ÐÒÔË´óתÅÌ

Ocean Space

Ocean spaces and ecosystems are often connected in complex and multiscale ways and resist fixed legal delineations. In spite of this, UNCLOS divides ocean space into different maritime zones, fragmenting the ocean environment and subsuming each fragment to a different legal regime. WPI sets out to analyze the current regime in light of the epistemic challenges posed to the law of the sea and ocean governance (LOSOG) by the novel ecological perspective.

WPI explores whether the current spatial architecture can respond to the challenges posed to it by ocean connectivity of currents, species and domains. A particularly important dimension is the land-sea interface, where WPI will investigate the limits and possibilities of thinking land and sea together within the current LOSOG framework, assessing to what degree the relevant legal regimes are able to address and respond to the emerging issues threatening the marine environment, such as climate change, marine plastic pollution and ocean acidification. Finally, WPI will explore alternative legal constructions of ocean space.

The research conducted in WPI will shed light on one of the main hypothesis of the Aurora Center: The legal architecture of ocean space is not suited to ensure ocean resilience and sustainability, and contribute to the main research question of the Centre: What are the limits and possibilities of the current LOSOG framework to adapt and respond to the intertwined systemic challenges? And what are the possible future trajectories for LOSOG?

Key participants: Busch, Dahl, De Lucia, Hey, Lott, Molenaar, Poto, Ranganathan, Solski.

International partners: Braverman, Trevisanut, Scott, Kotsakis

Sovereignty

The aim of WP II Sovereignty is to explore the limits and possibilities of sovereignty as this is the logic and central legal principle underpinning the law of the sea and ocean governance (LOSOG).

Sovereignty is at the core of understanding international law. In the evolution of LOSOG, there has been a debate on how to govern the seas and how to balance sovereignty and freedom of the seas. Sovereignty and sovereign rights have been the selected legal device to deal with challenges such as overexploitation of natural resources. For example, through the extension of the limits of the territorial sea and the establishment of the exclusive economic zone, which have provided the coastal states with increased competence to regulate fishing and other human activities. Yet, today sovereignty is challenged in the face of current and new challenges, in particular environmental threats such as common concern and biodiversity loss. The WP problematizes sovereignty and investigates how sovereignty could be redefined, adapted to and rethought to respond to such new global systemic challenges. This research will contribute to the main research question of the Aurora Center: What are the limits and possibilities of the current LOSOG framework to adapt and respond to the intertwined systemic challenges? And what are the possible future legal trajectories for LOSOG?

Key participants: Dahl, das Neves, De Lucia, Frostad, Johansen, Solski, Torp Helmersen.

International partners: Ringbom, Tanaka, Trevisanut, Scott. 

Ocean Commons

The WP aims to deconstruct and reconstruct the concept(s) of ocean commons, to investigate its legal character and how it may promote common interests and ocean justice.

The research is organized through three tasks:

Task 1: Interrogating ocean commons

This task will interrogate the category of ocean commons in all their nuances, including emerging or intangible ones such as the protection of the marine environment, the conservation of biodiversity and ocean knowledge, in order to prepare the terrain for tasks 2 and 3.

Task 2: Limits and possibilities of the governance of ocean commons

This task will problematize the category of ocean commons in terms of their ontology, their spatial dimension, and their legal regimes. More in details, the task will assess the status, role, limits and possibilities of key principles for the governance of ocean commons, and seek to uncover which interests are protected by the array of different instruments that apply to ocean commons. Important aspects to explore will be, inter alia, whether the principles of the freedom of the high seas and the common heritage of mankind remain relevant today, and the potential implications of the principle of common concern to transcend traditional spatial and jurisdictional views of ocean commons.

