International Journal of Maritime Policy

The southern part of the China Sea has been the site of one of the most important maritime disputes in five decades. Tensions are so high that some predict World War III will break out in the region. The Philippines's referral for arbitration in respect of some of its disputes with China resulted in the issuing of a 2016 arbitration award. The legal and political significance of this Award has caused debates among scholars. The legality of the Award and the validity of the court's arguments in various positions are among the topics of these discussions.  In this study, our main question is how much this award has contributed to resolving and clarifying the legal aspects of the maritime disputes between the parties. Our secondary question is the impact of this Award on regional and international peace. The findings of this study indicate that the arbitral tribunal's approach has a significant impact on understanding the concept of "historical rights" as well as the explanation and interpretation of marine environmental protection provisions in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the tribunal's view, by joining the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the rules concerning maritime zones, except in rare cases, override the historical rights of States. It also played an important role in defining and explaining various maritime features; including islands, rocks, and low-tide elevations. However, the effect of the award on reducing tensions in the southern part of the China Sea, Chinese government policies, and Regional peace is in doubt.

Minerals in nature are one of the most valuable treasures on the earth, which due to the limitation of these resources on land and its heterogeneous distribution in different countries, has made human beings think about extracting the new resources. The limited mineral resources on land and the heterogeneous distribution of these substances in different countries have made human beings think about extracting and using the resources of other parts of the earth and even other planets. Deep-sea mineral resources can be considered as a reliable alternative to compensate for the limitations of land resources. The developed countries were more concerned with the use of these resources than others because, given the dependence of their economies on third-world mineral resources, the development of offshore resources could mean the liberation of their economies from this dependence. In political and scientific circles, the concept of the common heritage of humanity was gradually introduced, based on which activities related to mining in the deep sea. The method of this research is a descriptive-analytical study using library resources, the study of articles, and a review of environmental treaties and related internet resources. The result of this research shows, that none of these legal systems in the field of responsibility can respond to the challenges independently. This research tries to provide a legal solution by considering the opinions of environmental experts, an executive solution about achieving new financial resources based on combined systems of environmental responsibility.

The oceans which cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface contain the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth, we depend on the seas for our survival since they support life on earth. They are also essential for our economic prosperity, social well-being, and quality of life. Yet the marine environment is deteriorating fast. We need to find better ways of managing it. Over the last decade, significant advances in citizen science have occurred, allowing projects to extend areas beyond national jurisdiction. Perhaps, however, our greatest challenges are those that exist in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), where management is reliant on international agreements and enforcement is likely to need remote monitoring methods using satellite technologies. In view of this development, the aim of this article is to provide some information on marine scientific research and examines the applicability of the marine scientific research (MSR) regime of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the MSR regime of UNCLOS is far from absolute freedom, it is conditional on responsibilities including, for example, providing the legal basis for setting up obligations such as conservation and sustainable use of the environment. The article concludes by outlining some of the issues that should play important role in the process of research.

On 15 February 2012, two Indian nationals aboard the St. Antony, an Indian fishing ship, were killed allegedly as a result of gunshot wounds following a confrontation with the Enrica Lexie, an Italian merchant ship, in international waters, off the Indian coast. The nature of the confrontation has been in contention. Enrica Lexie was traveling from Singapore to Egypt accompanied by six Italian navy marines. Enrica Lexie began firing at India's Exclusive Economic Zone because they thought pirate boats attacked them. Indian Navy detained the Enrica Lexie and two Italian navy Marines were arrested on charges of murder of two Indian fishermen. This incident caused the dispute between India and Italy over criminal jurisdiction, functional immunity of Italian navy marines, and the practice of arming merchant ships. They refer this dispute to arbitration and finally, Tribunal issued its award. This paper via the descriptive-analytical method, exploring existing documents, conventions, and customary international law shows that criminal jurisdiction over Italian merchant ships at EEZ belongs to the flag state. Most countries permit and even force to arm their flag merchant ships to fight against pirates, so this practice becomes a rule of customary international law. As a result, actions of these Italian marines are attributed to Italy as a governmental act, and state officials are entitled, in principle, to functional immunity from foreign jurisdiction regarding their ‘official’ acts, i.e., when acting in their official capacity.

During its historical life, the Caspian Sea has always been a safe place for many races, people, and governments. Unfortunately, humanity does not appreciate this valuable water zone and steps away consciously or unknowingly on the path to its destruction and demolition. Taking the path in this way is equal to obliterating the roots of the present generation and future generations. With the aim of evaluating the environmental security structure of the Caspian Sea, this research examines a new legal framework for this water zone. Moreover, the research also argued that the Caspian requires effective political and legal decision-making to achieve its ideal state both environmentally and economically or socially. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Caspian Sea was dominated by the two governments of Iran and the Soviet Union. The intense asymmetry between power and resources between the two countries led to the unofficial and actual control of the region in the hands of the Soviet Union.

The conflict between sovereignty over parts of the sea and the necessity of "innocent passage" concept has been the most contentious field in the law of the sea." Two hypotheses in this field have collided in the history of international law of the sea. The first hypothesis is that every human possesses the seas together. "Navigation" and other operations are also allowed for all. Under the excuse of owning the sea, no state has the right to restrict other people's use. However, the second theory says that the sea is owned by someone who controls part of it, and its use can be limited. In international law, the "innocent passage" by foreign vessels from the territorial sea of a country is widely recognized. However, in some territories, the requirements for the "innocent passage" of military vessels include the need for prior notice or the coastal state's permission. Most forces, led by the US, believe in absolute freedom of the military vessel's "innocent passage." However, most Asian countries, including Iran, assume that they can prior notification or approval for a foreign military vessel passage. This activity was often resisted in operational as well as diplomatic phases by naval forces such as the United States.