The meaning and scope of the concept of security in extenso, as well as its special type, i.e. maritime safety and security, has been the subject of many considerations and discussions for decades, and perhaps for centuries. Security is most often understood as one of the basic functions of the State implying counteracting all threats. In axiological terms, as a risk-free state, maritime safety is a value, and in functional terms, as a desirable state, it is expressed in the protective function of law. The law must be structured in such a way as to constantly realize this function. Achieving maritime safety can therefore be seen as the capacity of law and institutions, for example, to protect a ship against loss, protect health and life of people employed on a ship, and protect the environment from pollution.
The concept of ecosystem services becomes more and more popular in regulation of the environmental protection. One of the premises of that concept is treatment of a human and human activity as an integral part of an ecosystem. Interrelations between human activity and ecosystem can be described through the concept of ecosystem services. A certain degree of commodification of natural environment which is immanently connected with the concept of ecosystem services can become useful as a tool of assessing the impact of human activities on ecosystem as well as regulating that impact. Marine protection law is a good example of attempts to introduce the interrelated concepts of ecosystem approach and ecosystem services into functioning of the regulatory schemes.
The article presents reviews of the European Union regulation on reporting formalities for ships entering the EU ports. It also analyses IMO regulation concerning that matter. Finally, the author exposes the differences between both legal systems and weaknesses of the solutions adopted. In the second part of the article the author discusses the Polish way of the reporting formalities system’s implementation. On the basis of a legal analysis as well as practice of the maritime authorities in Poland, the author finds that the Polish regulations seem to be exemplary.
The concept of a general average is the oldest institution of maritime law. Its usefulness in modern shipping relations has long been criticized. Nevertheless, the general average, despite the fact that it is not the subject of any international agreement, occupies a prominent place in the internal legal systems of maritime states, and the international community continues to show great interest in it, regularly changing the principles of accounting established in the second half of the 19th century in York and Antwerp. During the work on the draft of the new Polish Maritime Code, the Maritime Law Codification Commission made some changes in the regulations concerning the general average, adapting the provisions of Polish law to new solutions proposed by participants of international maritime trade and non-governmental organizations, including Comité Maritime International.
The aim of the study is to examine the importance of economic argumentation in international maritime disputes. The paper first explains what the international maritime disputes, their sources and types are, what principles they are subjected to. It also established what should be understood by economic arguments, emphasizing their relative nature, as well as showing the potential of the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 as a basis for formulating economic argumentation. The importance of economic argumentation was considered in relation to international disputes regarding the legal status of maritime territories, delimitation of maritime zones, power over the sea and use of the sea. Research, carried out, leads to the following conclusions: 1) economic arguments are present in the reasoning of the parties as well as dispute settlement bodies. However, their probative value is limited; 2) in disputes related to the status of maritime features economic reasoning appears in the context of necessity to demonstrate that they can be a basis for delimitation; 3) in delimitation disputes, addressing economic arguments is more complex and contradictory. Economic arguments may be useful in the second phase of delimitation when relevant circumstances are considered. However, the existing practice shows that the range of economic arguments is limited (they cannot serve as a reason for correction of natural inequalities). International jurisprudence denies taking into account arguments based on level of economic development or economic or financial difficulties of a state (except for the catastrophic repercussions for the livelihood and economic wellbeing of the population), the needs of economic development or performance of economic activities (mining, fishing, shipping). An argument associated with assurance of deposit unity is of some importance (when resources are known or readily ascertainable); 4) in disputes concerning the power over the sea some weight is held by an argument associated with the establishment of economic authority, in particular, of a regulatory and control nature; 5) in disputes related to the use of the sea, the importance of economic reasoning is varied. In disputes concerning the prompt release, the role of the economic argument is limited. On the contrary, it is relevant in disputes related to the violation of rights and economic interests of States and people, if they are protected by international law.