Conclusion

C. Goodman
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"C. Goodman","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192896841.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Chapter draws on the cumulative effect of the research and analysis in the book in order to address the overall enquiry concerning the nature and extent of coastal State jurisdiction over living resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). First, it proposes a general statement or ‘jurisdictional test’ regarding the nature of coastal State jurisdiction over the living resources of the EEZ. It suggests that this jurisdiction is flexible but functional, consisting of a broad discretion exercisable within functional limits that are determined on the basis of reasonableness and by reference to the balance of rights and interests reflected in the EEZ regime. Second, it outlines some more thematic conclusions about the extent of coastal State jurisdiction, considering the effect that State practice has had on the interpretation or development of relevant aspects of the LOSC, and the extent to which it justifies assertions that the ‘creeping jurisdiction’ of coastal States will upset the balance of rights and interests established in the LOSC. The Chapter concludes the book with some brief reflections on the critical importance of striking the right balance between the rights and duties of coastal States and other States in the EEZ, in order to maintain the sui generis regime established in the LOSC and effectively and innovatively address the current and future challenges of international fisheries governance.","PeriodicalId":310785,"journal":{"name":"Coastal State Jurisdiction over Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Coastal State Jurisdiction over Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192896841.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Chapter draws on the cumulative effect of the research and analysis in the book in order to address the overall enquiry concerning the nature and extent of coastal State jurisdiction over living resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). First, it proposes a general statement or ‘jurisdictional test’ regarding the nature of coastal State jurisdiction over the living resources of the EEZ. It suggests that this jurisdiction is flexible but functional, consisting of a broad discretion exercisable within functional limits that are determined on the basis of reasonableness and by reference to the balance of rights and interests reflected in the EEZ regime. Second, it outlines some more thematic conclusions about the extent of coastal State jurisdiction, considering the effect that State practice has had on the interpretation or development of relevant aspects of the LOSC, and the extent to which it justifies assertions that the ‘creeping jurisdiction’ of coastal States will upset the balance of rights and interests established in the LOSC. The Chapter concludes the book with some brief reflections on the critical importance of striking the right balance between the rights and duties of coastal States and other States in the EEZ, in order to maintain the sui generis regime established in the LOSC and effectively and innovatively address the current and future challenges of international fisheries governance.
结论
本章利用本书中研究和分析的累积效应,以解决1982年《联合国海洋法公约》下沿海国对专属经济区(EEZ)生物资源管辖权的性质和范围的总体问题。首先,它就沿海国对专属经济区生物资源的管辖权的性质提出一般性说明或“管辖权检验”。它表明,这种管辖权是灵活的,但具有功能,包括在合理的基础上并参照专属经济区制度所反映的权利和利益平衡所确定的功能范围内行使广泛的自由裁量权。其次,考虑到国家实践对《国际海洋法公约》相关方面的解释或发展所产生的影响,以及它在多大程度上证明了沿海国“逐渐扩大的管辖权”将打破《国际海洋法公约》所确立的权利和利益平衡的说法是合理的,它概述了一些关于沿海国管辖权范围的更专题的结论。本章最后简要回顾了在沿海国和其他国家在专属经济区的权利和义务之间取得适当平衡的关键重要性,以便维持《海洋法公约》中建立的独特制度,并有效和创新地应对国际渔业治理当前和未来的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信