Task 3: Rethinking ocean commons

This task, on the basis of tasks 1 and 2, aims at rethinking the governance of ocean commons. It will include investigations of the impact of the BBNJ process on the legal status quo and whether the potential new agreement is able to address the complexities involved in the governance of the ocean commons. This task will also link with the fragmented functional and spatial architecture of ocean, and how that affects the question of ocean justice, the balancing 10 between common interests and the interests of the individual costal states and the definition of ocean commons. One element in this task, shared with task 3 of WP II, will be to explore the role of non-sovereign agency (indigenous peoples, nature) and alternative legalities (e.g. legal pluralism) for the governance of ocean commons and in relation to ocean justice.

Key participants: De Lucia, Henriksen, Hey, Jakobsen, Johansen, Poto, Ranganathan.

International partners: Harrison, Mossop, Scott

Future Trajectories

This WP aims to gradually integrate research done under other WPs, and reflect on, develop, and propose new perspectives to, and trajectories for, legal research and for the substantive framework of LOSOG, with the view of being able to respond to the systemic challenges. 

This is done through the following tasks:

Task 1: Regional Arctic Ocean governance: A case study

This task utilizes a regional case study to bring to bear and integrate the research carried out in the other WPs. The choice of the Arctic reflects is special vulnerabilities to environmental change, its special position with respect to geopolitical interests, and the geo-localization of the Centre.

Task 2: Future trajectories

This task will coordinate the articulation of future trajectories for sustainable oceans that will have emerged in the other WPs with the view of integrating them into a coherent set of proposals for the legal research community and for policy makers.

Participants: All project group members and partners

Sovereignty and Territoriality in the Seascape: From Inertia to Kinesis / Apostolos Tsiouvalas

 is a PhD Candidate at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea. His research is dealing with the conceptualization of marine space in legal thought and seeks to problematize the way sovereignty interacts with the phenomenon of ‘mobility’ in the world’s oceans.

To encapsulate an ontological understanding of ocean mobility that may reflect more-than-human and Indigenous ways of moving in (and with) space, his dissertation employs the Aristotelian idea of kinesis as a conceptual lens.The project further looks at how legal narratives shape spatial thinking, and how non-state understandings of motion could inform the existing legal architecture of the oceans.

Jurisprudence has been most commonly concerned with how mobility in the world’s oceans is shaped by environmental threads. Environmental factors are thus seen as main drivers of mobility, while law itself tends to conceptualize ‘mobility’ merely as an ‘emerging problem’ that needs to be halted or solved.

Albeit the causality of unprecedent ocean mobility to environmental factors is not debatable, it is important to realize that mobility may also be an ontological stance, a quality of the universe that has been there all the way along, even if previously disregarded or conceptualized as a ‘problem’ by Western legal thought.

This doctoral project thus seeks to confirm the presumption that law of the sea has to come to terms with the mobility in the world’s oceans linked to environmental threats. It seeks to expose the limitations of the existing oceanic legal imaginary in place and theorize a new ontology of ocean °ì¾±²Ôŧ²õ¾±²õ for international law, decoupling from its intrinsic tendency towards inertia.

In addition to being a PhD-student at NCLOs Apostolous is also a Research Associate for , based in Washington D.C., and editor-in-chief of the Arctic Institute’s weekly publication, The Arctic This Week. His main research interests revolve around legal anthropology, new materialism(s), legal pluralism, indigenous rights and environmental law in the Arctic. Not least, he is fascinated by ‘law and comics’ approaches and critical jurisprudence in general.

Apostolos holds an LL.M. degree in  from the University of Akureyri in Iceland, an MPhil degree in the field of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies from the University of Tromsø, Norway, and a  from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. He has also undertaken 12 months exchange mobility at the University of Trier in Germany in 2014 and at the University of Tromsø in 2018.

Prior to his employment at NCLOS, Apostolos carried out an internship at the Law Faculty of the University of Tromsø, providing research assistance to the former K.G. Jebsen Center for the Law of the Sea and the Sami Law Research Group.

During the summer of 2018, Apostolos also undertook twin internships with the , a leading Arctic research body in Iceland, and the  of the Arctic Council, engaging in the projects ‘Sustainable Economies in the Arctic’ and ‘’ respectively.

After his move to Norway, his collaboration with the Stefánsson Arctic Institute continued remotely, including fieldwork for the project ‘Arctic Youth and Sustainable Future’. In the past, Apostolos has also served as trainee lawyer for the Thessaloniki's Bar Association.

For a comprehensive list of Apostolos research outcomes and current areas of interest, look .

The Marine Resource Act and Principles of Environmental Law / Bjørn Bakke

, PhD-student at NCLOS is writing a thesis about environmental principles in the Norwegian Marine Resources Act.

We had a chat with Bjørn Bakke, PhD student at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS) about the topic he has devoted the last four years of his life to. Namely the importance of environmental law principles for fisheries management according to the Marine Resources Act.

At the outset, Bakke points out that the Norwegian fisheries management is, overall, very well-functioning. - There is a system where environmental principles have been implemented both at the constitutional level, in sector legislation (for example the Marine Resources Act), and in the Nature Diversity Act, which is cross-sectoral. Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement, he states.

When Bakke began the work on his dissertation, his hypothesis was that statutory environmental principles at least to a certain extent is hot air. - It is stated in the Marine Resources Act § 7 second paragraph letter b that the ecosystem approach shall be a key consideration when applying the law. However, if one looks to the preparatory work, it is stated that the principle has a distinctly political character and is not suitable for judicial review. What is it then that you have passed into the law, Bakke asks rhetorically?

Another vague concept is "sustainable development". - A common problem is that you use the term sustainability without clarifying its content and context. It is not always easy to know whether the term is used to imply political sustainability, economic sustainability, or ecological sustainability, he points out.

Bakke believes that the explanation may lie in the fact that environmental law concepts are often derived from international law and international politics. – These principles are often adopted in consensus-based processes. This means that the countries that are the least willing to lead with ambitious environmental policies often have the last word when it comes to the concrete meaning of a term, he states.

The Marine Resources Act is an authorization law, i.e., the Norwegian parliament, through the Act, gives other administrative bodies a limited authority to make general rules and individual decisions. Whether to build up or downsize a fish stock will always be a matter of priorities. But this does not mean that the fisheries administration can decide to do whatever they may want.

- It is clear that the environmental principles in the Marine Resources Act limit the margin of discretion, so that it cannot for example be decided to exterminate a species that is naturally occurring in Norwegian waters, Bakke points out.

- An improvement would be to clarify and specify what environmental principles require from the decision making in the fisheries administration. Take for example, the principle in the Nature Diversity Act § 8, that decisions must be based on scientific knowledge. It can be specified what is required when obtaining, controlling, and reassessing the knowledge base.

Among the basic problems of environmental law is the fact that nature itself does not possess legal agency, i.e., the seas can not sue anyone for overfishing. Some have argued that this problem might be solved by establishing special environmental courts, as is already the case in for example Sweden. Bjørn points out that special courts are not in line with the Norwegian legal tradition. And might even cause its own specific challenges.

- It is difficult to find a satisfactory solution on how the environmental courts and ordinary courts should relate to each other. A single environmental case is often complicated and has ripple effects in many other areas of law and society than just the environmental and environmental law. As well as raising questions that likely require specialized scientific knowledge to answer. These are factors may indicate that court proceedings are not the answer, Bakke reasons.

An enviromental ombudsman?

In Norwegian law, the administrative appeal is a practically important way of trying an administrative decision. According to Bakke the administrative appeal often falls short in environmental matters. But Bakke explains that administrative appeal often falls short in environmental matters. –  The fisheries administration is sector-based, and this means that a complaint is usually processed by the superior body in the same sector. If you complain about a decision made by fisheries bureaucrats, your complaint will most likely be processed by fisheries bureaucrats at a higher level, he explains.

