Research & publications 2024

Marine Policy

With the oceans covering 70% of the world’s surface, one might be under the illusion that every State might find sufficient space for their activities, nothing could be further from the truth. This was proven once more in January 2022 and August 2023 when Russian vessels sought to engage in military exercises within strategic areas of the Irish and Norwegian exclusive economic zones (EEZs), choosing some of the local fishermen’s preferred locations in the process. Unlike their governments, the local fishermen refused to accept the Russian intrusions and via continuous protest through presence succeeded in forcing the Russian Navy to move the exercises to another area. This example is proof that to this day, the legal framework of the EEZ still gives rise to significant questions and uncertainties, often to the benefit of lawfare lawyers, especially in regards to foreign military activities and overlapping uses of the same area. Art. 56 LOSC awards sovereign resource rights to the coastal State, but arts. 58 and 87 LOSC grant the maritime user State the freedom to navigate. How to reconcile these different uses has for a long time occupied the minds of law of the sea lawyers. In this article, an attempt is made - utilizing a selection of national and international jurisprudence - to clarify the relation between these different uses of the EEZ, their permissibility and why the fishermen’s success in these cases might not so easily be translated into general international law.

In 2022, the European Commission proposed an EU Nature Restoration Law (Proposal). This was a groundbreaking proposal and would be the first comprehensive piece of binding international legislation that holds legally binding targets and deadlines for landscape-wide restoration. Although the Proposal initially received very positive reactions from a variety of stakeholders, including scientists, organizations, and companies, certain lobby groups—mainly from the primary sectors (agriculture, forestry, and fisheries)—led a strong campaign against the Proposal, often based on unfounded arguments and short-term considerations. After several nail-biting voting rounds, a political compromise on an amended text was finally reached and awaits final approval. The Compromise still provides an appropriate legal basis for upscaling restoration within the EU through clear targets on restoration for different ecosystems and implementation obligations for Member States. However, we argue that, since the Compromise weakens the Proposal on some vital points regarding the operationalization of restoration at the national level, it remains uncertain whether the final law will produce the tangible effects that are necessary in the coming years.