means to address problems as to provide fairness to the international community. For
that to happen, some authors will claim, there ought to be a process of “mutual
recognition” between states and their respective interests, i.e. states should have
empathy for the interests and needs of other states.
193 That would be ideal, yet
history and the record of international relations have shown that one cannot rely on
empathy (not even comity) in international law, and the open critique by powerful
states directed against littoral states that crept on jurisdiction in the past is a proof
of that.
Against this backdrop, it is mandatory to assess the precise environmental
jurisdiction of coastal states over the continental shelf. In other words, to identify
the rights and duties relating to the regulation of the marine environment that fall
upon coastal states and find answer to the question of the precise regulatory
maneuver room of coastal states concerning the prescriptive, judicial and, above
all, enforcement jurisdiction over the continental shelf. The answer to that enquiry
will prove particularly relevant to the study of the specific case of the Brazilian
continental shelf regulations and practice.
References
Alexander LM (1983) The ocean enclosure movement: inventory and prospect. San Diego Law Rev
20(3):561–594
Anand R (2004) Studies in international law and history. Springer, Dordrecht
Anderson D (2006) Freedom of the high seas in the modern law of the sea. In: The law of the sea:
progress and prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 327–346
Barrett J, Barnes R (eds) (2016) Law of the sea: UNCLOS as a living treaty. British Institute of
International and Comparative Law, London
Becker MA (2005) Shifting public order of the oceans: interdiction of ships at sea. Yale Law Rev
46:131–230
Bilder R (1973) The Anglo-Icelandic fisheries dispute. Wisconsin Law Rev 37:37–132
Booth K (1983) Naval strategy and the spread of psycho-legal boundaries at sea. Int J 38
(3):373–396
Brown ED (1973) Maritime zones: a survey of claims. In: New directions in the law of the sea. The
Eastern Press, London
Burke WT (1970) Law, science, and the ocean. Nat Resour Law 3
Buzan B (1991) People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold
war era, 2nd edn. L. Rienner Publishers
Calley D, Hulme K, Ong D (2015) New maritime security threats. In: The IMLI manual on
international maritime law, vol III. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Churchill R, Lowe V (1999) The law of the sea. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Dubner B (1998) On the interplay of international law of the sea and the prevention of maritime
pollution: how far can a state proceed in protecting itself from conflicting norms in international
law. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev (GIELR) 11(1)
193 See generally Ryngaert (2015).
References
185
that to happen, some authors will claim, there ought to be a process of “mutual
recognition” between states and their respective interests, i.e. states should have
empathy for the interests and needs of other states.
193 That would be ideal, yet
history and the record of international relations have shown that one cannot rely on
empathy (not even comity) in international law, and the open critique by powerful
states directed against littoral states that crept on jurisdiction in the past is a proof
of that.
Against this backdrop, it is mandatory to assess the precise environmental
jurisdiction of coastal states over the continental shelf. In other words, to identify
the rights and duties relating to the regulation of the marine environment that fall
upon coastal states and find answer to the question of the precise regulatory
maneuver room of coastal states concerning the prescriptive, judicial and, above
all, enforcement jurisdiction over the continental shelf. The answer to that enquiry
will prove particularly relevant to the study of the specific case of the Brazilian
continental shelf regulations and practice.
References
Alexander LM (1983) The ocean enclosure movement: inventory and prospect. San Diego Law Rev
20(3):561–594
Anand R (2004) Studies in international law and history. Springer, Dordrecht
Anderson D (2006) Freedom of the high seas in the modern law of the sea. In: The law of the sea:
progress and prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 327–346
Barrett J, Barnes R (eds) (2016) Law of the sea: UNCLOS as a living treaty. British Institute of
International and Comparative Law, London
Becker MA (2005) Shifting public order of the oceans: interdiction of ships at sea. Yale Law Rev
46:131–230
Bilder R (1973) The Anglo-Icelandic fisheries dispute. Wisconsin Law Rev 37:37–132
Booth K (1983) Naval strategy and the spread of psycho-legal boundaries at sea. Int J 38
(3):373–396
Brown ED (1973) Maritime zones: a survey of claims. In: New directions in the law of the sea. The
Eastern Press, London
Burke WT (1970) Law, science, and the ocean. Nat Resour Law 3
Buzan B (1991) People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold
war era, 2nd edn. L. Rienner Publishers
Calley D, Hulme K, Ong D (2015) New maritime security threats. In: The IMLI manual on
international maritime law, vol III. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Churchill R, Lowe V (1999) The law of the sea. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Dubner B (1998) On the interplay of international law of the sea and the prevention of maritime
pollution: how far can a state proceed in protecting itself from conflicting norms in international
law. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev (GIELR) 11(1)
193 See generally Ryngaert (2015).
References
185