The U.S.-Led Proliferation Security Initiative and UNCLOS: Legality, Implementation

and as Assessment” (2007) 38 ODIL 101-145Van Dyke, “Giving teeth to the Environmental Obligations in the LOS Convention” in Oude

Elferink/Rothwell (eds) Oceans Management in the 21st

Century: InstitutionalFrameworks and Responses (2004) 167-186

Van Dyke, "Military exclusion and warning zones on the high seas" (1991) 15 Marine Policy 147-169

C2. DEEP SEABED

1. The Customary International Law Regime2. Position under the 1958 Geneva Conventions3. Common Heritage Status3.1 Debates during UNCLOS III

3.2 Group of 77 proposals4. 1982 United Nations Convention: Part XI


17/28

Page 17

4.1 The Legal Regime4.1.1 Common Heritage4.1.2 Enterprise4.2 The Area4.2.1 Delimitation5. 1994 Implementing Agreement

5.1 Australian Boat Paper5.2 UN Secretary-General's Initiative6. International Sea-Bed Authority6.1 Contemporary Practice6.2 2011 ITLOS Advisory Opinion

CASES

Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect toactivities in the Area (Request for an Advisory Opinion) ITLOS Case No. 17 (AdvisoryOpinion of 1 February 2011)

READINGS

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 6Chircop, “Managing Adjacency: Some Legal Aspects of the Relationship Between the

Extended Continental Shelf and the International Seabed Area” (2011) 42 ODIL 307-316

Franckx, “The International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritage of Mankind: TheNeed for States to Establish the Outer Limits of their Continental Shelf” (2010)25IJMCL 543-567

Maffray-Mantuano, "The Procedural Framework of the Agreement Implementing the 1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" (1995) 89 AJIL 814-824

McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans (1987, New Haven)Oude Elferink, “The Regime of the Area: Delimiting the Scope of Application of the Common

Heritage Principle and Freedom of the High Seas” (2007) 22 IJMCL 143-176

D. SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

1. Basic concepts of freedom of the seas1.1 Closed Sea and Open Seas1.2 Twentieth Century acceptance of freedom of the seas2. Impact of extended maritime zones2.1 Geneva Convention: Territorial Sea2.1.1 Innocent Passage in Territorial Sea2.2 Geneva Convention: International Straits2.2.1 Corfu Channel Case 2.2.2 Classification of International Straits2.2.3 Northwest Passage3. The UNCLOS Regime3.1 Territorial Sea & Innocent Passage3.1.1 Controls on Innocent Passage3.1.2 Lusitania Expresso 3.2 International Straits3.2.2 UNCLOS & Transit Passage3.2.3 Bass Strait3.2.4 Bering Strait3.3 Rules peculiar to certain ships3.3.1 Warships3.3.2 Ships with hazardous cargo


18/28

Page 18

READING

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 10 & 11

Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Albania) [1949] ICJ Reports 4Beckman, “PSSAs and Transit Passage – Australia’s Pilotage System in the Torres Strait

Challenges the IMO and UNCLOS” (2007) 38 ODIL 325 - 357George “The Regulation of Maritime Traffic in Straits Used for International Navigation” in

Oude Elferink/Rothwell (eds) Oceans Management in the 21st Century: InstitutionalFrameworks and Responses (2004) 19-48

Koh, "The territorial sea, contiguous Zone, straits and archipelagoes under the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea" (1986) 29 Malaya Law Review 163-199

Kraska, “The Law of the Sea Convention and the Northwest Passage” (2007) 22 IJMCL 257-282

Langdon, "The extent of transit passage: some practical anomalies" (1990) 14 Marine Policy130-136

Larson, "Innocent, transit and archipelagic sea lanes passage" 1987) 18 ODIL Leifer, International Straits of the World: Malacca, Singapore and Indonesia (1978)Moore, "The Regime of Straits and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the

Sea" (1980) 74 AJIL 77-121

Nandan and Anderson, "Straits used for International Navigation: A Commentary on Part IIIof the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982" (1989) BritishYearbook of International Law 159-204

Nganthca, The Right of Innocent Passage and the Evolution of the International Law of theSea (1990, Pinter)

Reisman, "The Regime of Straits and National Security: An Appraisal of InternationalLawmaking" (1980) 74 AJIL 48-76

Robertson, "Navigation in the Exclusive Economic Zone" 24 (1983-1984) Va JIL 865-915;Rothwell and Bateman (eds) Navigational Rights and Freedoms and the New Law of the Sea

(2000, Kluwer)Rothwell, "Coastal state sovereignty and innocent passage: The voyage of the Lusitania

Expresso" (1992) 16 Marine Policy 427-437Rothwell, "International Straits and UNCLOS: An Australian Case Study" (1992) 23 Journal of

Maritime Law & Commerce 461-484Rothwell, "The Indonesian Straits incident: Transit or archipelagic sea lanes passage ?"

14(1990) Marine Policy 491-506Roberts, Julian “Compulsory Pilotage in International Straits: The Torres Strait PSSA

Proposal” (2006) 37 Ocean Development & International Law 93Valencia and Akimoto, “Guidelines for navigation and overflight in the exclusive economic

zone” (2006) 30 MP 704-711

E. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

1. Dispute Resolution Techniques

1.1 International Arbitration1.1.1 Beagle Channel Dispute1.2 International Court of Justice1.2.1 North Sea Continental Shelf Case (1969)1.2.2 Land and Maritime Boundary Cases: Nicaragua v Colombia (2012)1.3 Diplomatic initiatives2. Provisions of Part XV, UNCLOS2.1 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2.1.1 Jurisprudence of the Tribunal

2.1.2 Prompt Release Cases

2.1.3 Provisional Measures

2.2 Annex VII Tribunals2.2.1 Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (2000)2.3 Role of the International Court


19/28

Page 19

Cases

Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway),Judgment of the Court (ICJ Communique, No 93/14-14 June 1993)

Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) (Request for

provisional measures) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (27 August 1999)

Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) (Award on Jurisdiction and

Admissibility) Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on

the Law of the Sea (4 August 2000)Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Judgment (19 November 2012)

[2012] ICJ Reps, available at http://www.icj-cij.org


ILM 159

READINGS


Adele, "The Basic Structure of the Disputes Settlement Part of the Law of the Sea

Convention" (1982) 11 ODIL 125Boyle, “The Environmental Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of theSea” (2007) 22 IJMCL 369-381

Chinkin, “Dispute Resolution and the Law of the Sea: Regional Problems” in Crawford andRothwell eds., The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region (1995) 237-262

Churchill, “Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for2007” (2008) 23 IJMCL 601-642

Charney, "Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law" (1994) 88 AJIL 227-256

Greig, "The Beagle Channel Arbitration" (1981) 7 AYIL 332

Kwiatkowska "The Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v. Japan) Cases"

(2000) 15 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1-36

Mansfield “Compulsory Dispute Settlement after the Southern Bluefin Tuna Award” in OudeElferink/Rothwell (eds) Oceans Management in the 21st

Century: InstitutionalFrameworks and Responses (2004) 255-272

Mensah, “The Tribunal and the Prompt Release of Vessels” (2007) 22 IJMCL 425-449Nordquist (ed) , United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (1992), Vol

V, pp. 3-148Rosenne, "Establishing the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea" (1995) 89 AJIL 806-

814You, “Advisory Opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea” (2008) 39 ODIL

360

F. ISLANDS AND ROCKS

1. The Regime of Islands and the law of the sea

1.1 Part VIII Law of the Sea Convention

2. Islands and Baselines

2.1 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case

2.2 Fringing Islands

2.3 Canadian Arctic Archipelago

2.4 Islands as basepoints

3. Islands and Maritime Zones

3.1 Article 121 (1)

3.2 Entitlement to continental shelf and EEZ

3.3 Article 121 (3) rocks

4. Artificial Islands and Installations

http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/


20/28

Page 20

4.1 Artificial Islands

4.2 Structures built upon low-tide elevations

5. Controversies

5.1 Rockall

5.2 South China Sea and East China Sea

5.3 Southern Ocean

RELEVANT CASES

Fisheries case (United Kingdom v Norway) [1951] ICJ Rep 116Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v

