The radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko which led to his horrifying death in London raised international furore with Britain and Russia as the principal actors. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to the foundation laid by British detectives that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered by toxic polonium 210 which the law enforcement officers traced to Andrei Logovoy in Russia. From this connection, Britain demanded that Andrei Logovoy be extradited by Russia for trial in Britain for murder of Alexander Litvinenko. As would be expected, given the recent relationship between the two countries, Russia flatly declined this demand. Instead, Russia requested whatever information or evidence the British authorities have should be handed to them and they would trial Andrei Logovoy under Russian law, within Russian jurisdiction.

The brief narrative of the root of the dispute in this respect between Britain and Russia may appear as a simple conflict of interests on the part of both countries. But it is a bit more intricate. Apparently, politics is a factor in this fallout by these countries. Though both countries maintain their different positions are founded on legal principles and moral justification, these principles are subtly moulded on political interests.

True, Britain can require the extradition of Andrei Logovoy from Russia. If Britain’s demand cannot be based on domestic laws of Britain, it most certainly can be based on European law which allows extradition between the two countries –and which both Britain and Russia have accented to. Under the canopy of this law, both countries could arrange extradition of offenders between themselves. Inspite of this European law, Russia has never extradited its citizens to Britain –neither has Britain extradited its own citizens to Russia for trial. And, Russia has maintained that it will not extradite Andrei Logovoy to Britain –or any other country for that matter. Britain and Russia, therefore, find themselves in a diplomatic imbroglio.

A puzzling thought that comes to mind is: why would Britain insist on such extradition when historical records show that such demand has close to no likelihood of success? Especially with the frayed relationship which currently exists between both countries? With the accusations, and counter-accusations, by government representatives on either side? To the extent that diplomats were expelled on both sides? This is a food for thought. However, one reason may be with the aim of isolating Russia. But this would serve no good to anyone. Particularly when one brings into consideration the fact that Russia’s request to the British government for the extradition of Boris Berezovsky was rebuffed by Britain. If Britain harbours and protects a person sought by the Russian government for serious crimes against his government, what moral grounds does Britain have to expect that Russian would accede to the extradition of someone Britain claims to be a criminal agent of the Russian government? Does Britain consider that the rules applicable to Russia are not applicable to it? Another reason Russia would not even consider any productive cooperation with Britain is the former’s current global posturing, which is quite diametrical opposed to that of Britain and certain other western countries. The question remains: why did Britain embark on such a journey that was doomed to fail from the onset? Does Britain imagine it has some kind of clout or weight over Russia?

-Stephen Edetanlen

Thor Heyerdahl, sailing the Atlantic in his papyrus raft, Ra, found globs of oil, tar and plastics stretching from the coast of Africa to South America. Parts of the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea are already so polluted that marine life is severely threatened. And waste dumped in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has washed up on the shores of Antarctica.

In the United States, long stretches of beaches are often closed because of medical and other waste washing up on shore. And every time an oil tanker is involved in an accident, the world's pulse quickens a bit in fear of a major catastrophe. In fact, every time a tanker cleans its tanks at sea, every time a factory channels toxic residues to coastal waters or a city conveniently releases raw sewage into the sea, every time a service station changes the oil of a car and pours the waste oil into the sewers, the oceans become a little more polluted. Eventually, scientists fear, the oceans' regenerative capacity will be overwhelmed by the amount of incoming, man-made pollution. Signs of such catastrophe are clearly observed in many seas—particularly along the heavily populated coasts and enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

There are six main sources of ocean pollution addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982): land-based and coastal activities; continental-shelf drilling; potential seabed mining; ocean dumping; vessel-source pollution; and pollution from or through the atmosphere.

First of all, the Convention lays down the fundamental obligation of all states to protect and preserve the marine environment. It further urges all states to cooperate on a global and regional basis in formulating rules and standards and otherwise take measures for the same purpose. Coastal states are empowered to enforce their national standards and anti-pollution measures within their territorial sea. Every coastal state is granted jurisdiction for the protection and preservation of the marine environment of its exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Such jurisdiction allows coastal states to control, prevent and reduce marine pollution from dumping, land-based sources or seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction, or from or through the atmosphere. With regard to marine pollution from foreign vessels, coastal states can exercise jurisdiction only for the enforcement of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or for "generally accepted international rules and standards". Such rules and standards, many of which are already in place, are adopted through a competent international organization, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
On the other hand, it is the duty of the "flag state", the state where a ship is registered and whose flag it flies, to enforce the rules adopted for the control of marine pollution from vessels, irrespective of where a violation occurs. This serves as a safeguard for the enforcement of international rules, particularly in waters beyond the national jurisdiction of the coastal state, i.e., on the high seas.

