Kosovo has established a stable legal system and comprehensive legal framework supplemented by strategic documents that govern the management of state borders. Nevertheless, the state has faced consistent challenges around fundamental border management, particularly regarding the implementation of Integrated Border Management (IBM) agreements. Serbia’s continued non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence provides an important political context for understanding the challenges surrounding the implementation of the new state’s IBM agreements. Kosovo has undergone a lengthy dialogue process in its relations with Serbia, which has produced a series of agreements intended to be implemented by both parties since 2011, particularly regarding the IBM process. One of the most significant of these agreements is the 2011 IBM Agreement. However, Serbia has frequently failed to implement key provisions of the Agreement and its successors. Meanwhile, the border between Kosovo and Serbia has remained a source of tension, creating both legal and practical obstacles that hinder the freedom of movement of Kosovo’s citizens. The significant delays at border crossing points may adversely affect employment-related mobility, affecting members of the Kosovo diaspora employed in foreign labor markets. This paper clarifies the processes related to border management in Kosovo and the IBM system, as well as the persistent challenges faced by Kosovo’s citizens at border crossing points with Serbia. It identifies these issues as a distinct IBM concern that are exacerbated by Serbia’s failure to implement agreements, resulting in frequent security concerns. The study sheds light on the IBM-related obstacles hindering citizens’ freedom of movement and employment-related mobility and how they reflect the ongoing tensions between these neighboring states.
The article examines Ukraine’s port-sector regulatory framework for establishing public-private partnerships (PPPs), the risks to private investment in strategic maritime infrastructure, and how pre-war contracts cannot address military threats, destruction, operational disruption, and prolonged force majeure. Drawing on case studies of ongoing investment projects in the Ukrainian port sector and comparative analysis, it identifies six risks: security and operational disruption; poor investor selection and conflicts of interest; financial and insurance exposure; administrative and contractual discontinuity; dependence on private operators for essential services; and technological obsolescence. Ukraine’s challenging wartime and post-war security environment calls for adaptable, security-oriented public-private cooperation to strengthen wartime resilience, support post-war reconstruction, and integrate the country into global logistics networks.
Sea level rise and coastal abrasion increase the vulnerability of Indonesia's outermost small islands and have the potential to disrupt the stability of archipelagic baselines, thereby increasing legal uncertainty in cross-border maritime zones and weakening marine biodiversity governance. This research develops an integrative framework for designing equitable benefitsharing strategies in climate-sensitive maritime areas at risk of overlapping or prone to dispute. The research method combines doctrinal legal analysis and GIS-based spatial analysis in a comparative case study of six vulnerable islands: Berhala, Nipa, Sekatung, Marore, Fanildo, and Sebatik. The doctrinal analysis confirms the distinction between the legal basis, objectives, and beneficiaries of (i) ABS in the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, (ii) benefit-sharing in the BBNJ Agreement for areas outside national jurisdiction, and (iii) the temporary arrangement of JDA types according to UNCLOS Article 74 paragraph (3) and Article 83 paragraph (3) in areas that have not been delimited. GIS analysis is used to show the context of geographic vulnerability and governance risks without forming new binding delimitations. Resource-Based Theory is applied in a limited way as an analytical framework to profile the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services to select the most appropriate cooperation instruments. At the same time, equity is interpreted substantively and procedurally as a normative standard. The findings show that benefit-sharing design needs to be contextual, including payment for ecosystem (Marore), regulation of access and sharing of marine genetic data (Fanildo), communitybased fisheries governance (Sebatik), and JDA-inspired joint arrangements as cooperative
This paper examines how Web 2.0-driven digital diplomacy manifests itself within the emerging diplomatic ecosystem surrounding the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, a decentralized connectivity initiative linking Europe and Asia. Approaching the corridor through a constructivist framework complemented by strategic narrative theory and network diplomacy, the study explores whether broader transformations identified in contemporary digital diplomacy are also observable within this multi-actor connectivity structure. The analysis demonstrates that Web 2.0 tools have transformed the corridor into not only a logistical project, but also a digitally mediated arena of strategic communication, visibility-building, narrative competition, and decentralized coordination. The findings suggest that real-time interaction, digitally amplified strategic narratives, and new forms of horizontal accountability increasingly function as integral components of connectivity governance. At the same time, the paper highlights vulnerabilities linked to disinformation, cyber risks, and platform dependency. The study concludes that the corridor represents a particularly illustrative example of how contemporary diplomacy increasingly unfolds through intertwined online-offline communicative networks in the digital age.
The increasing deployment of autonomous ships is challenging the traditional foundations of maritime liability, historically centred on human fault and the central role of the shipowner. This shift is reinforced by Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products, which extends the notion of “product” to include software and digital components. In the maritime context, this development is likely to intensify claims based on product defects, particularly where failures in autonomous navigation systems cause damage. Against this background, this article examines the interaction between the liability regime established by Directive (EU) 2024/2853 and international conventions on the limitation of maritime liability, with particular focus on the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC). While the LLMC allows shipowners to limit their liability for certain maritime claims, the Directive introduces a strict liability regime and, under Article 15, excludes the possibility of limitation in cases involving defective products. In specific circumstances, shipowners may qualify as economic operators within the meaning of the Directive, thereby falling within its scope. The article analyses whether shipowners facing product liability claims may rely on the LLMC, or whether the application of EU law constrains the operation of limitation regimes. Drawing on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it explores how situations of regulatory overlap between EU law and international maritime regimes should be addressed. The analysis shows that the relationship between the LLMC and Directive (EU) 2024/2853 is best understood as a situation of regulatory overlap. While both regimes may formally coexist, their concurrent application may generate tensions, particularly where limitation mechanisms are invoked. In such cases, the principles of primacy and effectiveness of EU law may require national courts to ensure that the rights conferred by the Directive are not undermined. The article concludes that, while the LLMC is not automatically displaced, its operation may be significantly constrained in cases involving defective products, with important implications for the structure of maritime liability in the context of autonomous shipping.
