Abstract
Recent events such as environmental disasters and loss of life form accidents in offshore oil exploitation have generated significant interest in the question of who regulates, sets standards, and has responsibility and liability for activities in the wider ocean areas near coastlines. This reports surveys the laws of 13 countries to reach a number of observations. Despite codification and development of an international regime, the applicable law remains uncertain, fragmented, and undeveloped. The EEZ and continental shelf are not “law free” zones. Regionalism is having a significant impact on applicable law in this area. States have advocated and pursued spatial planning and various efforts to develop integrated management and ocean policy approaches.
II.D., Le droit applicable sur le plateau continental et dans la zone économique exclusive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
National reports were submitted by the following: Belgium (Eduard (Eddy) Somers, Frank Maes); Canada (Denis Roy); Germany (Wolfgang Wurmnest); Italy (Tullio Treves, Irini Papanicolopulu); Japan (Souichirou Kozuka, Hideyuki Nakamura); Netherlands (Christiaan P. Verwer); Norway (Tore Henriksen); Peru (José Antonio Saavedra Calderón, Angel Horna); Poland (Maria Dragun-Gertner, Dorota Pyć, Zuzanna Peplowska); Portugal (Luís de Lima Pinheiro); Slovenia (Petra Ferk); USA (Rachael E. Salcido), and Venezuela (Angelina Jaffé). This General Report benefited from comments at the Session from the reporters for Poland, Belgium, Japan, USA, and Portugal and from the Chair, Dr. Jürgen Basedow.
- 2.
See, for example, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Cambridge University Press/British Institute of International and Comparative Law) or even more recently, a journal Transnational Legal Theory (Hart Publishing, Oxford) <http://www.hartjournals.co.uk/tlt/index.html>. It was interesting to see that this issue was also the subject of debate at the opening plenary of the 18th Congress on “The Role of Comparative Law in Courts and International Tribunals” and at the Session on “International Law in Domestic Systems”. As Craig Scott, the Convening Editor, notes in “Introducing Transnational Legal Theory” in Volume 1, March 2010:
Transnational Legal Theory’s mandate includes theoretical work that explores fresh (or revived) understandings of both international law and comparative law ‘beyond the state’ (and the interstate). In particular, we seek works that explore the interfaces, intersections and mutual embeddedness of public international law, private international law and comparative law, in terms of whether and how such inter-relationships are reshaping and blending these sub-disciplines in directions that are in important respects ‘transnational’ in nature.
- 3.
Especially in the European Union (EU) context.
- 4.
See, for example, the National Report by Dr. Wurmnest (Germany).
- 5.
ILM 1261 (1982). Online: <http://www.un.org/depts./los>.
- 6.
Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958, 499 U.N.T.S. 311; Convention on the High Seas, 29 April 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 82.
- 7.
See the National Reports by Professor Salcido (United States of America (USA)) and Professor Jaffé (Venezuela).
- 8.
For example, at the end of April 2010, the “Deep Water Horizon” deep sea offshore oil drilling unit spill/leak in the Gulf of Mexico that involved the death of a number of rig workers and that is having a major impact on the coast of the USA, as well as resulting in multiple investigations and a burgeoning number of law suits and other claims. As noted by Professor Salcido (USA) in her comments to the Congress Session, crisis often drives the development of law and reforms.
- 9.
In 2002, the Prestige sought and was denied a place of refuge. Ultimately it sank and began to leak oil approximately 250 km off Spain and polluted much of the coastline.
- 10.
On 5 April 2010, the grounding of the coal carrier Shen Neng 1 caused a fuel oil and possible coal spill on the Great Barrier Reef.
- 11.
The early-1990s oil spill from the Exxon Valdez in Alaskan waters promoted the push in IMO to “double hull” tankers. The Amoco Cadiz incident in 1976 near the coast of France is often heralded as the turning point with respect to MARPOL 73/78 and related instruments.
- 12.
See, for example, the reference to the European Court of Justice regarding the validity of an EC Directive 2005/35 on ship-source pollution and penalties for infringements and its decision in Case 308/06: The Queen on the application of INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO, The Greek Shipping Cooperation Committee, Lloyd’s Register, The International Salvage Union v. The Secretary of State for Transport. Judgment. At <http://eur-lex.europa.eu> Court of Justice of the European Communities (Grand Chamber), June 3, 2008. The Court was asked to consider the following questions:
-
•Whether the EU can impose criminal liability for discharges from foreign-flag ships on the high seas or in the Exclusive Economic Zone independently of MARPOL, thereby limiting MARPOL defences;
-
•Whether the standard of criminal liability for discharges resulting from “serious negligence” breaches the right of Innocent passage”;
-
•Whether the EU can legislate for discharges in territorial seas otherwise than in accordance with MARPOL, again limiting MARPOL defences and expanding parties who might be liable;
-
•Whether the standard of liability in the European Union directive of “serious negligence” satisfies the requirement of legal certainty.
-
- 13.
Centennial Essays, 100 AJIL (2006), 830–51, at 830.
- 14.
She made this observation in connection with the interaction between the LOSC, IMO Conventions, the various UNEP and other UN Conventions, the Helsinki Convention (1992 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area) and the various EU Directives.
- 15.
Erik Franckx, “Book review of Maria Gavouneli, Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea, Vol. 62, Publications on Ocean Development (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007),” in Ocean Yearbook , vol. 23 eds. Coffen-Smout, S., Chircop, A., McConnell, M. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 532. Of course these terms are simply descriptions of particular kinds of interest and legal roles since most States that have a maritime interest assume all three roles to varying degrees. Interestingly, under the ILO’s Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (NIF but expected 2012/2013) an additional “maritime” interest, that of labour- supplying responsibilities, is emerging, particularly in connection with regulation of seafarer recruitment and placement services and social security protection.
- 16.
Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: 1989.
- 17.
Maria Gavouneli, Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea, vol. 62, Publications on Ocean Development (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007).
- 18.
International Law and Policy Series, vol. 51 (The Hague: Kluwer, 1998).
- 19.
Article 1, Convention on the High Seas, supra note 7.
- 20.
The term itself implies a more abstract notion, clearly a legal construct, differing from “territory”. See: Moira L. McConnell, “Conflict Prevention and Management: Designing Effective Dispute Resolution Strategies for Aquaculture Siting and Operations,” in Aquaculture Law and Policy: Towards Principled Access and Operations, ed. VanderZwaag, D., and Chao, G. (London/New York: Routledge Press, 2006), 171–206 and sources discussed therein at footnote 21.
- 21.
S. N. Nandan, “The Exclusive Economic Zone: A Historical Perspective,” in Essays in Memory of Jean Carroz (Rome: FAO, 1987). Available at: <http://www.fao.org/docrep/s5280T/s5280t0p.htm>. Jean Carroz is quoted in Nandan’s paper as stating, in 1981, that:
Since the seventeenth century, when the development of seaborne trade and the emergence of powerful maritime nations led to a shift from the notion of closed seas claimed by a few countries to the concept of open seas, the two basic principles of the law of the sea have been that a narrow strip of coastal waters should be under the exclusive sovereignty of the coastal state and that the high seas beyond should be freely accessible to all. These principles were originally intended to satisfy and reconcile the requirements of national security with freedom of trade and navigation. But they were applied to all activities in both areas and ipso facto defined the legal framework within which fishing activities were carried on. At the Conference on the Law of the Sea, there was only limited support for maintaining the status quo…
- 22.
Article 2 of LOSC extends coastal State sovereignty from land and internal waters out to an adjacent belt of sea, the territorial sea, and to the seabed and subsoil and airspace above it, to a maximum of 12 NM from a State’s baselines.
- 23.
It has been argued that this provision may be the basis for the “creeping jurisdiction” by coastal States: See: Niquole Esters, “Impacts of Language: Creeping Jurisdiction and its Challenges to the Equal Implementation of the Law of the Sea Convention”, in Difficulties in Implementing the Provisions of UNCLOS , Conference paper for the 2008, HO/IAG Advisory Board on the Law of the Sea Conference. Online< http:www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS08Folder/Session5-Paper1-Esters.pdf>.
- 24.
LOSC, Article 33, Contiguous Zone, provides
-
1.
In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.
-
2.
The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
-
1.
- 25.
As of 20 September 2011, 162 States are party to the LOSC, online: <http://www.un.org/dept/losreference_files/status2010.pdf>. Or, even if they have not ratified the Convention, they have adopted extended maritime claims either before its adoption or after 1982. As of 2010, on a very “rough count”, 135 States, had claims for either a 200 NM EEZ or Exclusive Fisheries Zone or some other zone, or had extended claims delimited by agreement with other opposite or adjacent States. See: published summary table of claims in 31 July 2010, online: <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf.
As noted in the National Reports by Mag. Petra Ferk (Slovenia) and by Drs. Treves and Papanicolopulu (Italy) the countries bordering the Mediterranean have some difficulty in making such claims because of proximity; however, some States are claiming ecological protection or similarly named zones beyond the Territorial Sea, e.g., France, Solvenia, Italy. However, these countries have also adopted a regional convention-based regime, the Barcelona Convention (1976 Convention for the Protection of The Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution), a system to address environmental protection concerns. See Discussion in: Seminar on the legal aspects of the Barcelona Convention and its Protocols, online: < http://www.mepielan.gr/int-sem-02-en.html>.
- 26.
The concept of “mar presencial” (Presential sea) was initially proposed by Chile as a solution for the problem of straddling stocks. See: Christopher C. Joyner and Peter N. De Cola, “Chile’s Presential Sea Proposal: Implications for Straddling Stocks and the International Law of Fisheries”, in 24 Ocean Development & International Law, 99 (1993); Thomas A. Clingan Jr., “Mar Presencial (the Presential sea): Deja Vu all over again? – A Response to Francisco Orrego Vicuna”, in 24 Ocean Development & International Law, 93 (1993).
- 27.
A concept that has been discussed in Canada, in connection with concerns about overfishing of the straddling stocks adjacent to Canada’s EEZ in the Atlantic.
- 28.
For example. the European Directive, supra note 13. Or, as noted by Charlotte Briede and Phillip Saunders in “Challenges To The UNCLOS Regime: National Legislation Which Is Incompatible With International Law” (citations removed):
In another example of a coastal State regulation which may extend beyond the confines of MARPOL (and thus of UNCLOS), the Canadian government in 2005 responded to a perceived problem with seabird oiling caused by oily bilge water dumping by amending the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). The amended Act, which applies in the EEZ, makes it an offence for any person or vessel to “deposit a substance that is harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds…” (see s. 5.1(1)).
MARPOL-compliant discharges, such as permissible levels of oily bilge water, would be protected by a separate provision exempting “authorized” discharges under the Canada Shipping Act 2001, which applies MARPOL standards. However, the broad language of the prohibition, which would apply to substances other than oil, comes up against the requirement under UNCLOS that such measures must be made pursuant to an internationally accepted standard, and there is no indication of what international rule or standard this provision is implementing.
Conference paper for the 2008, HO/IAG Advisory Board on the Law of the Sea Conference: Difficulties In Implementing The Provisions Of UNCLOS, online <http:www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS08Folder/Session5-Paper2-Briede.pdf>
- 29.
R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed. (Manchester: JURIS Publishing/Manchester University Press, 1999), 143. They note that there was an earlier treaty in 1942, entered into by the United Kingdom on behalf of Trinidad, with respect to the Gulf of Paria: Great Britain – Venezuela, Treaty relating to the Submarine Areas of the Gulf of Paria, Caracas, 26 February 1942, 205 LNTS 121. President Truman of the United States issued two proclamations in 1945, Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf and Policy of the United States with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas.
- 30.
Churchill & Lowe, id.
- 31.
Santiago Declaration 1952, and see also examples in Churchill & Lowe, supra note 32 at 160, note 2. Oxman, supra note 14 comments at 831–32:
The mid-twentieth century was also a watershed for the international law of the sea, but of a very different sort. At the same time that the territorial temptation ran up against increasingly important legal constraints on land—often in response to the values of facilitation of trade, communication, and cooperation, which had traditionally informed the law of the sea—the obverse again occurred at sea. The territorial temptation thrust seaward with a speed and geographic scope that would be the envy of the most ambitious conquerors in human history. The effective start of this process—President Truman’s claim to the continental shelf in 1945[]—was so quickly accepted and emulated by other coastal states []that the emergence of the regime of the continental shelf, in derogation of the principle of mare liberum,[ ] has been cited as an example of instant customary law.[ ] The Truman Proclamation unleashed a quarter-century of territorial and quasi-territorial claims to the high seas so vast that, at the dawn of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the leader of the Canadian delegation, Ambassador J. Alan Beesley, could quip that he comes to bury Grotius, not to praise him.
- 32.
The adoption of the EEZ can also, perhaps, be viewed as an example of “creeping” coastal State jurisdiction or property rights claims challenging the management problems posed by freedom of the seas “commons”/high seas regime. Certainly the recognition of extended legal jurisdiction for coastal States must be understood as a necessary accompaniment to the technological developments that increasingly permit the use or occupation of ocean space and submerged lands for a variety of purposes (e.g., communications, resource development, and wind and tidal energy). At the same time, some of the traditional high seas navigational and other user rights and freedoms of other States (most notably “freedom of navigation”) are also preserved in the EEZ that is described in LOSC. Recently, however, there have been attempts by coastal States to exercise greater control in this zone vis-à-vis maritime transport and other users, largely on the basis of a need to provide protection to coastal interests and resources. As explained by Eric Franckx in his interesting study (“The 200-Mile Limit: Between Creeping Jurisdiction and Creeping Common Heritage? – Some Law of the Sea Considerations from Professor Louis Sohn’s Former LL.M. Student”, The George Washington International Law Review, 39(3) (2007): 467–98) of this phenomenon outside 200 nm (citation removed):
Creeping can be carried out either by the coastal State, in which case the widely used term “creeping jurisdiction” is normally relied upon, or by the international community, a process referred to by the term “creeping common heritage.” Creeping jurisdiction can further be subdivided into creeping “qualitatively inside the 200-mile limit and spatially beyond that limit.”
See concerns voiced by Oxman, supra note 14.
- 33.
See Kwiatkowsa, supra note 14 at pages 230–235.
- 34.
Churchill & Lowe, supra note 30 at pp. 160–161.
- 35.
ICJ Reports (1982) 222–34, paras. 108–130. Online at <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=lm&case=68&k=a8>.
- 36.
Churchill & Lowe, supra note 30, explain that the concept of the EEZ, which eventually “effectively merged” with the South American concept of the “patrimonial sea”, was first put forward at UNCLOS III by Kenya in 1971. They point out,
The EEZ is a reflection of the aspiration of the developing countries for economic development and their desire to gain greater control over the economic resources off their coasts, particularly fish stocks, which in many cases were largely exploited by the distant-water fleets of developed States.
