#Division for ocean affairs and the law of the sea | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

fatehbaz · 4 years ago

Text

While dominant understandings of a land-sea binary were codified by international law, Maori cosmologies and mythologies do not share this Western ontology, nor necessarily divide natures -- materially, practically or politically [...]. One account, central to Maori mythology, offers some insight into the smooth exchange of materials, bodies, and narratives between the hydro and geo spheres by the shared origin account of kauri and whale.

[Endemic] to New Zealand, kauri (Agathis australis) are towering trees upwards of 50 meters high. [...] Due to their incredible size, both [tree and whale] are esteemed [...]. Due to its combustibility, Maori long used kauri resin for cooking and lighting, similar to how spermaceti, the oil of the sperm whale (Physeter microcephalus), was used in early western industrial nations. Colonizing Europeans harvested and sold kauri timber, known for its resistance to seawater and sturdy, straight-grained lumber for masts and spars. Used for various wares domestically and abroad, this tree, like the whale, was exploited to near collapse in the nineteenth century.

Other Maori narratives also bridge land and sea, employing human and more-than-human entities that openly exceed or exchange categories. [...]

---

Focusing on disputed uses of offshore spaces necessarily confronts the ambiguity of the social and political process of partitioning watery space [...].

As Maori traditions instead draw lines of connection, instituting cuts between land/sea, human/non-human, creating discrete, bounded entities, goes against [...] whakapapa. The legislative implementation of these cuts in the form of baselines and offshore resource appropriation by the New Zealand national government led to widespread protest. [...]

In a contemporary context, borders of nation states and the spatial category of sovereign territory are often imagined as predominantly fixed. Politically constructed boundaries can be concealed as wholly technical, or even scientific affairs, as if a coastline were an essential and stable object. Yet, current events are reminders of how national boundaries are produced and in flux [...].

Intrinsic to defining ocean boundaries are baselines, the technical division between land and sea. [...] While represented as natural, as an approximation of the coastline, baselines create meaning through social-material practices of boundary making, they enact “cuts” that fashion land and sea spaces into discrete entities. They are the foundational technical and political apparatus used by UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ratification] to partition the ocean. To consider the political technologies used to bound offshore territories, the materiality and mobility of ocean spaces and beings must be addressed. Yet, the national government in New Zealand has struggled to legislate around these issues, and the partitioning of land and sea through the implementation of baselines and nationalization of the seabed provoked passionate demonstrations in response. [...]

Controversies persist as seabed mining projects seek to commodify ocean minerals. The Foreshore and Seabed Act (2004) claimed all submerged lands and associated resources as property of the Crown, subsuming them under national authority. The dispute initiated a UN Special Rapporteur report on human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous people (United Nations 2006), and instigated the formation of an independent Maori parliamentary party. [...] Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) formed in 2004 in reaction to a proposal to extract iron-sands off the coast of Taranaki Bight on the North Island, which is also home to the world’s rarest, and critically endangered, Maui’s dolphin [...].

As Steinberg and Peters (2015) highlight, the ocean is not a fixed Euclidean space within which power is exercised, but a turbulent material volume of Lagrangian flows with multiple and nonlinear temporalities. [...]

Epeli Hau’ofa (1994) offers some broader Pacific context when he writes that, “Continental men, namely Europeans . . . introduced the view of ‘islands in a far sea’ . . . tiny, isolated dots in a vast ocean . . . our ancestors, who had lived in the Pacific for over two thousand years, viewed their world as ‘a sea of islands’ rather than as ‘islands in the sea’” (153). This continental gaze forms the dominant hegemonic view of oceans as seen from land, drawing lines of division between land and sea, between kauri and whale.

---

Images, captions, and text by: Katherine G. Sammler. “Kauri and the Whale: Oceanic Matter and Meaning in New Zealand.” As published in a draft from 2019, available through California State University via ScholarWorks. Photos by Katherine G. Sammler. [Some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

203 notes · View notes

hisimperialmajestyemperordawlove · 5 years ago

Link

Motto: The Enteral States

Anthem: Ottoman imperial anthem The Imperial House of The World - United World

H.I.M. Emperor Dawad 3 - H.I.M. Emperor Craig 1 - H.I.M. Emperor Anniversary

Sun, Moon, Stars, Skys, Spaces, Plants, Earth, Nature & Educations.

Anthem: Sun, Moon, Stars, Skys, Spaces, Plants, Earth, Nature & Educations. Here I go , here we go for my health that we are looking for. Here I travel, here we travel for my peace that we are looking for. Where ever I go I find myself, for Independent family we flying to the world. I recognize to do What I have to do freely with peace and helpful relationships of all times with care. Welcome Alternatively Empire You have A Unique Name to be Proud of Human Kind and Humanity it is Art of Life Development and to be Create Develop It's Government and always of United Nations Looking for. Generation May you reign European Ottoman Turkish long live our beloved country. For Sovereign's and Independence Country To be Welcomes Too. Long live our beloved continents. For Architecture & Beauty Civilizations. I will uphold the Crown Politically. For freedom is the absolute right of my ever-free flag Career. citizens emblem mega cities compass for individuals independence sister cities worth it nations. It's Economical & Cultural Too Geographical Sciences Foreign Affairs By Languages of Humanity. However Access to the seas & Oceans. Where ever shear Land Borders. It is all coming back to me now. Day By Day I find my way. long to reign above the peace in the homeland United world. Day By Day I find my way. long to reign above the peace in the homeland United world. Long live my Demonym Crown Earth in All Traveling Destinations With Respect & Greetings Ever Honored European. For My Passport & Identity That Much Appreciated & I Care About Like Honored Visa. Best Regards New Halfa And To The Others Cities. Thanks Istanbul. Thanks To All For Life With Peace! Republic of Turkey Let's Remind Who we are! And welcoming our family from the other countries so Welcome Sudan. Welcome Russia. Welcome Moldova. Welcome Spain. Welcome Philippines. Welcome Wherever who you are... With Regards Honored Golding Nubian. Let's Develop Our Right Honors Peacefully. And Respect Everyone Position! And You are Free. So Help Me God With Love of The People. So Save Me God With Love of My Families & People Every Times, Days, Months, Years And Centuries However We Been In This World As Well As Healthy. After All Let's Enjoy And Have Happiness Like We Are In Haven With Faith of Angeles. Faithfully of All. Without Any Kind of Disasters. With Regards And Peace To All Diversity. And We Are Free. It is Freedom House. And We Are Free. It's Sports! Let us enjoy.! In Addition Security Master protects your privacy Luxury Heritage English World. As United Nations Technologies. Include Fashion Anniversary of Happiness. Yes it's With Blonde Fashion Community As Choosing Ethnicity As Free Humanity. Wishes With Happiness Internationally. As New Day Has Comes. So Let's Travel Whenever Wherever As We Looking For And Enjoying Happiness. And Widen My World As European Peacefully Including My Widening Traveling Internationally As United World Peacefully United Nations Membership As Independently Families Overseas Territories Like Commonwealth Families House. Let's Call United Nations For Legislation In Different Areas Code. And My World Is Your World It's Our World As To Define A Peacefully United World. It is Treasures Monetary fund As It is My Pleasure. And Then There's Payment On The Trade Internationally As Currency Symbol. It's Regional So Happiness Integrated. And Universal To Postal Like We Like It. As Who is Working For Who? And We Are Free To Elect The Election's On The Right Positions As United Nations. According To Standards Time Zones As Earth Hours. It's Urbanization And Environment For Searching Weather Compass Meteorological Every Where We Go. As It is Leagues of The Nations Political Divisions As It Is Administrative Divisions Defined International Law. Constitutional Federal Subject of Political Act of The Unions. As It is Charter. As It is Autonomous International Community In Universities. Autonomous In Transportation's. So Welcome Cuisine. Perfect Healthier Wishes. Yes! We Love Our Continents. As Intergovernmental Organization Members of Native Our Independence Families States Countries. As It is Regards Missions. Nobel Travelers Emperors & Empresses In Continents Legend House of The World - United World. Guide.

2 notes · View notes

latinbossboy9 · 3 years ago

Text

References

Smith, Anthony. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8219.00109

Akhondi, Mahmoud. Criminal Procedure. Tehran: Samt Publication Organization, 2011.

Shapiro, Martin. The Globalization of Law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 1, 1, 1993, Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol1/iss1/3

Law of the Sea: National Legislation on the Exclusive Economic Zone. New York: Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, 1993.

Higgins, George E. Criminological Theory. Wolters Kluwer, 2016.

Tohidifar, Mohammad. "The Process of Globalization of Criminal Penal Law". Modarres Journal, 5, 4, 2001. 37-58. Available at: https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=18238

Jahed, Mohammed Ali. The necessity of decriminalization in Iran's criminal law. Master's thesis. Mazandaran University, 2005.

Habibzadeh. Mohammad Jafar and Zeinali, Amir. "Income on Certain Practical Limitations of Criminality (The Need for Assessing the Benefits and Constraints of Creating a Crime)". Name Mofid, 49, 2006. 93-120. Available at: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/download/262940

Hosseini-Nezhad, Hossein Gholi. International Criminal Law. Ch1, Tehran: Ketabkhane Ganj Danesh, 1995.

Delmas-Marty, Mireille. Comparative Legal Studies and the Internationalization of Law. Translator Liz Libbrecht, 2003. Available at: https://books.openedition.org/cdf/3878?lang=en

Saffari, Ali. "Critical Remarks on Situational Crime Prevention". Journal of Legal Research. 2010, 35-36, 193-234. Available at: http://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56556.html

Ziae Bigdeli, Mohammad Reza. "General International Law". Ch. 31, Tehran: Ketabkhane Ganj Danesh, 2008. Available at: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/download/7156

Farhadpour, Mahmud. The Age of Globalization. First Edition. Tehran: Mehriar Publishing, 2009.

