Book contents
- Climate Change and Ocean Governance
- Climate Change and Ocean Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Vulnerable Islands and Coasts
- Part III Marine Fisheries and Pelagic Seas
- Part IV Changing Polar Seas
- Part V Institutions and Law for Ocean Governance
- 16 Contested Multilateralism
- 17 Climate Change in the Coral Triangle
- 18 Nonterritorial Exclusive Economic Zones
- 19 International Law and Marine Ecosystem Governance
- 20 Managing Marine Resources
- Part VI Policies for Ocean Governance
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
18 - Nonterritorial Exclusive Economic Zones
Future Rights of Small-Island States
from Part V - Institutions and Law for Ocean Governance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2019
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Climate Change and Ocean Governance
- Climate Change and Ocean Governance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Vulnerable Islands and Coasts
- Part III Marine Fisheries and Pelagic Seas
- Part IV Changing Polar Seas
- Part V Institutions and Law for Ocean Governance
- 16 Contested Multilateralism
- 17 Climate Change in the Coral Triangle
- 18 Nonterritorial Exclusive Economic Zones
- 19 International Law and Marine Ecosystem Governance
- 20 Managing Marine Resources
- Part VI Policies for Ocean Governance
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Climate Change and Ocean GovernancePolitics and Policy for Threatened Seas, pp. 290 - 306Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
American Law Institute. (1987). Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. L. and Leal, D. R. (2001). Free Market Environmentalism, rev. edn., New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Archer, J. H., Connors, D. L., Laurence, K., and Bowen, R. (1994). The Public Trust Doctrine and the Management of America’s Coasts, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Brilmayer, L. and Klein, N. (2001). Land and sea: Two sovereignty regimes in search of a common denominator. NYU Journal of International Law & Policy, 33, 703–68.Google Scholar
Burkett, M. (2011). The nation ex-situ: On climate change, deterritorialized nationhood and the post-climate era. Climate Law, 2, 345–74.Google Scholar
Cambou, D. and Smis, S. (2013). Permanent sovereignty over natural resources from a human rights perspective: Natural resources exploitation and indigenous peoples’ rights in the Arctic. Michigan State International Law Review, 22(1), 347–76.Google Scholar
Chasin, C. J. (2015). Modernizing class action Cy Pres through democratic inputs: A return to Cy Pres Comme possible. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163, 1463–95.Google Scholar
Churchill, A. and Lowe, A. V. (1999). The Law of the Sea, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Costi, A. and Ross, N. J. (2017). The ongoing legal status of low-lying states in the climate change future. In Butler, P. and Morris, C., eds., Small States in a Legal World. Vol. I. Cham: Springer, pp. 101–38.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. R. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. R. (2007). The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc. (2008). 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588, 599.Google Scholar
Dupuy, R. J. and Vignes, D. (1991). Handbook on the New Law of the Sea. Vol. I. Leiden; Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Fisch, E. L. (1952). Cy Pres doctrine and changing philosophies. Michigan Law Review, 51, 375–88.Google Scholar
Frey, B. C. (1974). The public trust in public waterways. Urban Law Annual, 7, 219–46.Google Scholar
Frey, B. C. and Mutz, A. (2007). The public trust in surface waterways and submerged lands of the Great Lakes states. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 40(4), 907–94.Google Scholar
Friedheim, R. L. (1993). Negotiating the New Ocean Regime, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Head, J. W. (2017). International Law and Agroecological Husbandry: Building Legal Foundations for a New Agriculture, London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II. (2014). Fifth Assessment Report, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part B Regional Aspects.Google Scholar
International Court of Justice Western Sahara Advisory Opinion. (1975). ICJ GL No61, [1975] ICJ Rep 12.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (1994). National self-determination today: Problems of legal theory and practice. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 43(2), 241–69.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. B. (1968). The convention of the continental shelf and the need for its revision and some comments regarding the regime for the lands beyond. Natural Resources Lawyer, 1(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
Leary, D. K. (2007). International Law and the Genetic Resources of the Deep Sea, Leiden; Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
McAdam, J. (2010). Disappearing states, statelessness and the boundaries of international law. In McAdam, J., ed., Climate Change and Displacement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 105–28.Google Scholar
McIntyre, O. (2007). Environmental Protection of International Watercourses Under International Law, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
McVay, K. (2012). Self-determination in new contexts: The self-determination of refugees and forced migrants in international law. Utrecht Journal of European and International Law, 28(75), 36–52.Google Scholar
Ohlin, J. D. (2016). The right to exist and the right to resist. In Tesón, F. R., ed., The Theory of Self-Determination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–93.Google Scholar
Osherenko, G. (2006). New discourses on ocean governance: Understanding property rights and the public trust. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 21(2), 317–82.Google Scholar
Pound, R. (1920). The progress of the law, 1918–1919: Equity. Harvard Law Review, 33(3), 420–41.Google Scholar
Raic, D. (2002). Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination, The Hague; London; New York: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R. R. (2009). W(h)ither Tuvalu? International law and disappearing states. UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2009-9, 1–13.Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R. R. (2010). International law and disappearing states: Utilising maritime entitlements to overcome the statehood dilemma. UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2010-52, 1–13.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H. (2004). Sovereignty bounded: Public trusteeship for common pool resources? Global Environmental Policy, 4(1) 47–71.Google Scholar
Sax, J. L. (1969). The public trust doctrine in natural resource law: Effective judicial intervention. Michigan Law Review, 68, 471–566.Google Scholar
Shaw, M. N. (2014). International Law, 7th edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shearer, I. (2013). The limits of maritime jurisdiction. In Schofield, C. H., Lee, S., and Kwon, M., eds., The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction. Leiden; Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
Sofroniou, A. (2017). International Law, Global Relations, World Powers, Andreas Sofroniou.Google Scholar
Stoutenburg, J. G. (2013). When do states disappear? In Gerrard, M. B. and Wannier, G. E., eds., Threatened Island Nations: Legal Implications of Rising Seas and a Changing Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–88.Google Scholar
Sullivan, W. P. (2017). The restricted charitable gift as third-party-beneficiary contract. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, 52, 79–119.Google Scholar
Summers, J. (2014). Peoples and International Law, 2nd rev. edn., Leiden; Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties. (1946). 17 ILM 1488 (1978).Google Scholar
Turnipseed, M., Berkman, J., Blumm, M., et al. (2012). The public trust doctrine and Rio+20. Third Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability, 1–7.Google Scholar
Turnipseed, M., Roady, S. E., Sagarin, R., and Crowder, L. B. (2009). The silver anniversary of the United States’ exclusive economic zone: Twenty-five years of ocean use and abuse, and the possibility of a blue water public trust doctrine. Ecology Law Quarterly, 36, 1–70.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly. (1963). Resolution 1803 Permanent sovereignty over natural resources. U.N. Doc. A/RES/1803.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly. (1973). Resolution 3016 Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources of Developing Countries. U.N. Doc. A/RES/3016.Google Scholar
United States v. Mexico. (1942). US Dept. of State, Publication 2859, Arbitration Series 9, 546.Google Scholar
Wilkins, J. G. and Wascom, M. (1992). The public trust doctrine in Louisiana. Louisiana Law Review, 52(4), 861–905.Google Scholar
Wood, M. C. (2014). Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yzenbaard, C. A., Hess, A. M., Bogert, G. G., et al. (2017). Bogert’s Trusts and Trustees, dig. ed., St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar