Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Publisher’s Note

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

[On 29 September 2008, the Council of the European Union (EU) adopted Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Essentially, the EU IUU Regulation establishes a framework in which access to EU markets for fisheries products is partly conditioned by the extent to which a country, area or region of origin is demonstrably or increasingly free of IUU fishing. Aside from the amendments to US legislation in 2007, the EU IUU Regulation is the only other domestic legislative measure adopted solely to combat IUU fishing, with four main components: port State measures against third-country vessels, a catch documentation scheme, IUU vessel listing, and listing of non-cooperating States. This article analyses the EU IUU Regulation in the context of international fisheries law, and particularly international efforts to combat IUU fishing. It is concluded that the measures outlined in the EU IUU Regulation, despite several ambiguities, are generally consistent with those called for under international fisheries instruments and measures being implemented by regional fisheries management organisations., For many years there has been general acceptance that activities directed at shipwrecks and other forms of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) do not constitute marine scientific research (MSR) and therefore are not subject to regulation under Part XIII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. However, given the controversial nature of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001 and the fact that it seems unlikely that it will gain widespread support (particularly among maritime States) in at least the short- to mid-term, serious consideration should be given to other potential mechanisms for regulating treasure salvage activity to ensure it complies with international archaeological standards. Perhaps the most attractive possibility in purely practical terms would be in some way to draw such activity within the regulatory regime for MSR. This article revisits the question of the relationship between MSR and UCH and explores one particular approach to the subject which may provide a way forward., The availability of technology for the exploitation of resources originating from the sea bed, as well as the need to define the boundaries of national jurisdiction, has resulted in an increase in coastal states’ claims over adjacent maritime areas. The primary mechanism used for the resolution of issues concerning disputed maritime boundary delimitation areas is negotiation; nevertheless, alternative resolution mechanisms, i.e., litigation in state court and arbitration, are at times also chosen for the resolution of such disputes. This article critically discusses the procedure of international arbitration for the settlement of maritime boundary delimitation disputes and disputes arising from joint development agreements for the exploitation of offshore natural resources. It is shown that in the resolution of such disputes, arbitration offers even more advantages than litigation in state court; e.g., it offers a relatively higher degree of control over the composition and control of the arbitral tribunal, a relatively shorter and quicker duration of the proceedings and, not least, closed and private proceedings., ]


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation