DOI: 10.1007/s12180-011-0018-6

Scientific and technological development necessitates often legal regulation, to be achieved through an interaction between science and law during the decision-making process. Taking as an example the case of underwater noise pollution, the examination of which is underway in many international organisations with a view towards its regulation, the article proposes to comment upon some aspects of this interaction. It is finally submitted that law provides sufficient legal principles and institutionalised frameworks for cooperation, which however have not been sufficiently put in use so far.

Starting from the observation that traditionally the law of State responsibility has hardly interacted with the law applicable to territorial and boundary disputes, the article examines how these two fields of international law may relate in the case of State action in contested areas, be they terrestrial or marine. Assessing recent international practice, particularly the case law of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals, and differentiating between land and maritime disputes, it identifies the primary obligations incumbent upon States when acting in contested areas – relating to State sovereignty and sovereign rights, ius ad bellum, ius in bello, procedural obligations pending the final settlement of the dispute – and it examines the consequences of the breach of those primary norms, in terms of secondary obligations, as well as third States’ duties and obligations. The legal framework specifically created for disputed maritime areas by Art. 74 para. 3 UNCLOS and Art. 83 para. 3 UNCLOS, including its implications for land disputes, is specifically analysed. The authors submit that, at a time of increasingly pro-active policies and robust actions taken by States in contested areas, more attention should be devoted to the extent to which the law of State responsibility, especially with regard to relevant forms of reparation, has to adapt to the content and scope of primary norms applicable to that specific context

DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.05.002

The use of sonar by military vessels during military exercises may produce acoustic pollution of the marine environment. States have an obligation under international law to reduce and control this form of pollution. Regulation of the use of sonar is rendered more complex by the specific regime applicable to warships, i.e. sovereign immunity. Immunity however does not prevent in all cases action by States other than the flag State, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by Art. 236 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. More importantly, immunity does not prevent the flag State from taking measures to reduce pollution caused by its own warships. Under some environmental treaties, flag States not only may, but have the obligation to adopt measures.

DOI: 10.1080/00908320701641636

This article points out some of the issues that may arise during the delimitation of maritime boundary in a sea area where coastal states have proclaimed various maritime zones. Issues considered include delimitation in the presence of overlapping or coincident zones, the role of existing boundaries, use of all-purpose maritime boundaries, and the delimitation of future zones. Special reference is made to the Mediterranean Sea where coastal states have advanced various claims consisting of zones sometimes different from the ones provided for in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Law enforcement is undoubtedly expression of the sovereignty of the State within its territory and of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction within its contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. In the case of undelimited maritime boundaries, however, there could be two states claiming exclusive powers of enforcement. How is this situation to be dealt with? The presentation proposes to provide a set of criteria, drawn from the applicable rules of international law, primarily the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and from relevant decisions of international judges (ICJ, ITLOS, ECHR, Arbitral Tribunals) for assessing when a State may exercise enforcement action and determining how this action has to be conducted. The presentation will also provide indications as to the consequences of action not conforming to these rules, both at the level of State responsibility and of the admissibility of claims before international tribunals.

According to well-established rules of international law, a State exercises sovereignty on its land territory and its territorial sea and sovereign rights and jurisdiction in other relevant maritime zones. Territorial sovereignty involves the possibility to act on a territory and to exclude other States from acting on it. Sovereign rights at sea entail exclusiveness as to the exploration and exploitation of resources, thereby excluding all other States from such activities (though not from the maritime space where such activities take place). Consequently, whenever a State acts on the territory or in the maritime zones of another State without the latter’s permission, it commits a breach of the relevant rules, entailing its international responsibility. Yet this scheme may be put in doubt in the case of territorial disputes, both on land and at sea. A territorial dispute on land usually arises from wrongful occupation, but it may also be due to the absence of a demarcated boundary. In the first case, there will usually be one State having a “legally stronger” claim on the contested territory, even though both States may be acting in good faith. The situation is different at sea, where disputes usually arise out of the need to delimit previously undelimited sea areas. Till their delimitation, disputed sea areas may be considered as belonging to either of the parties to the dispute, without there being one with a stronger claim. The paper proposes to examine cases of land and sea territorial disputes, in order to establish the rights that may be exercised, pending the solution of the dispute, by the States claiming sovereignty or jurisdiction and limitations thereof. In the light of these findings, a conclusion as to the responsibility (and the eventual reparation due) of such States for acts committed in contested land or sea areas will be drawn.