Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the Continental Shelf for Climate Change Mitigation: A Baltic Sea Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Regulatory Gaps in Baltic Sea Governance

Part of the book series: MARE Publication Series ((MARE,volume 18))

  • 320 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter addresses legal issues relating to the use of the continental shelf for carbon storage in the Baltic Sea. Following an introduction to the technology, the focus is on inconsistencies within and between different regulatory layers in this novel yet fairly well-regulated field and on the ability of the legal system to manage the many interests and actors affected by such operations. The last part of the article assesses how well equipped international and EU law is to deal with conflicting interests and recent developments in this regard. While focusing on carbon storage, the significance of the analysis is more broadly applicable for any other marine activities that give rise to conflicting interests in the Baltic Sea region and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On geoengineering generally, see The Royal Society Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty (September 2009, Report 10/09).

  2. 2.

    On the regulation of ocean fertilization , see Report of the Thirtieth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention and the Third Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Protocol (9 December 2008) LC 30/WP.3. See also CBD COP 9 Decision IX/16: Biodiversity and climate change (9 October 2008) UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/16.

  3. 3.

    In fact, nearly the entire Baltic Sea area is affected by eutrophication. M. Pyhälä et al. (eds), Eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea 2007–2011 - A concise thematic assessment, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 143 (HELCOM , Helsinki, 2014) 6.

  4. 4.

    Extensive algal blooms can lead to severe oxygen depletion as a result of cellular respiration and bacterial degradation.

  5. 5.

    On solar radiation management, see The Royal Society, note 1, Chap. 3.

  6. 6.

    If carbon dioxide from the burning of biomass is sequestered, it could count as geoengineering since the carbon dioxide would then be part of the carbon dioxide cycle.

  7. 7.

    For further details on the technology, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, prepared by Working Group III of the IPCC (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).

  8. 8.

    On biogenic emissions in the Nordic region see S. Teir et al. Potential for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS ) in the Nordic Region (VTT Research Note 2556, 2010) available at <http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2010/T2556.pdf>, at 23.

  9. 9.

    Government Bill 2016/17:146 Ett klimatpolitiskt ramverk för Sverige, 34.

  10. 10.

    N. Rydberg & D. Langlet CCS in the Baltic Sea region – Bastor 2: Work Package 4 – Legal & Fiscal Aspects Elforsk report 14:48 (2015) available at <http://www.elforsk.se/Rapporter/?rid=14_48_> at 30 with further references.

  11. 11.

    This applies e.g. in the Nordic region. See Teir et al., note 8 at 73.

  12. 12.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , note 7 at 34.

  13. 13.

    Teir et al., note 8 at 73.

  14. 14.

    CCS in the Baltic Sea region – Bastor 2 Final Summary Report Elforsk report 14:50 (2014) Chap. 2 available at <http://www.elforsk.se/Rapporter/?rid=14_50_>

  15. 15.

    See e.g. Carbon Capture and Storage in the Skagerrak/Kattegat region, Final report (February 2012) available at <http://www.ccs-skagerrakkattegat.eu/news/tabid/60/Default.aspx>.

  16. 16.

    See, e.g. the models/scenarios presented in ibid. and in Teir et al., note 8.

  17. 17.

    Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on Guidelines for Trans-European Energy Infrastructure, OJ [2013] L115/39, Annex I.

  18. 18.

    Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (25 February 2014) COM(2014) 99 final, 3.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    International Energy Agency (IEA) Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage (IEA, Paris, 2013) available at <http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technology-roadmap-carbon-capture-and-storage-2013.html> at 5.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., at 8.

  22. 22.

    This applies with respect to steel, cement and parts of the chemicals industry. Teir et al., note 8 at 8.

  23. 23.

    Referring to the EU’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, the EU Commission has found that “the 2050 target can only be achieved if the emissions from fossil fuel combustion are eliminated from the system, and here CCS may have an essential role to play, as a technology that is able to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels in both the power and industrial sectors”. Communication by the Commission on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe COM(2013) 180 final, 11.

  24. 24.

    The Global Status of CCS: 2013 (Global CCS Institute, Melbourne, 2013) 60; Communication by the Commission on the Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe, note 23 at 16.