Bahrain) (merits) [2001] ICJ Rep 40Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) Judgment [2009] ICJ Reps 61,Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v

Singapore) [2008] ICJ Reports 12 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Judgment (19 November 2012) ICJ

Reps, available at http://www.icj-cij.org


ILM 159

READING

Rothwell and Stephens, 33-41, 45-6, 86, 404-6

Charney, “Rocks that cannot sustain human habitation” (1999) 93 American Journal of

International Law 863-978

Dzurek, “China Occupies Mischief Reef In Latest Spratly Gambit” (April 1995) IBRU Boundary

and Security Bulletin 65-71

Papadakis, The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands (1977)

Republic of Korea: Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Note Verbale MUN/230/11 (11August 2011) available athttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htm

Symmons, “Ireland and the Rockall Dispute: An Analysis of Recent Developments” (Spring1998) IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 78-93

G. MARITIME BOUNDARIES

1. The need for Maritime Boundaries1.1 Early examples1.2 Continental Shelf Delimitations1.3 Importance under UNCLOS2. Methods of Boundary Delimitation2.1 Early rules

2.1.1 1958 Geneva Conventions2.1.2 Role of the International Court of Justice2.2 UNCLOS2.2.1 Delimitation by Agreement2.2.2 Equitable solutions2.2.3 Interim Arrangements3. Jurisprudence of the International Court3.1 Equidistance/Median lines3.2 Natural Prolongation3.3 Special Circumstances3.4 Equitable Delimitations3.4.1 Proportionality

3.4.2 Half-effect rule3.4.3 Joint Development3.5 Joint EEZ/Continental Shelf Boundaries

http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htmhttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_jpn.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/


21/28

Page 21

3.6 Current Status of the Rules

RELEVANT CASES

Anglo-French Arbitration (1979) 18 ILM 397Greenland/Jan Mayen Case [1993] ICJ Reports 38Gulf of Maine Case [1984] ICJ Reports 246

Libya/Malta Case [1985] ICJ Reports 13Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) Judgment [2009] ICJ Reps 61, North Sea Continental Shelf Cases [1969] ICJ Reps 3Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) Judgment (19 November 2012) ICJ

Reps, available at http://www.icj-cij.org Tunisia/Libya Case [1982] ICJ Reports 18

READING

Rothwell and Stephens , Ch 16

Churchill “The Role of the International Court of Justice in Maritime Boundary Delimitation”in Oude Elferink/Rothwell (eds) Oceans Management in the 21

st Century:

Institutional Frameworks and Responses (2004) 125-142

Papanicolopulu, “A Note on Maritime Delimitation in a Multizonal Context: The Case of theMediterranean” (2007) 38 ODIL 381-398

Smith, “Maritime Delimitation in the South China Sea: Potentiality and Challenges” (2010) 41ODIL 214-236

H. ARCHIPELAGIC STATES

1 Development of the Archipelagic concept1.1 Mid-ocean archipelagoes2 State Practice2.1 Indonesia

2.2 Philippines3 UNCLOS Archipelagic regime3.1 Archipelagic states3.2 Archipelagic navigation4 State Practice since the Convention4.1 Indonesia4.2 Emerging problems

READINGS

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 8 and 11

Batongbacal “Barely Skimming the Surface: Archipelagic Sea Lanes Navigation and the IMO”in Oude Elferink/Rothwell (eds) Oceans Management in the 21

st Century:

Institutional Frameworks and Responses (2004) 49-68Larson, "Innocent, Transit, and Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage" 18(1987) ODIL 411-444O'Connell, "Mid-Ocean Archipelagoes in International Law" 45(1971) BYIL 1-77Rothwell, "The Indonesian Straits incident: Transit or archipelagic sea lanes passage ?"

