Human uses in Antarctica are intensifying and diversifying. Around 10,000 scientists and 122,000 tourists visited Antarctica during the 2023-2024 season. In the South Shetland Islands, research and tourism operations are concentrated in areas where most facilities are located. Both types of operations are strongly intertwined, frequently relying on the same infrastructure and facilities. King George Island (KGI) has become an essential hub for air-cruise operations, as the airstrip 'Teniente R. Marsh' facilitates tourists' and researchers' access to the Antarctic Peninsula region. Logistical support and infrastructure have expanded significantly in recent years to accommodate the growing number of tourists, thereby creating increased pressure on local ecosystems. This paper explores the current use and regulation of land-based facilities for tourism operations on KGI and the legal aspects of these activities. From a legal perspective, due to the unresolved issue of territorial sovereignty in Antarctica, questions arise regarding States' rights and obligations to exercise jurisdiction or control over their research stations and infrastructure, as well as the legal basis for such authority in light of Antarctica's unique status under international law. We expect that this case study could spark a broader debate among the scientific community, managers, and policy-makers as to whether the development and regulation of land-based tourism facilities in Antarctica require further regulation.

Deep-sea hydrothermal vents form small, unique, and fragile ecosystems that are widely recognized as sites in need of protection. Deep-seabed mining (DSM) is a future threat to hydrothermal ecosystem integrity. In most areas within, and in all areas beyond national jurisdiction, currently proposed protection measures from DSM are unlikely to be sufficient, as only the known active venting sites on the seafloor are intended to be protected from DSM impacts. To ensure effective protection, we propose protecting not only the active vent sites but the entire hydrothermal ecosystems and their transition zones, embracing the seafloor, subseafloor and overlying water column. We discuss how ecological knowledge supports the proposed three-dimensional (3-D) protection. We suggest no DSM extraction or indirect impacts on the seafloor and entire subseafloor within a minimum 50 km diameter (25 km radius) around visible active vents. This will ensure the maintenance of subseafloor connections that are key for ecosystem integrity, as changes in vent fluid conditions can alter all ecosystem functions and services linked to venting activity. In the water column, protection from pollution from the seafloor to surface is suggested to protect vent larvae. This extent spans the entire length of ridges or back-arc basins, with a crossaxial extent of 80 km. We further discuss how international law can contribute to the effective protection of vent ecosystems and transition zones in international waters, and provide guidance for coastal States to safeguard these ecosystems and transition zones within their own maritime areas.

The Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA) is a unique treaty that deals with a unique scenario: in an area of the high seas where no fishing has ever taken place, it determines the conditions under which future fishing can commence. Another innovation for which the CAOFA is less well-known are various aspects relating to Arctic Indigenous peoples. This article examines Arctic Indigenous issues relating to the CAOFA and focuses in particular on the participation of Arctic Indigenous peoples in the negotiations on the CAOFA and subsequent meetings of the CAOFA, as well as the needs of, and impacts on, Arctic Indigenous peoples as considerations in decisions by the CAOFA’s Conference of the Parties (COP) on commercial and exploratory fishing.

This essay responds to some aspects of the paper ‘The Politics of Research Presence in Svalbard’ by Torbjørn Pedersen that concern the interpretation and application of the Spitsbergen Treaty. Pedersen emphasises that his paper is not a legal paper, and that it touches only briefly on legal issues relating to Svalbard and the Spitsbergen Treaty. After a summary of the different interpretations of the geographical scope of the Spitsbergen Treaty that exist among scholars and contracting parties to the Treaty, the paper also very briefly covers the question as to whether the Spitsbergen Treaty recognises a right to engage in scientific research and who can exercise this right. As these two questions are directly relevant to the main concerns and conclusions on national posturing advanced in the paper, I felt that a more in-depth and balanced analysis was both warranted and desirable. In view of the length-limitations for essays such as these, it is not possible to also adequately cover the closely related questions on Norway’s jurisdiction over scientific research and the possible applicability of the prohibition of non-discrimination.

The interrelated notions of adjacency and creeping coastal State jurisdiction have been a key driver in the historical development of the international law of the sea. Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( LOSC ) managed to bring an end to unilateral coastal State claims to new and broader maritime zones, creeping coastal State jurisdiction per se continued, both unilaterally and multilaterally. This article focuses on so-called multilateral creeping coastal State jurisdiction – which originates predominantly from intergovernmental bodies – and in particular on the role of this phenomenon in the currently ongoing negotiations on an agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction under the LOSC ( BBNJ Agreement). The article contains a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions in the draft BBNJ Agreement of 18 November 2019 and subsequent text proposals by delegations, in light of the historical development of the law of the sea.

Participation in the Antarctic Treaty and its main decision-making body - the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) - has been highly sensitive from the outset, in particular due to the fundamental issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ATCM's decision-making by unanimity. Broader participation means enhanced applicability of the Antarctic Treaty and acts adopted by the ATCM, but does not necessarily improve effectiveness because each new participant obtains a de facto right to veto. There are multiple reasons why States want to participate in the Antarctic Treaty and other key instruments of the Antarctic Treaty System, including reasons related to the issue of Antarctic territorial sovereignty and the ability to engage in activities such as scientific research, tourism and exploitation of resources. The objective of this article is to analyse the grounds and requirements for participation in the Antarctic Treaty, their genesis during the negotiations on the Antarctic Treaty, and their subsequent operationalisation and application in practice.

There is now broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and will continue for the foreseeable future. For those prepared to see and acknowledge it, evidence of climate change is all around us. Such evidence is particularly overwhelming in the Arctic region, where the continuous thinning and receding sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean stands out as especially clear-cut evidence. Ample proof of human-induced climate change also exists in the domain of marine capture fisheries, for instance, with sightings of new species arriving from lower latitudes while ‘traditional’ fish species leave for higher latitudes.

This Chapter is devoted to issues relating to the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean and its negotiation that are of key importance to international fisheries law. It provides an overview of the Arctic Five and Five-plus-Five processes that culminated in the Agreement, as well as the Agreement's institutional set-up and setting. These negotiation processes were confronted with a unique scenario in international fisheries law: they were in a position to collectively determine the conditions under which a future high seas fishery would be allowed to commence. The final package deal that led to the successful conclusion of the Five-plus-Five process was not only driven by the fundamentally different central Arctic Ocean fisheries interests of the Arctic Five on the one hand, and those of the Other Five on the other hand, but also by their broader interests in the domains of international fisheries law, the international law of the sea and the international law relating to the Arctic. Other key features of the Five-plus-Five process that are examined in detail are its exploratory phase, the stepwise approach and the evolving nature of the Agreement.

This collection addresses the central question of how the current international framework for the regulation of fisheries may be strengthened in order to meet the challenges posed by changing fisheries and ocean conditions, in particular climate change. International fisheries law has developed significantly since the 1990s, through the adoption and establishment of international instruments and bodies at the global and regional levels. Global fish stocks nevertheless remain in a troubling state, and fisheries management authorities face a wide array of internal and external challenges, including operational constraints, providing effective management advice in the face of scientific uncertainty and non-compliance by States with their international obligations. This book examines these challenges and identifies options and pathways to strengthen international fisheries law. While it has a primarily legal focus, it also features significant contributions from specialists drawn from other disciplines, notably fisheries science, economics, policy and international relations, in order to provide a fuller context to the legal, policy and management issues raised. Rigorous and comprehensive in scope, this will be essential reading for lawyers and nonlawyers interested in international fisheries regulation in the context of profoundly changing ocean conditions.

Oceans governance could be seen as the most recent phase in the evolution of the international law of the sea and is among the key drivers and features in the currently ongoing negotiation process on an international instrument to help conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction. This chapter briefly reviews the history of the international law of the sea and how it has helped shape the ways in which we use and manage marine resources and ocean space. Drawing from current discussions in ocean research and policy, it then outlines key challenges and potential ways forward for global oceans governance.