arisen from the point of view of competence (claims of certain NEAFC states with
extended CSs), rather than the perspective of responsibility for the damage or risk of
damage (potential responsibility of the competent authority to regulate activity in the
high seas, i.e. the RFMOs and/or flag state of the fishing vessel). Finally, the third
reason is the uncertainty arising from extended CSs that have been claimed but not
yet established (by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) and/or
delimited (by the concerned states). Such situations have resulted in different models
of MPAs in the North East Atlantic: whilst in some cases, the state claiming an
extended CS assumes responsibility for the protection, in others, the claim of an
extended CS by a state has led to a distinction between two different MPAs so as to
omit the claimed extended CS.
References
Almestad K (2016) The notion of opting out. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law.
Springer, Berlin, pp 85–94
Aubry LW (1975) Note, criminal jurisdiction over Arctic ice islands: United States v. Escamilla.
UCLA Alaska Law Rev 4(2):419–440
Baker B (2015) A note on Arctic information platforms and international law. In: Lalonde S,
McDorman TL (eds) International law and politics of the Arctic Ocean: essays in honor of Donat
Pharand. Brill, Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 434–445
Barberis JA (2001) El territorio del Estado. In: Cardona Lloréns J (coord) Cursos euromediterráneos
Bancaja de Derecho Internacional 2000. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 223–324
Barnes R (2015) Flag states. In: Rothwell D, Oude Elferink AG, Scott KN, Stephens T (eds) The
Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, pp 304–324
Bowling Ch, Pierson E, Ratté S (2016) The common concern of humankind: a potential framework
for a new international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of
marine biological diversity in the high seas. Available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiver
sity/prepcom_files/BowlingPiersonandRatte_Common_Concern.pdf
Branco IA (2017) Solving the potential conflict: high seas marine protected areas and the exercise of
sovereign rights over the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. SSRN
Briggs J, Baez SK, Dawson T, Golder B, O’Leary BC, Petit J, Roberts CM, Rogers A, Villagomez
A (2018) Recommendations to IUCN to improve marine protected area classification and
reporting. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/cp_how_much_of_
the_ocean_is_really_protected.pdf
Casado Raigón R (2014) La Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho del mar y su
pretensión de universalidad y generalidad. In: Sobrino Heredia JM (Dir) La contribución de la
Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del mar a la buena gobernanza de los
mares y océanos, vol I. L’Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 9–20
Conde Pérez E (2016) Retos jurídicos de las actividades de bioprospección marina: especial
referencia a las zonas polares. Revista española de derecho internacional 68(2):253–275
Dahl I, Johansen E (2017) The Norwegian snow crab regime and foreign vessels – a commentary on
the Juras Vilkas decision of the Øst-Finnmark District Court. JCLOS Blog, posted on
29.03.2017. http://site.uit.no/jclos/
Franckx E (2007) 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.
George Wash Int Law Rev 39:467–498
464
M. Sobrido-Prieto
extended CSs), rather than the perspective of responsibility for the damage or risk of
damage (potential responsibility of the competent authority to regulate activity in the
high seas, i.e. the RFMOs and/or flag state of the fishing vessel). Finally, the third
reason is the uncertainty arising from extended CSs that have been claimed but not
yet established (by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) and/or
delimited (by the concerned states). Such situations have resulted in different models
of MPAs in the North East Atlantic: whilst in some cases, the state claiming an
extended CS assumes responsibility for the protection, in others, the claim of an
extended CS by a state has led to a distinction between two different MPAs so as to
omit the claimed extended CS.
References
Almestad K (2016) The notion of opting out. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law.
Springer, Berlin, pp 85–94
Aubry LW (1975) Note, criminal jurisdiction over Arctic ice islands: United States v. Escamilla.
UCLA Alaska Law Rev 4(2):419–440
Baker B (2015) A note on Arctic information platforms and international law. In: Lalonde S,
McDorman TL (eds) International law and politics of the Arctic Ocean: essays in honor of Donat
Pharand. Brill, Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 434–445
Barberis JA (2001) El territorio del Estado. In: Cardona Lloréns J (coord) Cursos euromediterráneos
Bancaja de Derecho Internacional 2000. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 223–324
Barnes R (2015) Flag states. In: Rothwell D, Oude Elferink AG, Scott KN, Stephens T (eds) The
Oxford handbook of the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, pp 304–324
Bowling Ch, Pierson E, Ratté S (2016) The common concern of humankind: a potential framework
for a new international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of
marine biological diversity in the high seas. Available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiver
sity/prepcom_files/BowlingPiersonandRatte_Common_Concern.pdf
Branco IA (2017) Solving the potential conflict: high seas marine protected areas and the exercise of
sovereign rights over the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. SSRN
Briggs J, Baez SK, Dawson T, Golder B, O’Leary BC, Petit J, Roberts CM, Rogers A, Villagomez
A (2018) Recommendations to IUCN to improve marine protected area classification and
reporting. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/cp_how_much_of_
the_ocean_is_really_protected.pdf
Casado Raigón R (2014) La Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho del mar y su
pretensión de universalidad y generalidad. In: Sobrino Heredia JM (Dir) La contribución de la
Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del mar a la buena gobernanza de los
mares y océanos, vol I. L’Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 9–20
Conde Pérez E (2016) Retos jurídicos de las actividades de bioprospección marina: especial
referencia a las zonas polares. Revista española de derecho internacional 68(2):253–275
Dahl I, Johansen E (2017) The Norwegian snow crab regime and foreign vessels – a commentary on
the Juras Vilkas decision of the Øst-Finnmark District Court. JCLOS Blog, posted on
29.03.2017. http://site.uit.no/jclos/
Franckx E (2007) 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.
George Wash Int Law Rev 39:467–498
464
M. Sobrido-Prieto