- I have toyed with the idea of an environmental ombudsman, who has both the legal expertise, environmental expertise, and the fisheries expertise to supervise the administration of natural resources. As the civil ombudsman, an environmental ombudsman will be able to make statements related to individual decisions, but without having a right of judicial review. This may be a more appropriate way to control the environmental administration than the current scheme or a special environmental court, Bakke points out.

He is writing his dissertation in English and is scheduled to be submitted by the end of this semester. - Since the Norwegian fisheries administration is so well functioning, other countries can probably learn from it. Therefore, it is also an advantage that jurisprudence on Norwegian fisheries management is available to an international audience, Bakke concludes.

We at NCLOS wish him good luck in finishing his thesis and look forward to seeing and hearing more about the result!

The Ecosystem Approach in International Fisheries Law: Evaluating the role and potential of Regional Fisheries Management Organization / Ingrid Solstad Andreassen

is PhD-candidate at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea.

The aim of the project is to examine how the ecosystem approach to fisheries is implemented within the framework of the different Tuna-RFMOs, whether there has been a development of the ecosystem approach to fisheries within these RFMOs, if the ecosystem approach to fisheries is implemented in decision-making and compliance mechanisms and how successful these RFMOs are with regard to the protection of marine ecosystems.

Rights for the Arctic Ocean: A Path Towards Sustainability? / Mana Tugend

is a PhD-candidate at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea. Her research investigates the future of Arctic Ocean conservation and the possibilities for transformative changes in the legal system that are reflective of the socio-ecological realities and challenges and the interconnectedness of ecosystems.

The Rights of Nature movement reimagines who can be a legal subject and recognizes that nature possesses inherent rights to exist, thrive, and evolve based on the understanding of the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. Against this background, the main research question is: How can the translation of the Rights of Nature to the international domain in the Arctic Ocean contribute towards answering socio-ecological threats?

Humans are a central cause of the socio-ecological crisis unfolding in the Anthropocene. The Earth system suffers the consequences of human activities as demonstrated by climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss which put human, non-human, and environmental well-being at risk. In the face of these risks and impacts, it became unavoidable to consider how to address these challenges.

The project seeks to explore whether redefining the legal status of nature and conferring rights to the natural world at the international level has the potential to catalyze a broader shift in law and society and a shift in human attitude towards nature. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that no research has been made to implement the rights of nature at the international level, and especially not in the Arctic Ocean.

Mana holds an LL.M. in Polar Law from the University of Akureyri in Iceland. During her master’s, she traveled abroad for exchange semesters both in Bodø, Norway and Helsinki, Finland. Before becoming a doctoral research fellow at NCLOS, she did an internship at the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), where she progressed to the position of scientific and communication assistant.

In addition to her work at NAMMCO, Mana worked as an assistant researcher at NCLOS on issues connected to the ongoing negotiations for the establishment of the BBNJ agreement. As part of her assignment, she wrote a blog post titled . In September 2021, she started at NCLOS as PhD Research Fellow.

Low Trophic Aquaculture / Mathilde Morel

Can we make food for a growing global population in a more sustainable way by utilizing marine resources from lowerr trophic levels?  who is a PhD research fellow at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea is writing her dissertation on the subject.

Although it may seem so based on the headline, you have not strayed into the websites of the Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics. We have met  who is a lawyer and PhD research fellow at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea, where she researches legal issues related to increased use of marine resources from lower trophic levels in the Norwegian aquaculture industry.

With her doctoral project, Mathilde wants to contribute with legal research that can make the aquaculture industry better equipped to handle climate and environmental challenges.

Together with researcher , she is one of two lawyers associated with the research project Novel Marine Resources for Food Security and Food Safety (SECURE).  The project, led by , Professor of Industrial Food Sciences, has approximately twenty-five affiliated researchers who are trying to find out how to sustainably utilize new marine resources to feed a growing world population.

What is meant by trophic levels you may ask?

Mathilde explains that the term "trophic level" describes the level in a food chain where an organism resides. In any food chain, the lowest trophic level is occupied by the primary producers. In the ocean, these are marine algae and photosynthetic bacteria. The next level consists of those who eat the primary producers, such as small zooplankton and fish larvae, Mathilde explains.

Low-trophic resources have a large and untapped potential, and can be used for both human food, raw materials for animal feed, health products and supplements, biofuels and more. Even though Norway has a long coastal zone and large sea areas, access to marine areas will still be a key challenge in the forthcoming time.

If Norway is to increase the production volume of low-trophic marine species (for example, the farming of seaweed, kelp, sea cucumbers, sea urchins and various forms of mussels) as part of the green shift, it will have to compete for areas with both new activities such as offshore wind, but also with existing activities such as shipping, tourism, mineral extraction on the seabed and fishing. These are challenges that cannot easily be solved without a good framework for ocean management, she explains.

Another challenge is that current regulations are mainly adapted to the traditional aquaculture farming types such as salmon and trout. For example, there are no adapted solutions for multitrophic aquaculture, where different species are cultivated together. The idea is that such facilities can both reduce waste and create added value by allowing waste consumers to be used, for example for animal feed.

Research, technology, and innovation are evolving at a faster pace than regulation. The challenge is to develop a set of rules that at the same time enables both innovation and sustainable growth, but this is, as you probably understand, easier said than done. Therefore, it is important that also jurisprudence is produced in this field, she states.

Most of the greenhouse gas footprint of salmon farming comes from feed.

Mathilde is writing an article-based dissertation and is currently working on her first article, which she is writing together with , a PhD research fellow at the Norwegian College of Fishery Science and part of the SECURE project. Together, the two have looked at legal measures to reduce the climate footprint of salmon farming.

Most of the greenhouse gas footprint of salmon farming comes from feed, where in particular the use of soy protein imported from Brazil contributes to the destruction of forest areas to expand the agricultural industry.

Although those engaged in aquaculture are subject to many and detailed requirements, there are few legally binding mechanisms in place that make demands on or hold feed producers accountable, either at international or national level. This is a major challenge when it comes to reducing emissions, she points out.

- We are already in the process of a green shift. As part of this, we must change our diets and the types of feed ingredients used in food production. Low-trophic farming can contribute to the production of more sustainable food, at the same time as relieving the pressure on fish stocks that are currently overfished and may in the long term replace the use of soy as feed, Mathilde states.

- To ensure that such sustainable solutions in the aquaculture industry and society in general can have the best possible growth conditions, it is crucial to have the right management tools and regulatory processes in place, she concludes.

Mankind within the concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind: A Critical Review / Mazyar Ahmad

is a PhD Candidate at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS). 

The title of his thesis is “Mankind within the concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind: A Critical Review”. The project aims to broaden our understanding of the common heritage of mankind concept.

Discourses on environmental conservation, resource management, redistribution of benefit, climate change have prompted the international community to rethink commons from different vantage points. Mazyar’s project aims to make some contribution on the subject.

Mazyar worked as a merchant naval officer for about six years, before studying law. He holds an MPhil degree in international law, LLM degree in maritime law, LLB degree, and B.sc degree in nautical science. Before joining ÐÒÔË´óתÅÌ, he taught law at Jindal Global University (JGU) and the Central University of Kashmir, India.

Bridging the Land-Sea-Interface - A Study of the Limits and Possibilities of International Law to Mitigate Ocean Acidification / Philipp Peter Nickels

Phillipp Peter Nickels is a PhD Candidate at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS).

His dissertation will look at the limits and possibilities of international law, including the law of the sea, to mitigate ocean acidification at the intersection of land and sea. Ocean acidification is to a great extent caused by CO2 emissions from land-based sources that enter the atmosphere to eventually be absorbed by seawater.  

Ocean acidification thus presents itself as a regulatory challenge at the intersection of land and sea and is one example among others of external impacts on the marine environment, which might call into question the problem-solving capacity of international law, as evidenced by continuing ocean acidification.