14(1990) Marine Policy 491-506Rothwell and Bateman (eds), Navigational Rights and Freedoms and the New Law of the Sea

(2000)

I. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

1. Resource Management under the Law of the Sea1.1 1958 Geneva Conventions1.2 Customary International Law1.3 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea2. Maritime Zones

http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/http://www.icj-cij.org/


22/28

Page 22

2.1 Territorial Sea2.2 EEZ and Continental Shelf2.3 High Seas3. Current Initiatives3.1 1995 Agreement on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Species3.2 Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)

4. State Practice4.1 Southern Bluefin Tuna Commission4.2 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources4.3 Recent Developments in the South Pacific

READING


Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (1987)Baird, “Australia’s Response to Illegal Foreign Fishing: A Case of Winning the Battle but losing

the Law?” (2008) 23 IJMCL 95-124Dahmani, The Fisheries Regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone (1987)Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Iceland v. U.K) [1974] ICJ Reps 3

Glowka “Putting Marine Scientific Research on a Sustainable Footing at Hydrothermal Vents”(2003) 27 (4) Marine Policy 303

Kaye, International Fisheries Management (2000)Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea (1989)Leary and Esteban, “Recent Developments in Offshore Renewable Energy in the Asia-Pacific

Region” (2011) 42 ODIL 94-119Molenaar “Regional Fisheries Organizations: Issues of Participation, Allocation and

Unregulated Fishing” in Oude Elferink/Rothwell (eds) Oceans Management in the21

st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (2004) 69-86

Stephens, “Fisheries-Led Development in the South Pacific: Charting a “Pacific Way” to aSustainable Future” (2008) 39 ODIL 257-286

Tanaka, “Reflections on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Genetic Resources in theDeep Seabed Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction” (2008) 39 ODIL 129-149

United Nations Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process/United Nations Open-endedInformal Working Group on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversitybeyond national jurisdiction

J. MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

1. Conventions protecting the marine environment1.1 Oil Pollution1.1.1 OILPOL1.1.2 MARPOL1.1.3 Intervention Convention

1.1.4 Civil Liability and Fund Conventions1.2 Ocean Dumping1.2.1 London Dumping Convention1.2.2 Regional Dumping Conventions1.3 Hazardous Waste1.3.1 Basel Convention1.4 Sea-bed activities1.4.1 UNCLOS1.5 Role of UNCLOS2. Regional initiatives2.1 The South Pacific2.1.1 South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme

2.1.2 Forum Fisheries Agency2.2 Southern Ocean


23/28

Page 23

3. The Rio Initiatives3.1 Agenda 213.2 Commission for Sustainable Development3.3 Marine Regionalism4. Identifiable problems4.1 Resource exploitation v conservation

4.2 Enforcement4.3 Lack of adequate global regimes4.4 Regional regimes and third states

TREATIES

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas and in Cases of OilPollution Casualties (Intervention Convention) (1970) 9 ILM 25

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter1046 UNTS 120

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) 12 ILM 1319Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources (1974) 13

ILM 352

South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (1985) 24 ILM 1442International Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (1991)

30 ILM 733International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the

Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (1996) 35 ILM 1406

READINGS


Bewers and Garrett, "Analysis of the issues related to sea dumping of radioactive wastes"(1987) 11 Marine Policy 105-124

Birnie, Boyle & Redgwell, International Law & the Environment 3rd

(2009) Chs 7, 8 & 13Boyle, "Marine Pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention" 79(1985) AJIL 347-372Chircop, “Regional Cooperation in Marine Environmental Protection in the South China Sea:

A Reflection on New Directions for Marine Conservation” (2010) 41 ODIL 334-356Cognetti and Curini-Galletti, "Biodiversity Conservation Problems in the Marine

Environment" (1993) 26 Marine Pollution Bulletin 179-183Cole-King, "Marine conservation - A new policy area" (1993) 17 Marine Policy 171-185Firestone and Corbett, “Coastal and Port Environments: International Legal and Policy

Responses to Reduce Ballast Water Introductions of Potentially Invasive Species”(2005) 36 ODIL 291-316

French, “From the Depths: Rich Pickings of Principles of Sustainable Development andGeneral International Law on the Ocean Floor – the Seabed Dispute’s Chamber 2011Advisory Opinion” (2011) 26 IJMCL 525-568