Furthermore, the UNCLOS gives enforcement powers to the "port state", or the state where a ship is destined. In doing so it has incorporated a method developed in other conventions for the enforcement of treaty obligations dealing with shipping standards, marine safety and pollution prevention. The port state can enforce any type of international rule or national regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or applicable international rules as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at their offshore terminals. This has already become a significant factor in the strengthening of international standards.
Finally, as far as the international seabed area is concerned, the International Seabed Authority, through its Council, is given broad discretionary powers to assess the potential environmental impact of a deep seabed mining operation, recommend changes, formulate rules and regulations, establish a monitoring programme and recommend issuance of emergency orders by the council to prevent serious environmental damage. States are to be held liable for any damage caused by either their own enterprise or contractors under their jurisdiction.

With the passage of time, United Nations’ involvement with the law of the sea has expanded as awareness increases that not only ocean problems but global problems as a whole are interrelated. Already, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, placed a great deal of emphasis on the protection and preservation of the oceans’ environment in harmony with the rational use and development of their living resources, thus establishing the concept of "sustainable development" embodied in Agenda 21, the programme of action adopted at the Conference.
A recurring topic in implementing the programme of action adopted in Rio De Janeiro is the necessity to combat the degradation and depletion of fish stocks, both in the zones under national jurisdiction and in the high seas. A second recurring topic is addressing fish stock depletion causes, such as overfishing and excess fishing capacity, by-catch and discards.

In this respect, among the most important outputs of the conference was the convening of an intergovernmental conference under United Nations auspices. The intergovernmental conference was convened with a view to resolving the old conflict between coastal states and distant-water fishing states over straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the areas adjacent to the 200 nautical-mile EEZs.

This conference adopted the 1995 Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The agreement introduces a number of innovative measures, particularly in the area of environmental and resource protection obliging states to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries exploitation and giving expanded powers to port states to enforce proper management of fisheries resources.

-Stephen Edetanlen

Thor Heyerdahl, sailing the Atlantic in his papyrus raft, Ra, found globs of oil, tar and plastics stretching from the coast of Africa to South America. Parts of the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea are already so polluted that marine life is severely threatened. And waste dumped in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has washed up on the shores of Antarctica.

In the United States, long stretches of beaches are often closed because of medical and other waste washing up on shore. And every time an oil tanker is involved in an accident, the world's pulse quickens a bit in fear of a major catastrophe. In fact, every time a tanker cleans its tanks at sea, every time a factory channels toxic residues to coastal waters or a city conveniently releases raw sewage into the sea, every time a service station changes the oil of a car and pours the waste oil into the sewers, the oceans become a little more polluted. Eventually, scientists fear, the oceans' regenerative capacity will be overwhelmed by the amount of incoming, man-made pollution. Signs of such catastrophe are clearly observed in many seas—particularly along the heavily populated coasts and enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

There are six main sources of ocean pollution addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982): land-based and coastal activities; continental-shelf drilling; potential seabed mining; ocean dumping; vessel-source pollution; and pollution from or through the atmosphere.

First of all, the Convention lays down the fundamental obligation of all states to protect and preserve the marine environment. It further urges all states to cooperate on a global and regional basis in formulating rules and standards and otherwise take measures for the same purpose. Coastal states are empowered to enforce their national standards and anti-pollution measures within their territorial sea. Every coastal state is granted jurisdiction for the protection and preservation of the marine environment of its exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Such jurisdiction allows coastal states to control, prevent and reduce marine pollution from dumping, land-based sources or seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction, or from or through the atmosphere. With regard to marine pollution from foreign vessels, coastal states can exercise jurisdiction only for the enforcement of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or for "generally accepted international rules and standards". Such rules and standards, many of which are already in place, are adopted through a competent international organization, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
On the other hand, it is the duty of the "flag state", the state where a ship is registered and whose flag it flies, to enforce the rules adopted for the control of marine pollution from vessels, irrespective of where a violation occurs. This serves as a safeguard for the enforcement of international rules, particularly in waters beyond the national jurisdiction of the coastal state, i.e., on the high seas.