Before becoming a PhD Candidate at NCLOS, Nickels did a bachelor’s in political science and public law in Germany and an LL.M in the Law of the Sea at ÐÒÔË´óתÅÌ – The Arctic University of Norway. After getting his LL.M. he worked for a year as a researcher at NCLOS on various projects.  

“The Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach in Shipping: Norwegian Practice and Prospectives” / Konstantinos Deligiannis-Virvos

Subject of the research:

Konstantinos Deligiannis-Virvos is a PhD Candidate at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS). His research is concerned with the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the shipping sector, and it especially looks into the practice of Norway in regard to its implications for the norwegian and arctic waters.

Since the ecosystem approach lacks a specific definition in international law, this research is more focused on the practical aspects of its implementation. It examines the existing rules governing shipping that are set by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Maritime Organization, which functions as the competent international organization in matters of shipping.

The research also discusses the Norwegian legal framework applicable. It focuses on the regulations stipulated in the White Paper on Norway’s Integrated Ocean Management Plan (Helhetige forvaltningsplaner for de norske havområdene). It aspires to investigate what are the implications for the application of this plan in the sector of shipping and how it can further apply the ecosystem approach in this specific sector.

Importance of the research:

The novelty of the research lies on the fact that the ecosystem approach is not usually associated with the shipping sector. The application of the ecosystem approach in the specific sector of shipping, can be a step towards integrated ocean governance, especially since it is beyond doubt that shipping has an adverse effect on marine ecosystems around the globe and especially to fragile ecosystems such as those of the Arctic Ocean. While shipping is a highly regulated sector, there is a need to link it with more integrated approaches to the protection of marine ecosystems. The presented thesis aspires to offer ideas that will help achieve this goal.

Background:

Konstantinos studied law at a Bachelor’s level in the Democritus University of Thrace. He holds two LL.M. degrees, one in Public International Law from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and one in Law of the Sea from ÐÒÔË´óתÅÌ – The Arctic University of Norway. He has worked as a lawyer in Athens and is a member of the Athens Bar Association. He has also completed the BlueBook internship in the European Union Commission, in the Directorate-General responsible for EU policy on Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.

"Ecosystem approach for ocean governance" / Nikolaos Gkikas

The vulnerable and sensitive Arctic ecosystems are affected by climate change and by increasing human activities. With rapid changes and uncertainties, there is a need for urgent measures to ensure socio-ecological resilience and good ocean governance. The project therefore investigates the capacity of the existing legal framework in providing for sustainable development of the marine Arctic.

The primary objective of the project is to contribute to good governance of the marine Arctic by critically investigating the implementation of EA in Norway. The subsidiary objective is to propose a set of best practices or recommendations that could be applied to foster the implementation of EA in the Arctic region on a general level.

The project investigates the ecosystem approach (EA) to ocean governance as a key strategy for sustainable development. The project examines how ecosystem approach can be implemented within the legal framework and provide for adaptive, integrated and holistic management without undermining the rule of law and such core values as accountability, participation, legal certainty and predictability. 
 
As the implementation of ecosystem approach hinges on the choices made by individual states, the project predominantly focuses on regulations applicable to and within the Arctic waters under the Norwegian jurisdiction. As the ecosystems of the marine Arctic as well as the effects of human activities are transboundary, the Norwegian law is investigated in the context of global and regional law and policy.

Science is a critical component to EA. The project thus investigates how law and science can be integrated to provide for adaptive governance. Furthermore it examines whether and how EA is implemented into the sectors of fisheries, shipping/tourism, hydrocarbons and new activities. Possible mechanisms for implementing EA, as well as the potential of implementing EA across jurisdictions through cooperation with other states, are also assessed.

For more information about the project visit: 

This project is a part of the Changing Arctic research school.

Brochure

Activities

Activities during the period as K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea