Mohammad Razavirad; Janet Blake
Abstract
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has devoted one of its provisions to protect the underwater cultural heritage in the contiguous zone. Article 303(2), contains a legal presumption in favor of the coastal state on removing the cultural heritage from the bed of contiguous zone. The relation of ...
Read More
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has devoted one of its provisions to protect the underwater cultural heritage in the contiguous zone. Article 303(2), contains a legal presumption in favor of the coastal state on removing the cultural heritage from the bed of contiguous zone. The relation of this article with article 33 has led to ambiguities and various interpretations on the legal nature of coastal state’s jurisdiction over this maritime zone. Some authors have spoken about the limited jurisdiction of the coastal state and some others on its broader jurisdiction over "objects of archaeological and historical nature" on the bed of Contiguous Zone. In the meantime, some put forward the theory of "24-mile archaeological zone" and pose some arguments to defend it. Article 8 of the 2001 UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, albeit with a lot of complexity and ambiguity, does not seem to support broad jurisdiction or the theory of a "24-mile archaeological zone".
farhad jam; Janet Blake
Abstract
Compliance of states with multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) is the objective of these agreements. To this end, a number of measures have to be taken which mainly are called “implementation” as ex-ante as well as “enforcement” as ex-poste initiatives and measures. Such ...
Read More
Compliance of states with multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) is the objective of these agreements. To this end, a number of measures have to be taken which mainly are called “implementation” as ex-ante as well as “enforcement” as ex-poste initiatives and measures. Such initiatives and measures, prevent member-states from non-compliance, and, in case of breaching environmental obligations, make these defaulting member-states fulfill such obligations and bringing them back into the state of compliance with such multilateral environmental agreements. Exchange of information is an important factor for “implementation” and “enforcement” of environmental obligations. “Non-compliance procedures”, “capacity-building” “Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)”, and “Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)” are instances of “implementation” and ex-ante actions in which exchange of information plays an important role. Also, exchange of information facilitates identifying violators of environmental obligations and makes it possible to start proceedings against such offenders, as an instance of “enforcement” and ex-poste measure.
