درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The global issue of Sustainable marine fisheries is considered as common concern to humankind. The emergence and persistence of noncompliant fisheries practices conveniently labelled ‘Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing’ (IUU fishing), is of particular concern for the international community, regional fisheries management organizations and coastal states. The International Tribunal for Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in its first full-bench Advisory Opinion in 2015 found that Arts. 62(4), 58(3), 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contain obligations for a flag state to ensure that vessels flying their flags do not engage in illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zones of coastal states. By this explanation, the Advisory Opinion initially has clarified the inadequate international fisheries law regime through ITLOS interpretive approach, which this paper attempts to examine by applying an exact legal scrutiny. The framework set by the Tribunal may allow States affected by IUU fishing, to exert greater pressure on flag states, particularly flag states of convenience, that do not comply with their responsibilities under UNCLOS. This paper suggests that the regulations on IUU fishing under international law should be enhanced and revised in order to draw an appropriate solution suitable for sustainable fisheries management.

This paper is an attempt to fill the gap in the literature by presenting a language policy formulated according to the idea of constitutional patriotism that overcomes the charge of ineffectiveness. I will argue that the procedural character of constitutional patriotism and its emphasis on the practice of law-making is best suited to allow for a pragmatic answer to the questions of language policy-making in multicultural societies. Unlike the instrumental and intrinsic arguments, the pragmatic approach views language as the matrix of communication where the goal of engaged citizens is mutual understanding. The pragmatic approach is also more effective because unlike the principled approaches, which tend to homogenize the composition of diverse societies, it constrained by (1) values of political culture of the society; (2.a) historical contingencies such as the founding role of national minorities; and (2.b) practical feasibilities such as size, vitality and concentration of linguistic populations. <br />In recent years the normative status of minority rights as a species of human rights has been widely discussed by political theorists. In this context, the issue of minority language rights is one of the most hotly contested topics in the prevailing debate over the claims of culture. Mainstream political theories approach this topic differently, depending on their view of an appropriate model of political association. Liberal egalitarians emphasize the significance of the liberal ideals of neutrality and autonomy in deciding appropriate language policy, while liberal culturalists focus on the constitutive role of language and culture for the individual’s exercise of rights and liberties that translate into a language policy that ranges from recognitions and accommodation to maintenance and protection of group identity and language.