The expression “living resources” occurs thirty-eight times in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but the latter does not give any legal definition of the term. The integration of environmental law taxonomy, such as biodiversity, in the evolution of the law of the sea has added to confusion regarding the meaning of “marine living resources.” To clarify the meaning of this expression and its legal scope in the evolution of the law of the sea, it is necessary to analyze the context of its use in UNCLOS and, more broadly, in the legal regime governing marine resources. This article aims to clarify the origins and extent of the confusion regarding the meaning of marine living resources and to analyze how the use of a broader semantic field in different legal instruments and other sources of international law has shaped the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources.

A number of maritime delimitation disputes, the resolution of which has been referred to international courts or tribunals, include overlapping outer continental shelf claims without relevant recommendations from the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in support of the claimed entitlements. The case law of courts and tribunals regarding the exercise of jurisdiction over such disputes has developed and appears now somewhat crystallized in a common understanding. Yet numerous uncertainties remain, which have arisen from the non-homogeneous approaches that underlie the decisions of courts and tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS. While courts and tribunals share the view that delimitation necessarily requires a prior determination of entitlement, differences appear in defining the threshold for ascertaining such a determination. In any event, treating submissions to delimit such claimed overlaps as admissible in the absence of recommendations from the CLCS may entail significant risks. Where a plea is considered admissible, a court or tribunal will not have unfettered discretion as to whether to exercise jurisdiction. This may result in unfortunate situations as it cannot be assumed that the CLCS will accept coastal states’ proposed outer limits of the continental shelf.

The current international framework that purports to regulate the spread of communicable disease in the context of maritime traffic is a fragmented, internally inconsistent, and inadequately enforced patchwork of treaties (including the International Health Regulations (2005)) and customary international law. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the current framework and revealed it to be inadequate to deal with a major global health emergency. States have imposed or failed to impose varying control measures, the effects of which have been witnessed on board passenger vessels around the world. The cruise industry, in particular, has a significant global economic impact; therefore, appropriate, enforceable international regulation is necessary to ensure the adequate control of future communicable disease outbreaks.

The establishment of a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is intended to be the guarantor of the proper application of the convention. Yet the decisions of courts and tribunals seized pursuant to the procedures under Section 2 of Part XV of UNCLOS are in many regards difficult to reconcile and in some regards unable to form the basis for a jurisprudence constante. This article examines on an empirical basis the scope and limits of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism under UNCLOS, as applied by international courts and tribunals during a period of twenty years since the first decision in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case until the recent decision on preliminary objections in the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

En mai 2019, le Canada a présenté sa soumission concernant son plateau continental étendu arctique à la Commission des limites du plateau continental. La délinéation des plateaux continentaux étendus, conformément à la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, résulte d’interprétations dans lesquelles s’entrelacent arguments scientifiques et juridiques à l’égard d’une situation géophysique singulière. Cet article examine la manière dont le Canada a composé avec la triple interprétation juridique, scientifique et factuelle à travers une étude articulée autour de la notion de “prolongement naturel.” Sont mis en relief les défis interprétatifs, mais aussi les opportunités que le Canada a saisies en participant au dégagement de consensus scientifiques et juridiques au soutien de la délinéation qu’il propose.

This article takes stock of the contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to the development of international environmental law. It examines in this regard the jurisdiction of the tribunal and provides an overview of its environmental jurisprudence. It then assesses the potential role of ITLOS in relation to some marine environmental challenges ahead. In particular, it considers the possibility of a request for an advisory opinion on climate change, the settlement of disputes regarding deep seabed mining, and the potential role of the tribunal under a new legal instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The delimitation of maritime boundaries is a complex and multifaceted process with legal and technical aspects. The process involves the determination of a maritime boundary in a situation where two or more states are confronted with overlapping titles. In the absence of any precise rules in treaty law and established customary rules based on state practice, it has been left to the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals to develop the applicable law of maritime boundary delimitation. This article provides a detailed examination of the complex and multifaceted processes involved in maritime delimitation law. In doing so, it highlights recent developments in the field, with an emphasis on the emerging principles of “non-cut-off” and “non-distortion.” The article also analyzes the crystalizing rules on delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles and questions the applicability of these rules to the ongoing maritime boundary dispute between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea.

A solely legalistic analysis of China’s South China Sea claims has given way to speculation regarding their exact nature. Scholars and the tribunal in Philippines v China have collectively described China’s position as “ambiguous” and “vague.” For others, China’s regulatory framework sets dangerous new precedents in the areas of effective occupation, historic rights, and exclusive economic zones. This article seeks to nuance these assessments. Contextualizing China’s framework within a broader geopolitical project reveals a China exploiting historic legal precedents in a manner reminiscent of imperial America. This should cast doubt on those too quick to see China as a rule-breaking new power eager to upset international norms. Rather, China’s “Caribbean” is a microcosm for a new great power coming into its own following an existing model.

Canada has five unresolved maritime boundaries. This might seem like a high number, given that Canada has only three neighbours: the United States, Denmark (Greenland), and France (St. Pierre and Miquelon). This article explores why Canada has so many unresolved maritime boundaries. It does so through a comparison with Norway, which has settled all of its maritime boundaries, most notably in the Barents Sea with Russia. This comparison illuminates some of the factors that motivate or impede maritime boundary negotiations. It turns out that the status of each maritime boundary can only be explained on the basis of its own unique geographic, historic, political, and legal context. Canada’s unresolved maritime boundaries are the result of circumstances specific to each of them and not of a particular policy approach in Ottawa.

The legal status of the Northwest Passage (NWP) has been the subject of much debate in academic, government, and media circles. To date, much of this discussion has centred on the legal regime governing maritime navigation. However, the question of whether the NWP is subject to guaranteed freedoms or Canada’s unqualified sovereign control also involves the right of overflight. This article investigates the circumstances that led to the inclusion of the freedom of overflight in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It then highlights some of the legal standards that would govern air navigation if the NWP were to be considered an international strait.