Ocean fertilization was first introduced as a carbon dioxide mitigation technique in the 1980s. However, its effectiveness to slow down climate change is uncertain and it is expected to damage the marine environment. Consequently, international law, including the London Convention/Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity, limits this activity to scientific research purposes. The applicability and scope of existing treaties for regulating this activity have been reviewed within international legal systems, in particular within the London Protocol. The establishment of a liability regime with respect to these activities has also been raised during a discussion on regulation of ocean fertilization under the London Protocol. One of the key purposes of the liability regime could be to make ocean users more cautious when exploring and exploiting the oceans through charging cleaning costs or imposing compensation for damage. This paper aims to identify such a preventative effect of the international liability regime, in particular, state liability.

The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line (U-line) in the South China Sea (SCS) and its validity under international law have been challenged by bordering states and some scholars. In 2012, Franckx and Benatar questioned the validity of the U-line in view of factors such as the intent of the state reflected by the map, the cartographer's neutrality, technical accuracy, consistency of the cartographic material, and recognition and acquiescence by the international community. This paper points out that the SCS U-line drawn by the Chinese government in 1947, at the median position between China's SCS islands and reefs, and the coastlines of bordering states, reflects the scope of China's claims and intent. The consistency of the claims has been maintained by the PRC after 1949, and the claims have been recognised or acquiesced to by bordering states over quite a long period. Therefore, the U-line has probative force under international law.

This paper is a response to the latest Bangladesh/Myanmar case decided by the ITLOS on 14 March 2012, which is the first case concerning delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. The paper aims to discuss the status and role of natural prolongation in delimiting this area. Natural prolongation constitutes the legal basis for entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. Also, natural prolongation should play a role as a relevant circumstance in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. To address these two issues, the judgment of the Bangladesh/Myanmar case will also be reviewed. Both the interpretation of the meaning of natural prolongation and its exclusion in the delimitation process are not convincing. Hence, the Judgment's future influence on the continental shelf delimitation is limited.

From both a geographical and geopolitical perspective, Southeast Asia is a particularly interesting case-study for maritime delimitation. Despite the existence of significant obstacles to maritime boundary-making, including a complex coastal geography and a multitude of territorial and jurisdictional disputes, Southeast Asia has been described as the “scene of very active and innovative ocean boundary diplomacy”. The objective of this paper is to examine Southeast Asian approaches to maritime boundaries. First, it seeks to identify whether there are common trends and practices in Southeast Asian practice which have contributed to the high number of maritime boundaries concluded by Southeast Asian states. Second, the paper will explore the extent to which Southeast Asian practice has contributed to the normative development of international law on maritime delimitation. Third, the paper will discuss whether there are any lessons to be learned from Southeast Asian practice that can be used to settle unresolved maritime boundary issues in the region.

Numerous international institutions now seek to address the problems of misappropriation and disappearance of traditional knowledge. The relevant legal frameworks were developed at different times and motivated by diverse policy goals. As new frameworks continue to emerge, an important question arises as to how the unity of international efforts to protect traditional knowledge can be maintained. This paper scrutinizes the fragmentation of international law in this field, how it came about, and what its implications are for traditional knowledge protection. It argues that much of the confusion surrounding traditional knowledge protection today is attributable to the fragmentation of international law in this area. To reverse the adverse effects of fragmentation, all institutions involved must be conscious of, and collectively work towards, a common goal, however loosely defined that goal might be. National governments must also ensure that their negotiating positions are consistent across all relevant fora.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has, on various occasions, concluded treaties on behalf of its Member States. This raises some interesting questions: is ASEAN entitled to enter into treaties on behalf of its Member States; and if so, what should be the status of ASEAN and its Member States vis-à-vis the other party to the treaty? The issue is not one of whether the ASEAN Member States have consented to such a practice—it must be assumed that they have. Instead, the real issue is whether such treaty-making practice can and should be valid under international law, even if the Member States have consented for ASEAN to conclude these treaties on their behalf. This paper will argue that, under international law, ASEAN is entitled to conclude treaties on behalf of its Member States.