Furthermore, the UNCLOS gives enforcement powers to the "port state", or the state where a ship is destined. In doing so it has incorporated a method developed in other conventions for the enforcement of treaty obligations dealing with shipping standards, marine safety and pollution prevention. The port state can enforce any type of international rule or national regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or applicable international rules as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at their offshore terminals. This has already become a significant factor in the strengthening of international standards.
Finally, as far as the international seabed area is concerned, the International Seabed Authority, through its Council, is given broad discretionary powers to assess the potential environmental impact of a deep seabed mining operation, recommend changes, formulate rules and regulations, establish a monitoring programme and recommend issuance of emergency orders by the council to prevent serious environmental damage. States are to be held liable for any damage caused by either their own enterprise or contractors under their jurisdiction.

With the passage of time, United Nations’ involvement with the law of the sea has expanded as awareness increases that not only ocean problems but global problems as a whole are interrelated. Already, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, placed a great deal of emphasis on the protection and preservation of the oceans’ environment in harmony with the rational use and development of their living resources, thus establishing the concept of "sustainable development" embodied in Agenda 21, the programme of action adopted at the Conference.
A recurring topic in implementing the programme of action adopted in Rio De Janeiro is the necessity to combat the degradation and depletion of fish stocks, both in the zones under national jurisdiction and in the high seas. A second recurring topic is addressing fish stock depletion causes, such as overfishing and excess fishing capacity, by-catch and discards.

In this respect, among the most important outputs of the conference was the convening of an intergovernmental conference under United Nations auspices. The intergovernmental conference was convened with a view to resolving the old conflict between coastal states and distant-water fishing states over straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the areas adjacent to the 200 nautical-mile EEZs.

This conference adopted the 1995 Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The agreement introduces a number of innovative measures, particularly in the area of environmental and resource protection obliging states to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries exploitation and giving expanded powers to port states to enforce proper management of fisheries resources.

-by Barr. Stephen Edetanlen.

The Security Council, on 30th May 2007, adopted Resolution 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to come into force on 10th June, 2007। Essentially, the Tribunal is to “try” those found to be responsible for the February 14th 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri। Earlier, in its investigations, the UN had indicted officers in both the Syrian and Lebanese administrations of some level of culpability.
Summarily, according to the Security Council, the pivot of this Resolution is founded upon two premises: a request by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora to the Secretary-General of the UN in December 2005 (S/2005/783) and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The request was expressed in a letter of December 13th, 2005 “requesting inter alia the establishment of a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found responsible for this terrorist crime”. Afterwards, the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing such a Tribunal based on the highest international standards of criminal justice. There is no doubt that this request is a valid invitation to the UN to act. The question I find hard put to reconcile is whether the Council, whereas there is a competent judicial body (the International Court of Justice) established by the Charter to exercise judicial functions, ought to constitute a separate body, particularly bearing in mind the basic principle of nemo dat non quod habet? Therefore, the question that arises is, albeit the request may be justified, is the Council’s Tribunal? Secondly, although, in its characteristic form in its resolutions, the Security Council does not specify the specific Charter provisions it relies on, for all intents and purposes, the relevant provision under Chapter VII would be Article 39 which states: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. No stretch of interpretation of the above provision would ground the kind of descent by the Security Council into the internal affairs of a sovereign state, particularly when read vis-à-vis Articles 41, 42 and 2(7) of the Charter. Had Lebanon investigated and came out with allegations that the terrorist act was sponsored by another state, then as in the Nicaragua case, the UN would be called in –more appropriately, the matter referred to the ICJ. In my humble submission, it is only and after this fails that Chapter VII may come into play. For the avoidance of doubt, I firmly agree that Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination was horrific and gravely condemned. But the point I am making is these are criminal or terrorist acts which fall under the purview of the affected state’s internal affairs, though it may involve third states, occasionally. However, as long as it can be processed with the state or states, and does not degenerate into a situation that threatens regional or international peace, there is no place for the UN there. And, should it become a matter coming under the ambit of the UN, it should be properly directed to the appropriate body constituted to deal with the arisen matter. Not forgetting that even the Prime Minister’s request for intervention will be invalidated if the proper constitutional procedure has been followed which would make the request an effectual one. In the circumstances, it was not necessary for me to look into the merits of the request, being that the Security Council’s action was already flawed, even if the request resulted from due observance of constitutional processes.