  25. 25.

    The EU ETS is set up through Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC [2003] OJ L275/32. The Directive applies to emissions from the activities listed in Annex I and the greenhouse gases listed in Annex II. The activities covered include, inter alia, combustion installations, oil refineries, installations for the production of pig iron or steel, installations for the production of cement and industrial plants for the production of pulp from timber or other fibrous materials, paper and board. In most cases only activities with a certain output, expressed, e.g. as a minimum number of tonnes produced per day, are covered. All in all, more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants are included. On the EU ETS, see D. Langlet and S. Mahmoudi EU Environmental Law and Policy (Oxford University Press 2016), section 11.2.

  26. 26.

    On the regulatory aspects of CCS more broadly, see I. Havercroft, R. B. Macrory, and R. B. Stewart (eds) Carbon Capture and Storage – Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues (Hart, Oxford and Portland, 2011).

  27. 27.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982) 1833 UNTS 3 (UNCLOS).

  28. 28.

    See section EU LAW RELEVANT TO CCS : GENERAL PRECONDITIONS below.

  29. 29.

    See instead e.g. D. R. Rothwell, A. G. Oude Elferink, K. N. Scott, T. Stephens (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015); and Y. Tanaka The International Law of the Sea (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015).

  30. 30.

    UNCLOS , arts. 5 and 7.

  31. 31.

    The right to ‘innocent passage ’ means essentially that ships from other states may navigate in this area as long as their passage is continuous and expeditious and they do not engage in activities prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state . UNCLOS, arts. 17–19.

  32. 32.

    UNCLOS , art. 2.

  33. 33.

    UNCLOS, art. 86. To be exact, the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state are also not part of the high seas.

  34. 34.

    UNCLOS , art. 87(1). Additional freedoms are the freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to UNCLOS Part VI; the freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in UNCLOS Part VII, section 2; the freedom of scientific research subject to UNCLOS Parts VI and XIII.

  35. 35.

    UNCLOS, arts. 55 and 57.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., art. 56(1)(a).

  37. 37.

    Ibid., art. 56(1)(b).

  38. 38.

    R Lagoni, “Pipelines ” in R Wolfrum (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (e-resource, OUP 2008, updated April 2011) para. 10.

  39. 39.

    “The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal State , and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise.” UNCLOS , art. 76(3).

  40. 40.

    UNCLOS, art. 76(1). In fact, the continental shelf may extend even further under certain conditions which, however, are beyond the preview of this analysis since no such areas exist in the Baltic Sea .

  41. 41.

    UNCLOS, art. 77.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Brus, who contends that the legal classification of sub-seabed storage, and thus the preconditions for exercising jurisdiction over such activities, is still very uncertain. M. Brus, “Challenging Complexities of CCS in Public International Law” in M. M. Roggenkamp and E. Woerdman (eds) Legal Design of Carbon Capture and Storage (Antwerp: Intersentia 2009) 19–60, at 35.

  43. 43.

    UNCLOS , art. 56.

  44. 44.

    UNCLOS, art. 81.

  45. 45.

    How else could any member state ensure, as it is obliged to, that no storage site is operated without a storage permit in the area to which the Directive applies? Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide OJ [2009] L140/114, art. 6. See furthermore, D. Langlet “Transboundary Dimensions of CCS : EU Law Problems and Prospects” (2014) 8 Carbon and Climate Law Review 198–207, at 200.

  46. 46.

    According to UNCLOS Part V on the EEZ the coastal state’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction are with respect to the seabed and subsoil to be exercised in accordance with Part VI of UNCLOS, i.e. the rules on the continental shelf . On the relationship between Parts V and VI of the Convention as regards pipelines , see D. Langlet “Transboundary Transit Pipelines: Reflections on the Balancing of Rights and Interests in Light of the Nord Stream Project” (2014) 63 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 977–995.

  47. 47.

    UNCLOS, art. 79(1) and (2). On the notion of “reasonable measures” in this context, see Langlet note 46.

  48. 48.

    T. Koivurova and I. Pölönen “Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in the Case of the Baltic Sea Gas Pipeline ” (2010) 25 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 151–181, at 179.

  49. 49.

    UNCLOS , art. 79 (3).