Fouzi, Reza. International Criminal Law. 1st Edition. Tehran: Tehran University Press, 2007.

Qari Seyyed Fatemi, Mohammad. Human Rights in the Contemporary World. Ch. 1-2, Tehran: Legal Studies and Research Institute of the City of Knowledge, 2009.

Kashefi Esmaeilzadeh, Hasan. "Return Movement in Criminal Policy of Western Countries". Journal of Theology and Law. 15-16, 2005. 258-298. Available at: http://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20120326104626-1100-121.pdf

Mosafa, Nasrin and Nabiolahi, Ebrahim. "Human Rights Position in International Relations Theories". Faslname Siasat. 38, 4, 2008. 259-277. Available at: https://jpq.ut.ac.ir/article_27714_64c98ea6565a660a1033ab293c596247.pdf

Miller, David. On Nationality. Published to Oxford Scholarship Online, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1093/0198293569.001.0001

Najafi Abrandabadi, Ali Hussein, Khaleghi, Ali and Zeinali, Amirhamze. "Criminal Protection of Children against Sexual Tourism: From Worldwide Prohibition to Internal Criminal Responsibility". Journal of Legal Research. 50, 2009. 81-121. Available at: https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=167809

Nowruzi, Maryam. "Governmental commitments to protect fundamental human rights". Journal of Law and Political Science. 60, 2004. 265-288. Available at: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/download/16207

Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice. Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World-System. 1991. Available at: https://books.google.hu/books?isbn=0521406048

Walid, Mohammad Saleh. Summary of Law (General Penal Law). Ch 1. Tehran, 2000.

Glen, Patrick James. Towards the Criminalization of Dictatorship: A Draft Proposal for an International Convention on Dictatorship. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 14, 1, 2008. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1409204

Scherer, Andreas Georg and Palazzo, Guido. Globalization and Corporate Social Responsibility. The Oxford Handbook Of Corporate Social Responsibility, A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, D. Siegel, eds., 413-431, Oxford University Press, 2008. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=989565.

Keenan, Patrick J. "The New Deterrence: Crime and Policy in the Age of Globalization". Iowa Law Review. 91, 2005, 505. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11212/1116

The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Editor Andrew Crane, Dirk Matten, Abagail McWilliams, Jeremy Moon, and Donald S. Siegel. Oxford University Press; 1st Edition (October 18, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.001.0001

José Luis de la Cuesta. "Criminal Justice System in a Global World". Annales. XLV, 62, 3-28, 2013. Available at: http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/7069

Darugari, Saeid and Varvaii, Akbar. "The Position of Decriminalize Principle in Iran's

0 notes

lifestylesbi · 3 years ago

Photo

Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

To these walls may be applied the words in which Mr. Gladstone appraised the value»of the services rendered by the Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula, in a similar connection. “ They are like a shelving beach that restrained the ocean.

That beach, it is true, is beaten by the waves; it is laid desolate; it produces nothing; it becomes perhaps nothing save a mass of shingle, of rock, of almost useless sea-weed. But it is a fence behind which the cultivated earth can spread and escape the incoming tide. … It was that resistance which left Europe to claim the enjoyment of her own religion, and to develop her institutions and her laws.

Although inferior as military works to the other portions of the landward walls, great historical interest is associated with the fortifications between the Wall of Manuel and the Golden Horn, for they guarded the Palace of Blachemae, the favourite residence of the Byzantine Court from the time of Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118) until the fall of the Empire. As already intimated, the palace stood on the terrace buttressed by the Tower of Isaac Angelus and the chambered wall to the north of the tower, where the Mosque of Aivas Effendi is now found.

The terrace was almost level with the parapet-walk of the fortifications, commanding fine views of the Golden Horn, and of the hills at the head of the harbour; and there the most splendid Court of the Middle Ages long displayed its wealth and pomp. What with the Crusades, and what with the relations, hostile and friendly, between the Italian Republics and the Government of Constantinople during the period of the Palaeologi, it was in that palace that Western and Eastern Europe came into closest contact for good or for evil On the hills and in the valleys seen from the western windows of the palace, the armies of the First Crusade encamped.

To that residence came Peter the Hermit, Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert of Normandy, Bohemond, Tancred, “the mirror of knighthood,” Count Robert of Paris, to wonder at the marvels of Byzantine Art, and to attempt the co-operation of the East and the West, in the great political and religious undertaking of the times. On the hill immediately in front of the walls the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade pitched their tents, and thence Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, Henry his brother, Louis of Blois and Chartres, and Hugo of Saint Paul, led four divisions of the army against the wall erected by Leo the Armenian.