The authors conclude (at page 179), however, that the establishment of the EEZ/EFZ led to some redistribution of fishery resources from distant-water fleet flag States to the coastal State and that with respect to resources other than fish, in the case of offshore oil and gas, “the introduction of the EEZ effected no redistribution…. Overall, therefore it is likely that the introduction of the EEZ concept has not produced as much material gain for the developing countries as its original proponents suggest.” It should be noted that in 1999 the potential value of genetic resources or other mineral resources such polymetallic sulfides was not well developed; however, the conclusions are likely to remain much the same. I note the absence of National Reports from the countries most involved in the development of the EEZ concept is unfortunate. A similar problem and gap was identified at the 10th IACL Congress in 1978 by the General Reporter, Kenneth Simmonds (Great Britain), on the topic, “International Law and the New International Economic Order.”
- 37.
See the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, online: <http://www.un.org//depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37.htm>, and the “compatibility principle”:
Article 7
Compatibility of conservation and management measures
-
1.
Without prejudice to the sovereign rights of coastal States for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the living marine resources within areas under national jurisdiction as provided for in the Convention, and the right of all States for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas in accordance with the Convention…
-
2.
Conservation and management measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction shall be compatible in order to ensure conservation and management of the straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in their entirety. To this end, coastal States and States fishing on the high seas have a duty to cooperate for the purpose of achieving compatible measures in respect of such stocks. In determining compatible conservation and management measures, States shall: … (emphasis added)
-
1.
- 38.
See: IOC Technical Series, 75. Law of the Sea Dossier 1: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. National Ocean Policy. The Basic Texts from: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, United States of America (Paris, UNESCO, 2007). Online: <http://ioc3.unesco.org/abelos/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=62>. This study comprises a collection of national ocean policies, including the legislation, much of which establishes the legal framework for the EEZ or similar zones underpinning these policies.
- 39.
Specific questions to consider in relation to national legislation, case law or other policies and practices:
General/Descriptive
-
1.
Is your country a party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
-
2.
Is or was your country party to the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf?
-
3.
Did your country adopt legislation to implement the 1958 Convention (if a party)? Was this legislation amended after 1982?
-
4.
Has your country adopted national legislation with respect to its maritime boundaries?
-
5.
How wide is the territorial sea? If jurisdiction over any area of water or seabed beyond the territorial sea is claimed, what is the name and size of that area and what is the nature of the claim?
-
6.
Has your country claimed an extended continental shelf? If so, what national legislation relates to that claim?
-
1.
- 40.
Peru, USA, Venezuela.
- 41.
For example as noted earlier, supra note 26, Drs. Treves and Papanicolopulu, National Reporters for Italy, point out that in 2006 Italy adopted “ecological protection zones”:
In 2006, Italy passed framework legislation for the creation of “ecological protection zones”, to be established by Presidential Decree, wherein it will exercise part of the rights attributed to the coastal State by international law of the sea within its exclusive economic zone.” No ecological protection zone has yet been established on the basis of this law. The reason seems to be the wish of Italy to negotiate the external boundaries of these areas before formally establishing them. It may be noted that Italian legislation refers to “zones” in the plural. However, these zones should not be confused with marine protected areas: the former are in fact maritime zones which can be established along portions of the entire coastline, while the latter are specific areas protected because of their special biological characteristics. The use of the plural is probably due to the intention of Italy not to establish an entire zone at once, but to begin along those coasts where environmental threats require urgent action. It is expected that the first ecological protection zone, encompassing the northern Tyrrhenian Sea, will be established during 2010.
See also National Report for Slovenia by Mag. Ferk, supra note 28.
- 42.
In addition to Japan, Canada and the USA have enacted “Oceans” Acts.
- 43.
As noted by Drs. Maes and Somers in their National Report for Belgium:
The legislative framework in Belgium has shaped marine spatial planning (MSP) into a continuous process. See also the Reports from the other EU countries.
- 44.
Dr. Henriksen (Norway) explains that
There is a gradual spatial approach in newer legislation pertaining to the maritime areas.