  50. 50.

    See Langlet, note 46 at 988.

  51. 51.

    The freedom pertains to states, not individuals. But in practice the activities covered by the freedom of the high seas are overwhelmingly exercised by private parties. W. Wiese Grenzüberschreitende Landrohrleitungen und Seeverlegte Rohrleitungen im Völkerrecht (Duncker & Humblot GmbH 1997) 210.

  52. 52.

    UNCLOS , art. 58(1).

  53. 53.

    On innocent passage , see note 31.

  54. 54.

    UNCLOS, art. 194(2).

  55. 55.

    UNCLOS, art. 208.

  56. 56.

    Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki, 9 April 1992) 1507 UNTS 167.

  57. 57.

    UNCLOS , art. 194(2).

  58. 58.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2008] OJ C115/47 (TFEU), art. 191(1)

  59. 59.

    TFEU, art. 216

  60. 60.

    Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others ECLI:EU:C:2008:312, para. 42. On the nature of EU directives and regulation see art. 288 TFEU.

  61. 61.

    Case12/86 Demirel ECLI:EU:C:1987:400, para.11.

  62. 62.

    Case C-308/06 Intertanko, note 60 at paras. 43–45.

  63. 63.

    Case C-308/06 Intertanko, note 60 at para. 65.

  64. 64.

    Case 12/86 Demirel, note 61 at para.14. On the general precondition of the direct effect of EU law see Case 26–62 van Gend & Loos ECLI:EU:C:1963:1 (English special edition).

  65. 65.

    Case C-308/06 Intertanko, note 60 at para 52.

  66. 66.

    Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide … [2009] OJ L140/114.

  67. 67.

    That the Directive is based on the Union’s environmental policy has implications for the relationship between EU law and the legal orders of the member states. Legal acts based on that policy do not in principle prevent individual member states from taking more stringent protective measures, i.e. measures going beyond the standards set by EU law in terms of environmental and health protection. On the notion of “more stringent protective measures” see Langlet and Mahmoudi, note 25 at 102.

  68. 68.

    Directive 2009/31/EC, art. 1.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., art 2.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., arts. 4(1) and (3) and 6(2).

  71. 71.

    Ibid., art. 4. A “significant risk” is defined, in art. 3(18), as “a combination of a probability of occurrence of damage and a magnitude of damage that cannot be disregarded without calling into question the purpose of [the] Directive for the storage site concerned”. For a critical discussion on this definition, see Langlet and Mahmoudi, note 25 at 272, note 84.

  72. 72.

    Helsinki Convention , arts. 2 and 11.

  73. 73.

    On the interpretation of similar provisions in the 1972 London Dumping Convention and the 1996 London Dumping Protocol, see D. Langlet “Exporting CO2 for Sub-Seabed Storage: The Non-Effective Amendment to the London Dumping Protocol and its Implications” (2015) 30 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 395–417, at 403.

  74. 74.

    Arguably, any court or tribunal of a member state against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must ask the CJEU for a so-called preliminary ruling on the applicability of the CCS Directive – if faced with a case concerning the storage of carbon dioxide in the seabed in an area to which the Helsinki Convention applies. This follows from art. 267 TFEU and Case 283/81 CILFIT ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, paras. 13–16 and 21.

  75. 75.

    [2002] OJ C 325/5.

  76. 76.

    Case C-433/03 Commission v. Germany ECLI:EU:C:2005:462, para. 63.

  77. 77.

    Case C-165/91 van Munster ECLI:EU:C:1994:359.

  78. 78.

    Art. 3(3) TEU.

  79. 79.

    The CCS Directive establishes a legal framework for the environmentally safe geological storage of carbon dioxide . The purpose of such storage is the permanent containment of carbon dioxide in such a way as to prevent and, where this is not possible, eliminate, as far as possible, negative effects and any risk to the environment and human health, i.e. contribute to the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. Directive 2009/31/EC, art. 1. On the financial mechanism used to support the development of CCS in the EU, see M. Doppelhammer “The CCS Directive , its Implementation and the Co-financing of CCS and RES Demonstration Projects under the Emissions Trading System (NER 300 Process)” in I. Havercroft, R. Macrory and R. B. Stewart (eds) Carbon Capture and Storage: Emerging Legal and Regulatory Issues (Hart, Oxford, 2011) 93–106.