Ville Hardouin

The wall was held by Varangian troops, the imperial body-guard, recruited from England, Denmark, Norway, and Russia. “The assailants,” to quote the words of Ville-Hardouin, a witness of the combat, and the historian of the Crusade, “ placed two scaling-ladders against an outer wall near the sea; the wall was furnished with Englishmen and Danes, and the attack was strong, and good, and hard. And by sheer force some knights and two sergeants mounted the ladders, and became masters of the wall Fully fifteen reached the wall, and they fought hand to hand with axes and swords.

And the men within returned to the charge and drove them (the assailants) out, right rudely, even taking two of them prisoners. And those of our men who were captured were led to the Emperor Alexis, and he was very highly delighted tour packages balkan. So ended the attack by the French. And there was a considerable number of men wounded and of maimed; and the barons were very angry about it”

The recovery of Constantinople from the Latins in 1261 did not diminish Italian influence over the life of the city. On the contrary, from that time to the close of Byzantine history that influence, modified indeed by the rival force of Ottoman power, grew stronger and stronger. Commercial interests, political necessities, schemes of ecclesiastical union, literary sympathies, possibilities of aggrandisement at the expense of an Empire hastening to ruin, made Italy, especially Genoa and Venice, take a most active part in the affairs of New Rome. A Western atmosphere, so to speak, then enveloped Constantinople, very much like that which surrounds the City of the Sultans to-day.

But the portion of the walls about which the greatest and most pathetic interest gathers is where Sultan Mehemet delivered his fatal blow upon the Byzantine Empire, and won the title of “the Conqueror.” It is the portion which stretches from Top Kapoussi (Gate of S. Romanus) to Edim£ Kapoussi (Gate of Charisius), across the ravine through which the little stream of the Lycus, on its way to the Sea of Marmora, enters the city. Owing to the depression of the ground and the impossibility of constructing a deep moat there, this was the weakest point in the Theodosian fortifications, and here the bravest of the defenders, under Gius- tiniani of Genoa and the Emperor Constantine, manned the walls to oppose the best troops under the command of the Sultan.

#Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

0 notes

istanbul-history · 3 years ago

Photo

Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

Ville Hardouin

#Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

0 notes

worldtunaday · 7 months ago

Text

The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement.

The United Nations 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 (UNFSA) is an international agreement that regulates key fisheries that, because of their transboundary nature, require international cooperation for their conservation and management. Its objective is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention. The Agreement sets out principles for the conservation and management of those fish stocks and establishes that such management must be based on the precautionary approach and the best available scientific information.

#tunafish #Division for ocean affairs and the law of the sea #Fish Stocks #Highly Migratory Fish Stocks #unfsa

0 notes

lifestylehealthplan · 3 years ago

Photo

Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

Ville Hardouin

#Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

0 notes

allifestylemusic · 3 years ago

Photo

Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

Ville Hardouin

#Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

0 notes

foodtravels · 3 years ago

Photo

Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

Ville Hardouin

#Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

0 notes

christianlifestylebg · 3 years ago

Photo

Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

Ville Hardouin

#Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula

0 notes

iilssnet · 4 years ago

Text

Navigational Regimes of Particular Straits, Magellan case study

The 310-mile-long Strait of Magellan connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the southern tip of South America. Navigation through the Strait of Magellan is governed by article V of the 1881 Boundary Treaty between Argentina and Chile, which states that the Straits are neutralized forever, and free navigation is assured to the flags of all nations. Article 10 of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Argentina and Chile reaffirms that status: “the delimitation agreed upon herein, in no way effects the provisions of the Boundary Treaty of 1881, according to which the Straits of Magellan are perpetually neutralized and freedom of navigation is assured to ships of all flags . . .” In concluding that the Strait of Magellan therefore falls under the article 35(c) exception of the LOS Convention, the Department of State advised American Embassy Santiago, Chile, that: This long.standing guarantee of free navigation for all vessels has been amply reinforced by practice, including practice recognizing the right of aircraft to overfly. . . . Essentially, the USG position would be that the 1881 Treaty and over a century of practice have imbued the Strait of Magellan with a unique regime of free navigation, including a right of overflight. That regime has been specifically recognized and reaffirmed by both Argentina and Chile in the Beagle Channel Treaty. Hence, the United States and other States may continue to exercise navigational and overflight rights and freedoms in accordance with this long.standing practice. In depositing its instrument of ratification of the LOS Convention on December 1, 1995, Argentina stated, inter alia: (b) With regard to Part III of the Convention, the Argentine Government declares that in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed with the Republic of Chile on 29 November 1984, which entered into force on 2 May 1985 and was registered with the United Nations Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, both States reaffirmed the validity of article V of the Boundary Treaty of 1881 whereby the Strait of Magellan (Estrecho de Magallanes) is neutralized forever with free navigation assured for the flags of all nations. The aforementioned Treaty of Peace and friendship also contains specific provisions and a special annex on navigation which includes regulations for vessels flying the flags of third countries in the Beagle Channel and other straits and channels of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago. On September 6, 1996, Chile replied inter alia as follows: In the view of the Chilean government, this declaration is inaccurate in its formulation and does not reflect the wording of the relevant provision of the treaties in question. Article 10, paragraph 4, of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship does, in fact, provide that the boundary agreed upon in respect of the eastern end of the Strait of Magellan in no way alters the provisions of the 1881 Boundary Treaty, whereby the Strait of Magellan is neutralized forever with free navigation assured for the flags of all nations under the terms laid down in it article V. However, as regard the reference to provisions on navigation, it should be noted that article 13, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, under the chapter Economic cooperation and physical integration, expressly states that: The Republic of Chile, in exercise of its sovereign rights, shall grant to the Argentine Republic the navigation facilities specified in articles 1 to 9 of annex II. The Republic of Chile declares that ships flying the flag of third countries may navigate without obstacles over the routes indicted in articles 1 and 8 of annex II, subject to the pertinent Chilean regulations. Moreover, article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2, of annex II (concerning navigation) of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and friendship adds: For maritime traffic between the Strait of Magellan and Argentine ports in the Beagle Channel and vice versa, through Chilean internal waters, Argentine vessels shall enjoy navigation facilities exclusively along the following route: Canal Magdalena, Canal Cockburn, Paso Brecknock or Canal Ocasión, Canal Ballenero, Canal O’Brien, Paso Timbales, north-west arm of the Beagle Channel and the Beagle Channel as far as the meridian of 68°36’38.5” West longitude and vice versa. The above-cited provision unmistakably demonstrate that the navigation facilities which the Republic of Chile, in exercise of its sovereign rights, grants to the Argentine Republic and to ships flying the flag of third countries are through Chilean internal water, by a route described in the Treaty; together with the other features and modalities laid down in annex II these are essential aspects of the navigation regime established by the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship and the omission thereof from the Argentine declaration may be misleading as to the nature of these waters. For the same reason, it is inappropriate for the Argentine declaration to refer to the above-mentioned navigation facilities in connection with Part III of the Convention, “Straits used for international navigation,” since the area in question has always consisted of Chilean internal waters and not international straits. Lastly, nowhere does the 1881 Boundary Treaty or the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship make a generic reference to a so-called “Tierra del Fuego archipelago;” it is therefore inappropriate for the Argentine declaration to mention in the context of the above-named treaties. In response to the UN Secretary-General’s February 21, 1996 request for copies of any Argentine laws and regulations relating to international straits, Argentina forwarded copies of the 1881 and 1984 treaties and added: Article 5 of the 1881 Treaty and article 10 of the 1984 Treaty establish neutrality and the freedom of ships of all flags to navigate through the Strait of Magellan. Annex II to the 1984 Treaty establishes the navigation regime between the Strait of Magellan and Argentine ports in the Beagle Channel and vice versa, as well as the navigation regime along the Strait of Maire. On September 6, 1996, Chile responded, as follows: (a) Under article 35(c) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, nothing in Part III affects the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits. As this is precisely the case of the Strait of Magellan, the provisions of Part III do not apply to it; (b) Argentina does not border the Strait of Magellan. Under the 1881 Boundary Treaty, the whole of the Strait of Magellan – including, of course, the land bordering it on both sides – is under Chilean sovereignty. Therefore, it is not incumbent on Argentina to give publicity to laws and regulations on straits which are not under its sovereignty; (c) Lastly, with regard to annex II to the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which establishes the regime for navigation between the Strait of Magellan and Argentine ports in the Beagle Channel and vice versa, the statements in the foregoing paragraphs on the clear provisions regulating such navigation should be borne in mind. Unquestionably, the strait consists mainly of Chilean internal waters. Therefore, it is not a strait used for international navigation, and it is inappropriate for Argentina to invoke article 42(3) in referring to the provisions of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship in this regard. Since the issues raised in the present communication must have a clear interpretation both for the parties and for third countries, the Permanent Mission of Chile to the United Nations hereby requests the Secretary-General, through the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, to give due publicity to the present document . . . On May 14, 1997, Argentina replied: . . . it should be pointed out that, in ratifying that international convention, which, as the Government of Chile is well aware, was done subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984, the Argentine Republic irrefutably expressed its desire to maintain the full validity of all the provisions of the treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984; thus, the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not affect the legal regime of the above-mentioned bilateral treaty between Argentina and Chile. Accordingly, the fact that the reference to the Strait of Magellan is followed by a reference to the existence of the navigation regime of the 1984 Treaty implies an express reaffirmation of article V of the 1881 Boundary Treaty and, in addition, of the full validity of the norms contained in annex 2 of the 1984 Treaty, including the legal status of the waters used for navigation. These treaties contain regulations which affect third States. The Argentine presentation was for information purposes and did not put forward any interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1881 Boundary Treaty, the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship or any other aspects of the issue. As a party to the 1881 Boundary Treaty, the Argentine Republic has the power to refer to it in any documents it deems relevant. In this case, such power is even more obvious since that international instrument embodies a longstanding regime as recognized by article 35(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, it cannot be considered as being outside the legal framework of the Convention. Moreover, article V of the 1881 Boundary Treaty, whereby the Strait of Magellan is neutralized forever with free navigation assured for the flags of all nations, creates obligations and rights both of the Argentine Republic and the for the Republic of Chile. Therefore, both parties should ensure effective compliance with its provisions. In addition, Article 10 of the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship – which, as noted above, replicates article V of the 1881 treaty – stipulates the obligation of the Argentine Republic to maintain, at any time and in whatever circumstances, the right of ships of all flags to navigate expeditiously and without obstacles through its jurisdictional waters to and from the Strait of Magellan. Consequently, Argentina, as a State Party, together with Chile, of the 1881 Boundary Treaty and the only one of the two which has become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has the power to give due publicity, in ratifying that Convention, to the legal regime for the area of the Strait of Magellan. In view of the foregoing, there can be no doubt about the juridical grounds supporting the interpretative declaration and its note verbale of 15 April 1996 As mentioned above, a different scope and intention are being attributed to the instruments issued by the Argentine Republic than what is clearly evident in their texts and legal context. The Argentine Republic cannot agree with other statements made by the Government of Chile in the above-mentioned notes. Among other things, it does not agree that the waters in the south of the Strait of Magellan have always been Chilean internal waters and not international straits. The Argentine Republic did not consider them as such until the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which, as noted above, established a regime for navigation through the waters described in its annex 2. In relation to the foregoing, it must be stressed that the norms codified in paragraph 2, article 8; paragraph 1, article 3; and subparagraph (a), article 35, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are also relevant aspects. Moreover, the Argentine Republic does not share the interpretation concerning the inapplicability of Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, since such interpretation does not follow from article 35(c) of the Convention. That norm, in fact, establishes that the provisions of part III do not affect the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force. Without prejudice to the above, it is not the purpose of the Argentine Republic to embark on a discussion of abstract topics or situations. . . . Read the full article

#1881BoundaryTreatybetweenArgentinaandChile #1984TreatyofPeaceandFriendshipbetweenArgentinaandChile #5StraitofMagellanFactsYouMustKnow #IstheStraitofMagellanstillused?#MagellanStrait #straitofmagellanfacts #WhatdoestheStraitofMagellanseparates?#WhattwobodiesofwaterdoestheStraitofMagellanconnect?#What'sthebottomofSouthAmericacalled?#WherearetheStraitsofMagellan?#whyisthestraitofmagellanimportant

0 notes

awesometeennews · 4 years ago

Text

Indonesia rejects China's claims in the South China Sea; says not bound by claims contravening international law

Indonesia rejects China’s claims in the South China Sea; says not bound by claims contravening international law

[ad_1]

Indonesia has rejected Chinese claims in the South China Sea in a letter written by Indonesia’s permanent mission to the United Nation to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the sea of the body.

The letter as seen by WION said, “Indonesia reiterates that the nine-dash line map implying historic rights claim lacks international legal basis and is…

View On WordPress

#Indonesia #International law #South China Sea #wionews.com #World News

0 notes

thumbkenya76-blog · 5 years ago

Text

US sends B-52 bombers ripping through the contested South China Sea twice in less than a week as tensions soar

A U.S Air Force B-52 is seen through the window of another during a training mission in the United Kingdom's airspaceREUTERS/Andrew Winning

Twice in just three days, the US sent heavy bombers through the disputed South China Sea, sending a message to US rivals in the region.

The US did the same last month, sparking criticism in Beijing, which claims the vast majority of the South China Sea.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis argues that these flights would not mean a thing to anyone if China had not militarized the waterway.

The US Air Force sent B-52H Stratofortress heavy long-range bombers through the South China Sea twice this week, sending a message, intentional or not, to challengers in the region.

A single B-52 bomber assigned to the 96th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron conducted training in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean on Sunday, Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs told Business Insider on Wednesday. Two days later, another B-52 bomber conducted a training mission in the South China Sea.

"U.S. Indo-Pacific Command's Continuous Bomber Presence (CBP) operations have been ongoing since March 2004," PACAF told BI, adding that these recent missions are "consistent with international law and United States's long-standing and well-known freedom of navigation policies."

"The United States military will continue to fly sail and operate wherever international law allows at a times and places of our choosing," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Dave Eastburn told Business Insider on Tuesday.

While Beijing has yet to criticize the bomber flights, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stressed Wednesday that if China has a problem with these flights, it will be because China made it a problem through its activities in contested waters.

"If it was 20 years ago and had they not militarized those features there it would have been just another bomber on its way to Diego Garcia or wherever," the secretary explained. "There's nothing out of the ordinary about it."

Last month, the US sent B-52s through the East and South China Sea four times, twice in each waterway. The US also sent B-52s through the South China Sea in April and June, prompting the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to accuse the US of "running amok" in the region.

The latest flights come at a time of rising tension between Washington and Beijing.

Not only are the US and China locked in an escalating and intensifying trade war involving tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in goods, but tensions are also causing military-to-military relations to deteriorate.

Last week, the US sanctioned a procurement division of the Chinese military for purchasing Russian weapons systems in violation of sanctions, namely the advanced Su-35 fighter jet and the S-400 surface-to-air missile system. China then suddenly canceled a meeting between Vice Admiral Shen Jinlong and his US counterpart, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson. Beijing also rejected a request by the US Navy to permit a port call by the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp in Hong Kong.

Analysts and experts suspect that it will be a long time before military ties recover.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.de/us-sends-b-52-bombers-ripping-through-south-china-sea-twice-in-a-week-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

0 notes

toldnews-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/united-states-of-america/how-trumps-trade-war-kept-russian-fish-sticks-in-us-school-lunchrooms/

How Trump's trade war kept Russian fish sticks in US school lunchrooms

For years, Alaskan fishermen have been frustrated by foreign competition from Russia, particularly in the lucrative pollock market. Caught in Russian waters, this cold-water cousin of the cod is processed in China before being sold in the US for use in frozen and breaded fish products, as well as imitation crab meat.

Russian pollock costs less than its US-caught equivalent. That’s helped it gain share of the roughly $200 million US market for frozen pollock, to the point that by 2017, about half the fish sticks served in US school cafeterias were made from fish caught in Russia and pumped with additives in China, according to the Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers, a trade group that represents 14 different seafood companies.

Domestic fish producers thought President Donald Trump would fix all that. The administration’s move to slap a 10% tariff last year on thousands of imports from China was supposed to erase the price advantage enjoyed by Russian fish. But instead of fixing the problem, the Trump administration has made things worse for Alaskan fishermen.

Enter the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), which ended up excluding Russian pollock from the tariffs, preserving its price advantage over domestic-caught fish. On top of that, China’s retaliatory tariffs against the US means that Alaska’s pollock producers are now subject to an additional 25% tariff, limiting their access to the growing Chinese market.

Sales of American pollock in China nearly doubled between 2016 and 2017, says Pat Shanahan, the program director of the Genuine Alaska Pollock Producers. The industry was expecting even faster expansion in China in the coming years. But the trade war has dashed those hopes.

“The Chinese retaliatory tariffs have essentially closed the Chinese market for Alaska pollock,” says Shanahan.

Trade codes

At the center of the gaffe is confusing nomenclature and an arcane coding system that trade and customs officials use to label thousands of products that come into the US every day. The common name for the species, no matter where it’s caught, is “Alaska pollock,” though it’s also called “walleye pollock.” Up until 2015, pollock caught in Russian waters was still marketed as “Alaska” pollock. That year Congress legislated that only pollock from Alaska could be called Alaska pollock, at least in the US.

While that helped consumers trying to differentiate between foreign and American fish in the frozen food aisle, it wasn’t much help last year to bureaucrats having to navigate international customs codes. That’s because the tariff codes used by the USTR still identify the fish as “Alaska pollock” regardless of its origin.

The problem arose during last year’s public comment period on the administration’s new tariffs on China. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, a group representing a broad range of commercial seafood interests, submitted a letter to the US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, on Sept. 5 urging him to exclude a long list of Alaska-origin seafood processed in China, including products made from “Alaska pollock.”

According to Jim Gilmore of the pollock-focused At-sea Processors Association, who saw draft versions of the letter before it was submitted, the intent was to encourage the US government to exclude only seafood that had originated in Alaska.

But the wording of the letter was confusing, a “poorly conceived request,” Gilmore calls it, that failed to recognize that the international tariff codes did not differentiate a product’s country of origin. The administration failed to realize this, too.

At the same time, other Alaska fishing groups were expressing reserved support for tariffs on pollock from China. Nevertheless, the administration, based on the poorly-worded recommendation from ASMI, issued tariff exclusions for all “Alaska pollock” products from China, including fish originally caught in Russia.

Jeremy Woodrow, the interim executive director of ASMI, said he was unaware of the pollock industry’s opposition to the exclusions until after the public comment period had passed. “Had we known prior to the deadline, our request may have been different,” Woodrow says.

Some in the fishing industry have taken a dim view of the administration’s approach to trade policy.

“You had people trying to do the right thing, but in the mix of all this going on with tariffs, due diligence was not being done,” says one fish industry lobbyist who works closely with the Commerce Department. “It was just rolled out in a very haphazard way.”

Who’s in charge of the fix?

Two days after the public comment period closed on Oct. 9, essentially sealing the decision, a trio of seafood interest groups sent a letter to Lighthizer requesting the new exclusion on Chinese pollock imports be lifted.

So far, according to the At-sea Processors Association, one of the groups that signed the letter, neither Lighthizer nor his office have responded. A source at the Department of Commerce, which regulates the fishing industry, says that officials at the department’s International Trade Administration were aware of the problem, and at a meeting last year discussed “fixing” it, even bringing in Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Jim Gilmore says he’s been lobbying the administration to remove the tariff exclusion for Russian pollock, meeting with ITA officials on Nov. 15 and remaining in contact with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a division of the Commerce Department that oversees fisheries. But so far, he says, nothing has been done.

A Commerce spokesman confirms that pollock industry representatives sought guidance from the ITA on how to lobby for a reversal of USTR’s decision to grant the exclusion. But according to the spokesman, USTR informed the Department that no changes could be made because the public record on the matter had already closed. Ross spoke with Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, in early December to communicate USTR’s position.

“During and after the call, Secretary Ross and his team agreed to continue looking further into the matter to see if a solution can be found,” said the Commerce spokesman. Sullivan’s office did not reply to CNN a request for comment.

Friendly Fire

This isn’t the first time the President’s trade war has led to unintended consequences for US industry.

Last year, after the administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs went into effect, hundreds of American companies complained about the Commerce Department’s process of granting exclusions, arguing that requests were often caught in a bureaucratic limbo, forcing them to pay tariffs since no domestic producers could supply the kind of metal they needed. At the time, more than 37,000 steel tariff exclusion requests had been submitted, while just 2,550 had been approved and more than 1,800 had been denied.

Smaller companies also argued that the process favored big production companies which were often able to block their exclusion requests by objecting to them.

In September, Commerce announced it would amend the process to allow firms to respond to any objections filed to their exclusion requests.

In November, the inspector general at Commerce circulated internally its plans to audit the exclusion process after lawmakers publicly expressed frustration the process was “arbitrary,” according to The Hill.

Things have improved a bit. As of Feb. 4, Commerce had processed about 45 percent of the steel tariff exclusion requests it had received, 29,155 out of a total of 65,223.

While the pollock exclusion did not originate at Commerce, the Department has become a resource for seeking a tariff exclusion, says Gilmore. “Given USTR’s smaller staff they do seem to look to ITA’s analysts for support,” he says. “This is pretty arcane stuff.”

It doesn’t help that Commerce itself has staffing shortages. According to the Washington Post and the Partnership for Public Service, 29 percent of the political jobs at Commerce are either still pending before the Senate or don’t even have nominees. The director of public affairs at the department’s International Trade Administration, who CNN tried to contact for this story, is vacant.

No end in sight

What worries some in the industry is that undoing the Alaska pollock screw-up may be as challenging for the administration as getting it right the first time, at least as long as the current trade negotiations between the US and China continue.

Until then, Russian pollock remains in the grocery aisle. Conagra, the Chicago-based packaged foods giant, uses cheaper Russian pollock for its Van de Kamp’s and Mrs. Paul’s frozen food brands, but not in what it sells to restaurants, dining halls and school cafeterias. “We do not sell pollock through our food service channels,” says Dan Hare, a spokesman for Conagra.

In addition, uninformed schools may continue to purchase cheaper fish sticks made from Russian pollock—hurting not just the domestic fishing industry but perhaps facilitating a violation of federal school lunch laws. The longstanding “Buy American” provision requires schools to use American-sourced food products whenever possible and feasible. Alaska’s Sen. Sullivan fought to include in last year’s farm bill a section directing the Secretary of Agriculture to “enforce full compliance” with Buy American.

As Sullivan told Alaska Public Radio in December, without full compliance, Russian-caught pollock processed in China has been sold in the US for purchase by school lunch programs.

“USDA is reviewing the recently passed bill and will work to efficiently implement its provisions now that our agency has reopened,” according to an Agriculture Department statement sent to CNN on Jan. 29.

Neither US Foods nor Sysco, two of the largest food services companies in the United States, responded directly to questions about whether they provide Russian-caught pollock to school lunch programs.

“We offer a variety of products to our customers, however, the National School Lunch Act requires participating schools to comply with the ‘Buy American’ provision and the program is subject to monitoring by school food authorities and local agencies to help ensure compliance,” said Sara Matheu of US Foods, when asked if the company sells Russian pollock to schools.

Sysco did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

#How Trump&039;s trade war kept Russian fish sticks in US school lunchrooms - CNNPolitics #Politics #united state news #us headlines #us latest news #us local news #us national news #US news

0 notes