The 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award provided a detailed review of the interpretation of Article 121(3) of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. According to the Tribunal, Article 121(3) performs a preventive function by disabling tiny features from unfairly generating enormous entitlements to maritime space that does not serve the local population. This provision also contributes to safeguarding of the Common Heritage of Mankind. The Tribunal's interpretation seems to reflect development of the law of the sea toward protection of the common interests of the international community. However, since the Tribunal's interpretation is not anchored in state practice and the jurisprudence, whether the interpretation can be generalized needs careful consideration.

International courts and tribunals have played a predominant role in the development of the law of maritime delimitation.¹In fact, since theNorth Sea Continental Shelfcases of 1969, eleven judgments concerning maritime delimitations were given by international courts and tribunals. Owing to the richness of international decisions, one may currently speak of ‘case law’ in the field of maritime delimitations. Thus it is indispensable to consider the evolving process of the law of maritime delimitation on the basis of the practice of international courts and tribunals.

The determination of spatial ambit of the coastal State jurisdiction is fundamental for ocean governance and the same applies to the Arctic Ocean. In this regard, a question arises how it is possible to delimit marine spaces where the jurisdiction of two or more coastal States overlaps. Without rules on maritime delimitation in marine spaces where the jurisdiction of coastal States overlaps, the legal uses of these spaces cannot be enjoyed effectively. In this sense, maritime delimitation is of paramount importance in the Arctic Ocean governance. Thus, this study will examine Arctic maritime delimitations by comparing them to the case law concerning maritime delimitation. In so doing, this study seeks to clarify features of Arctic maritime delimitations.

International law governing marine environmental protection is not merely a mosaic of specific rules; rather it must be considered as a system governing international relations among States and other entities in respect of their activities both on and in relation to the oceans. In order to properly understand the systemic aspects of the international law of marine environmental protection, it is important to examine the cardinal principles of the international legal system in this field. In fact, the principles of the law have great potential value in three respects: (i) to integrate legal, economic and technological elements into a legal framework; (ii) to provide guidance in the interpretation and application of relevant rules; and (iii) to provide predictable parameters and the orientation for the development of law. While there is no generally agreed catalogue of principles governing marine environmental protection, this chapter will seek to examine in particular the five elements, i.e. the ‘no harm’ principle, the precautionary principle, the concept of sustainable development, the concept of common but differentiated responsibility and the principle of cooperation.

"International Court of Justice" published on 01 Jan 2008 by Brill | Nijhoff.

Background: We previously demonstrated that preoperative blood pressure values affect intraoperative hypothermia during general anesthesia. We hypothesized that increased catecholamine secretion coul...