The 2009 Nature Management Act, aimed at preserving diversity of biology, landscapes, and geology, is also applicable to the maritime zones of Norway. The Act includes more specific objectives to protect the diversity of habitats and ecosystems, and is applicable across sectoral legislation. It reflects the ecosystem approach, requiring a more spatial approach in the management of natural resources and the environment. One of the measures under the Act is marine protected areas (MPAs). This measure is not applicable to the EEZ or the continental shelf as measures adopted under MPAs arguably may impede on the rights of other states under the law of the sea. The Planning Act has recently been amended to be made applicable in maritime areas (one nautical mile from the baselines), including internal waters and a minor part of the territorial sea. Spatial planning and a more holistic approach to management in the maritime areas are mainly regulated through government policy. The ecosystem-based approach is a central element in Norwegian ocean’s policy ….
- 45.
See the National Report for Japan.
- 46.
See e.g., Dr. Roy, (Canada); Dr. Henriksen (Norway).
- 47.
See the National Reports for the USA and Venezuela.
- 48.
See inter alia: Ocean Yearbook, Vol. 25, eds. S. Coffen-Smout, A. Chircop, M. L. McConnell (Leiden: Brill, 2011)
- 49.
Sectoral Resource Management
-
7.
Has legislation been adopted with respect to specific resource management and regulation? More specifically has it been adopted or changed with respect to
-
– energy (wind or other sources of ocean energy)
-
– mineral resources
-
– genetic resources
-
– fisheries
-
– aquaculture
-
– maritime transport
-
– communication
-
– scientific research
-
-
8.
How are investment and the need for financial security(ies) addressed? How, if at all, has the private sector addressed this issue (contracts? loans/credit?) Has there been any case law in connection with investments?
-
9.
How is the area as a “work space” (labor/employment law) regulated? How is it addressed, if it is, in private sector employment relationships e.g., contracts, collective bargaining arrangements?
-
10.
Has any preventative action taken place, e.g., creation of marine protected areas? If so, was this in connection with the LOSC or MARPOL?
Enforcement of Jurisdiction
-
11.
Does your country enforce legislation/rights in these areas and, if so, how does it do so?
-
12.
Are national courts given jurisdiction in these areas? If so, in what form is this granted? Has it ever been exercised?
-
13.
What institutions or agencies are responsible for enforcement of jurisdiction in these areas?
Reflection
Please include a brief reflection on what you perceive to be the interests of your country and private sector actors in connection with this topic and what you see as the main issues in the future.
-
7.
- 50.
But see: Dr. Luís de Lima Pinheiro (Portugal) where this does not appear to be the case.
- 51.
See Dr. Wurmnest (Germany) Although not specifically addressed in Dr. Roy’s National Report for Canada, it is noted that the Oceans Act “(1996, S.C., c.31) adopts an approach to addressing this issue by generally extending legislative and court jurisdiction to the EEZ and continental shelf “…as if the places referred to … formed part of the territory of Canada..…” (e.g., s.20 (2) s.21 (31)).
- 52.
In his comments to the Session at the XVIIIth Congress, Dr Pinheiro made proposals, essentially agreeing with points made by Dr Wurmnest, on the question of which law would likely apply, at least in the EU context (Rome Treaty). In his view it was important to try to present some suggestions as to the likely application of law in order to help provide certainty. He provided suggestions with respect to contract, tort and property claims. In his opinion the following could be seen as likely scenarios:
-
1.
Contracts: The choice of law under the contract would prevail followed by location of the object (if a contract regarding an immovable) and if a contract is for employment then it would be the place where the work is located subject to the overriding provisions regarding the law most favorable to protect the workers.
-
2.
With respect to torts it is likely to be the general principle of “where the damage occurs.” However, in the case of “ïnternal torts”on ships, that would be the law of the flag state, while in the case of “external torts” it would be the coastal state.
-
3.
In connection with property claims it would be the most recognizable law and distinctions might be drawn between, for example, chattels on rigs and other claims.
-
1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McConnell, M.L. (2012). The Law Applicable on the Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone. In: Brown, K., Snyder, D. (eds) General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2353-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2354-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)