Kindt, "Vessel-Source Pollution and the Law of the Sea" 17(1984) Vanderbilt Jr of

Transnational L. 287-328Kirk, “Noncompliance and the Development of Regimes Addressing Marine Pollution from

Land-Based Activities” (2008) 39 ODIL 235-256La Fayette, “Oceans Governance in the Arctic” (2008) 23 IJMCL 531-566Lin, Bin and Lin, Cherng-Yuan “Compliance with international emission regulations: Reducing

the air pollution from merchant vessels” (2006) 30 Marine Policy 220Molenaar, “Port State Jurisdiction: Toward Comprehensive, Mandatory and Global

Coverage” (2007) 38 ODIL 225-257Molenaar “Managing Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction” (2007) 22 IJMCL 89-

124Morgera, “Competence or Confidence? The Appropriate Forum to Address Multi-Purpose

High Seas Protected Areas” (2007) 16 Review of European Community and

International Environmental Law 1Mossop, “Protecting Marine Biodiversity on the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 NauticalMiles” (2007) 38 ODIL 283-304


24/28

Page 24

Pecot “The conservation of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction”(2005) 22 EPLJ 459

Rayfuse, “Protecting Marine Biodiversity in Polar Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction” (2008)17 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 3-13

Ringbom ed., Competing Norms in the Law of Marine Environmental Protection (Kluwer LawInternational, 1997)

Roberts, Julian “Compulsory Pilotage in International Straits: The Torres Strait PSSAProposal” (2006) 37 Ocean Development & International Law 93

Roberts and Tsamenyi, “International legal options for the control of biofouling oninternational vessels” (2008) 32 MP 559-569

Rothwell “The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Marine EnvironmentalProtection: Expanding the Horizons of International Oceans Governance” [2003] 17Ocean Yearbook 26-55

K. MARITIME REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT

1. International Law regarding Enforcement powers1.1 Areas within state sovereignty

1.2 Areas within state jurisdiction1.3 Terrestrial Areas1.4 Maritime Areas2. Internal waters2.1 Area within Coastal State sovereignty2.2 Extent of Coastal State enforcement powers2.3 Ports and Harbours2.4 Limitations?3. Territorial Sea3.1 UNCLOS Coastal State Powers3.1.1 Coastal State Laws and Regulations3.1.2 Conformity with International Law

3.2 UNCLOS Coastal State Obligations3.2.1 Right of Innocent Passage3.3 Examples of Enforcement Action3.3.2 Rainbow Warrior4. Contiguous Zone4.1 UNCLOS Coastal State Powers4.1.1 Examples of implementation5. EEZ5.1 UNCLOS Coastal State Powers5.1.1 Fisheries Jurisdiction5.1.2 Environmental Jurisdiction5.2 State Practice6. High Seas

6.1 Area beyond Coastal State Jurisdiction6.2 Role of the Flag State6.3 Role of Port States6.4 Chapter XII, UNCLOS

READINGS

Rothwell and Stephens, Ch 12 and 17

The I'M Alone (1935) 29 AJIL 326Byers “Policing the High Seas: the proliferation security initiative” (2004) 98 American

Journal of International Law 526-545Guilfoyle, “Interdicting Vessels to enforce the Common Interest: Maritime Countermeasures

and the Use of Force” (2007) 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 69-82


25/28

Page 25

Gullett and Schofield, “Pushing the Limits of the Law of the Sea Convention: Australian andFrench Cooperative Surveillance and Enforcement in the Southern Ocean” (2007) 22IJMCL 545-583

Ho-Sam, “Is Port State Control an Effective Means to Combat Vessel-Source Pollution? AnEmpirical Survey of the Practical Exercise by Port States of their Powers of Control”(2008) 23 IJMCL 715-759

Keyuan, “Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use ofForce and Coercive Measures” (2011) 26 IJMCL 235-261

Klein, “Legal Implications of Australia’s Maritime Identification System” (2006) 55International and Comparative Law Quarterly 337-368

Koroleva, "The right of pursuit from the exclusive economic zone" (1990) 14 Marine Policy 137-141

Molenaar, “Port State Jurisdiction: Towards Comprehensive, Mandatory and GlobalCoverage” (2007) 38 ODIL 225-257

Nada, “Maritime piracy: how can international law and policy address this growing globalmenace?” (2011) 39 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 177

Rosenberg and Chung, “Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Coordinating Coastal andUser State Priorities” (2008) 39 ODIL 51-68

Rothwell and Stephens “Illegal Southern Ocean Fishing and Prompt Release: BalancingCoastal and Flag State Rights and Interests” (2004) 53 ICLQ 171-187Serdy and Bliss “Prompt Release of Fishing Vessels: State Practice in the Light of the Cases

Before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea” in Oude Elferink/Rothwell(eds) Oceans Management in the 21

st Century: Institutional Frameworks and

Responses (2004) 273-294Schofield, Tsamenyi and Palma, “Securing Maritime Australia: Developments in Maritime

Surveillance and Security” (2008) 39 ODIL 94-112Song, “The U.S.-Led Proliferation Security Initiative and UNCLOS” Legality, Implementation

and an Assessment” (2007) 38 ODIL 101-145Stokke, “Trade measures and the combat of IUU f ishing: Institutional interplay and effective

governance in the Northeast Atlantic” (2009) 33 MP 339-349Su, “The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and Interdiction at Sea: A Chinese Perspective”

(2012) 43 ODIL 96-118Van Dyke, "Military exclusion and warning zones on the high seas" (1991) 15 Marine Policy

147-169

L. SOUTHERN OCEAN LAW OF THE SEA ISSUES

1. Application of Law of the Sea to the Southern Ocean

1.1 Antarctic Treaty

1.2 Existence of ‘coastal States’

1.3 Maritime Claims

2. Relevant provisions under Antarctic Treaty System

2.1 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)2.2 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

3. State Practice

3.1 Maritime Claims

3.2 Application and Enforcement of National Law

4. Whaling

4.1 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

4.1.1 Historical Background

4.1.2 Schedule to the Convention

4.1.3 Role of the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

4.1.4 Southern Ocean Sanctuary

4.1.5 Japan’s ‘Scientific Whaling’ Program

4.2 Australian Whaling Law and Policy


26/28

Page 26

4.2.1 Legislation Prohibition on Whaling

4.2.2 Australian Whale Sanctuary

4.2.3 Enforcement of Australian Law

4.2.4 HSI Litigation

4.2.5 Australian’s Case before International Court of Justice

CASES

Humane Society International v Kyodo Senpaku Kasiha Ltd [2005] FCA 664Humane Society International v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116Humane Society International v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2007] FCA 124Humane Society International v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2008] FCA 3Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan) (Application by Australia) International Court of

Justice – 31 May 2010

READING

Anton, “Protecting whales by hue and cry: is there a role for non -state actors in the

enforcement of international law?” (2011) 14 International Journal of Wildlife Law

and Policy 137-145Blay, and Bubnna-Litic, “The interplay of international law and domestic law: The case of

Australia’s efforts to protect whales” (2006) 23 EPLJ 465

Currie, “Whales, Sustainability and International Environmental Governance” (2007) 16

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 45

Davis, “Enforcing Australian Law in Antarctica: The HSI Litigation” (2007) 8 Melbourne

Journal of International Law @ www.mjil.unimelb.edu.au

Haward, “Marine resources management, security and the Antarctic Treaty System: anongoing agenda?” in Hemmings et al (eds), Antarctic Security in the Twenty-FirstCentury (2012) 215-237

Kaye and Rothwell, "Australia's Antarctic Maritime Claims and Boundaries" (1995) 26 ODIL 195-226

McGrath, “The Japanese Whaling Case” (2005) 22 EPLJ 250Oude Elferink and Rothwell eds., The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and

Jurisdiction (2001)

Rothwell, “Australia v Japan: JARPA II Whaling Case before International Court of Justice”

The Hague Justice Portal (2 July 2010) at

Sand, “Japan’s ‘Research Whaling’ in the Antarctic Southern Ocean and the North Pacific

Ocean in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES)” (2008) 17 Review

of European Community and International Environmental Law 56-71

Stephens and Rothwell “Japanese Whaling in Antarctica: Humane Society International Inc v

Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd ” (2007) RECIEL: Review of European Community and

International Environmental Law 243-246Weber, “Delimitation of the continental shelves in the Antarctic Treaty area: lessons for

regime, resource and environmental security” in Hemmings et al (eds), Antarctic

Security in the Twenty-First Century (2012) 172-196

M. AUSTRALIA AND THE LAW OF THE SEA

1 Australian Offshore Jurisdiction1.1 Constitutional Division of Powers1.1.1 Commonwealth Powers1.1.2 States Powers1.2 Commonwealth Initiatives1.3 Role of the High Court1.4 Response to Seas and Submerged Lands Case

http://www.mjil.unimelb.edu.au/http://www.mjil.unimelb.edu.au/


27/28

Page 27

1.5 Development of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement1.5.1 Relevant Legislation

* Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth);* Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 (Cth)* Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980 (Cth)

2. Australia's Maritime Boundaries

2.1 Australia - Indonesia (Timor Gap)2.2 Australia - PNG (Torres Strait)2.3 Australia - Solomon Islands2.4 Australia - New Zealand2.5 Australia - France

CASES

Bonser v La Macchia (1969) 122 CLR 177New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337Pearce v Florenca (1976) 135 CLR 507Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Ass. v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340Raptis v South Australia (1977) 138 CLR 346

Robinson v Western Australian Museum (1977) 138 CLR 283

TREATIES

Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea concerning

Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the Area between the two countries,

including the area known as the Torres Strait [1985] ATS No. 4

Treaty between Australia and the Public of Indonesia in the Zone of Cooperation in an Area

between the Indonesian Province of East Timor and Northern Australia [1991] ATS

No. 9

Exchange of Notes Constituting and Agreement between the Government of Australia and

the Government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor Concerning Arrangements

for Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in an Area of the Timor Sea betweenAustralia and East Timor [2002] ATS No. 11

READINGS

Baird and Rothwell (eds), Australian Coastal and Marine Law (2011)Baird, “The National Legal Framework” in Baird and Rothwell (eds), Australian Coastal and

Marine Law (2011) 45-66Burmester, "Australia and the Law of the Sea" in Crawford and Rothwell, The Asia Pacific

Region and the Law of the Sea, pp 51-64Burmester, "The Torres Strait Treaty: Ocean Boundary Delimitation by Agreement" (1982) 76

AJIL 321Cullen, Federalism in Action: The Australian and Canadian Offshore Disputes (1990,

Federation Press)Edeson, “Australian Bays” [1968-1969] Australian Year Book of International Law 5Haward, "The Australian offshore constitutional settlement" 13(1989) Marine Policy 334-348Kaye, “Australia and East Timor during the Howard Years: An International Law Perspective”

(2008) 27 Aust YBIL 69-86Kaye, The Torres Strait (1997)Landale and Burmester, "Australia and the Law of the Sea - Offshore Jurisdiction" in Ryan,

International Law in Australia, pp 390-416Lumb, "Australian Coastal Jurisdiction" in Ryan, International Law in Australia, pp370-389Lumb, The Law of the Sea and Australian Off-Shore Areas (1978, Queensland UP)Opeskin & Rothwell, "Australia's Territorial Sea: International and Federal Implications of Its

Extension to 12 Miles" (1991) 22 ODIL 395-431Rothwell and Kaye "A Legal Framework for Integrated Oceans and Coastal Management in

Australia" (2001) 18 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 278-292


28/28

Schofield, “Minding the Gap: The Australia – East Timor Treaty on Certain MaritimeArrangements in the Timor Sea” (2007) 22 IJMCL 189-234

Serdy, “The Maritime Boundaries of Australia” in Baird and Rothwell (eds), AustralianCoastal and Marine Law (2011) 94-121