  80. 80.

    See Art. 31 (3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna 23 May 1969) (1969) 8 ILM 679.

  81. 81.

    International Law Commission (ILC) First report on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to treaty interpretation, by Georg Nolte, Special Rapporteur (19 March 2013) UN Doc. A/CN.4/660, para. 49.

  82. 82.

    ILC, Second report on subsequent agreements and practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties, by Georg Nolte, Special Rapporteur (26 March 2014) UN Doc. A/CN.4/671, para. 102.

  83. 83.

    Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London, 7 November 1996) (1997) 36 ILM 1 (‘London Protocol ’).

  84. 84.

    A Working Group set up by the parties to the London Convention found this prohibition to apply to all export of carbon dioxide streams from the jurisdiction of one contracting party to any other country. Report of the 1st Meeting of the Legal and Technical Working Group on Transboundary CO2 Sequestration Issues (3 March 2008) LP/CO2 1/8, para. 1.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., arts. 4.1 and 4.3.

  86. 86.

    On the prohibition and the non-effective amendment of the London Dumping Protocol, see Langlet, note 73.

  87. 87.

    The EU has changed its own waste legislation so as to enable carbon dioxide for geological storage to be transported between member states. Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on Shipments of Waste [2006] OJ L190/1 now excludes “shipments of CO2 for the purposes of geological storage in accordance with Directive 2009/31/EC” from its scope. Ibid., art. 1(3)(h) as amended. See further Langlet, note 45.

  88. 88.

    London Protocol , art. 21.

  89. 89.

    Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the shipment of waste [2006] OJ L190/1, art. 34.

  90. 90.

    See, e.g. the permit for the section of the Nord Stream gas pipelines that traverses the Finnish EEZ/continental shelf , according to which the applicant is obliged to allow crossings using the most financially advantageous construction and to co-operate closely with other operators when planning and realising crossings of gas pipelines and cables. Consent to Exploit Finland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (5 November 2009) 678/601/2009 (Unofficial translation provided by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy) 30.

  91. 91.

    UNCLOS , art. 78(2).

  92. 92.

    Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1992] OJ L 206/7, art. 6. On the significance of Natura 2000 areas for CCS deployment in a regional context, see CCS in the Skagerrak/Kattegat-region – Final report, February 2012, available at <http://interreg-oks.eu/webdav/files/gamla-rojektbanken/se/Material/Files/Kattegat/Skagerrak/Dokumenter+projektbank/CCS%20final%20report.pdf> at 75.

  93. 93.

    On the relevant case law of the CJEU, see Langlet and Mahmoudi, note 25, at 359.

  94. 94.

    There is of course the fundamental obligation that international disputes are to be settled by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Charter of the United Nations (San Francisco, 26 June 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, art. 2(3).

  95. 95.

    Although the existence of a duty to cooperate may be asserted, that duty “is too indefinite and too vague to require the states to act in a certain specific way or to adopt and implement certain specific measures…” . F.X. Perrez Cooperative Sovereignty: From Independence to Interdependence in the Structure of International Environmental Law (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000) 261.

  96. 96.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14, para. 204.

  97. 97.

    Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 25 February 1991) 1989 UNTS 310 (Espoo Convention ).

  98. 98.

    Ibid., art. 2(3) and Annex 1, points 8 and 16.

  99. 99.

    R. Purdy “Geological Carbon Dioxide Storage and the Law” in S. Shackley and C. Gough (eds) Carbon Capture and its Storage: An Integrated Assessment (Ashgate, Aldershot and Burlington, 2006) 87–139, at 125.

  100. 100.

    See the “clarifications/assumptions” of the relevant working group under the London Protocol on dumping . Report of the First Meeting of the Legal and Technical Working Group on Transboundary CO2 Sequestration Issues (3 March 2008) LP/CO2 1/8, 2.

  101. 101.

    Espoo Convention , art. 2(5).

  102. 102.

    Koivurova and Pölönen, note 48 at 174.

  103. 103.

    Parties are also required to, either individually or jointly, take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from proposed activities. Espoo Convention , art. 2(1).

  104. 104.

    MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95, para. 82.

  105. 105.

    UNCLOS , art. 1(1)(4) and Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) Arbitral Award of 18 March 201, para. 538.

  106. 106.

    The Baltic Sea qualifies as semi-enclosed both because it is “surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet” and since it consists “entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States ”. UNCLOS, art. 122.

  107. 107.

    UNCLOS , art. 123.

  108. 108.

    E. Franckx and M. Benatar “The ‘Duty’ to Co-Operate for States Bordering Enclosed or Semi-Enclosed Seas” (2013) 31 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs 66–81. It could be noted, however, that in the Nord Stream case the Finnish Government referred to its participation in the international EIA under the Espoo Convention as its way to dispose of “the obligation to cooperate that pertains to States bordering a semi-enclosed sea like the Baltic Sea ”. Consent to Exploit Finland’s Exclusive Economic Zone , note 90, 23.

  109. 109.

    On the legal perspectives of MSP in a transboundary context, see D. Hassan, T. Kuokkanen and N. Soininen (eds) Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning and International Law (Routledge, New York, 2015).

  110. 110.

    UNESCO Marine Spatial Planning Initiative at < http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/>

  111. 111.

    On the role of UNCLOS for marine spatial planning , see D. Hassan and N Soininen “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a Framework for Marine Spatial Planning” in Hassan, Kuokkanen and Soininen, note 109, at 60–84.

  112. 112.

    Regarding VASAB’s work with MSP, see < http://www.vasab.org/index.php/maritime-spatial-planning>

  113. 113.

    On HELCOM’s work on MSP, see < http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/maritime-spatial-planning/>

  114. 114.

    Adopted by HELCOM HOD 34–2010 and the 54th Meeting of VASAB CSPD/BSR, available at <http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/HELCOM%20at%20work/Groups/MSP/HELCOM-VASAB%20MSP%20Principles.pdf>

  115. 115.

    Baltic Sea Broad-scale Maritime Spatial Planning Principles, Principle 7, Transnational coordination and consultation.

  116. 116.

    The principle is now found in art. 4(3) TEU. It has, e.g. been described as the principle “upon which the [EU] Court has built the entire European Union constitutional architecture”. A. Dashwood, M. Dougan, B. Rodger, E. Spaventa, and D. Wyatt Wyatt and Dashwood’s European Union Law (6th edn. Hart, Oxford and Portland, 2011).

  117. 117.

    Case C-165/91 van Munster ECLI:EU:C:1994:359.

  118. 118.

    Case C-523/04 Commission v Netherlands ECLI:EU:C:2007:244, para. 34.

  119. 119.

    [2012] OJ L26/1.

  120. 120.

    For an introduction to this case law, see Langlet and Mahmoudi, note 25, section 7.1.

  121. 121.

    Directive 2011/ 92/EU, art. 8a.

  122. 122.

    Directive 2009/31/EC, art. 24.

  123. 123.

    Ibid., art. 10.

  124. 124.

    [2014] OJ L257/135.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., arts. 3(2) and 5(2).

  126. 126.

    Ibid., art. 8.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., art. 6.

  128. 128.

    Ibid., art 12.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., art 11.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., preambular para. 12.

  131. 131.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management (12 March 2013) COM(2013)133final. 5.

  132. 132.

    Compare ibid. arts. 12 and 13 and Directive 2014/89/EU, arts. 11 and 12. For an analysis of the differences between the proposal and the Directive as eventually adopted, see A. Zervaki “The Legalization of Maritime Spatial Planning in the European Union and Its Implications for Maritime Governance ” (2016) 30 Ocean Yearbook 32–52.

  133. 133.

    COM(2013) 133 final, note 131, art. 7; and Directive 2014/89/EU, art. 8.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    David Langlet

Authors
  1. David Langlet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Langlet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, Finland

    Henrik Ringbom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Langlet, D. (2018). Using the Continental Shelf for Climate Change Mitigation: A Baltic Sea Perspective. In: Ringbom, H. (eds) Regulatory Gaps in Baltic Sea Governance. MARE Publication Series, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75070-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75070-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75069-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75070-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation