Under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, States have sovereign rights over the resources of their continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles from the coast. Where the physical shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles, States may exercise rights over those resources to the outer limits of the continental shelf. More than 80 States may be entitled to claim sovereign rights over their continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 nautical miles from their coast, and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is currently examining many of these claims. This book examines the nature of the rights and obligations of coastal States in this area, with a particular focus on the options for regulating activities on the extended continental shelf. Because the extended continental shelf lies below the high seas, the area poses unique legal challenges for coastal States that are different from those faced in respect of the shelf within 200 nautical miles. In addition, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea imposes some specific obligations that coastal States must comply with in respect of the extended continental shelf. The book discusses the development of the concept of the extended continental shelf. It explores a range of issues facing the coastal State in regulating matters such as environmental protection, fishing, bioprospecting, exploitation of non-living resources and marine scientific research on the extended continental shelf. The book proposes a framework for navigating the intersection between the high seas and the extended continental shelf and minimising the potential for conflict between flag and coastal States.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.