Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 10 (2019).

Abstract

Blue Economy is one of the important aspects of Sustainable Ocean Governance as it refers to sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth and improved livelihood by maintaining healthy marine ecosystem. In order to achieve sustainable ocean governance, it is important to implement the contemporary and newly developed principles and concepts including Blue Economy and Ecosystem based management (EBM). As an implementation toll for sustainable ocean governance, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) can play an important role to achieve the objectives of Blue Economy. Due to various reasons, the current institutional arrangements for sustainable ocean govern as well as exploring the concept of Blue Economy is at a very rudimentary stage in Bangladesh. The objective of this section is to analyze the significance of Blue Economy in achieving sustainable ocean governance through institutional framework. In this respect, relationship between MSP and Blue Economy is examined in the paper. This section is concluded with some recommendations to improve the institutional framework to achieve the objectives of Blue Economy in Bangladesh.

Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce: Vol. 51: Iss. 3 (2020)

Abstract

Australia is a signatory State to the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol – which represents a positive approach to the international commitment on refugee protection. In the past, Australia showed its welcome policy to the Vietnamese boat people. It also developed its domestic law (Migration Act 1958 (Cht)) to ensure fair migration procedure. However, since 2001, Australia has demonstrated a restrictive view toward boat refugees. By adopting Operation Relex, Operation Sovereign Borders, the Pacific Solution and the Maritime Act 2013, Australia has empowered its enforcement agencies to tow refugee boats from its territorial zone back to the country of origin. Australia has identified the gaps in international refugee law and operates within those gaps. Australia sends undocumented boat people to a ‘safe country’ and concludes bilateral agreements to achieve this. Australia has also shifted its international commitment on refugees to other States through the Regional Cooperation Framework and the refugee resettlement program. Australia continues its negative attitude toward boat refugees by sending them to offshore detention centres in the name of a durable solution for the refugee problem. The Tampa affair reflects Australia’s harsh policy on boat refugees. Although on several occasions Australian boat refugee policy has been challenged in the Australian courts, unfortunately on every occasion the court supported the government policy and interpreted the refugee law from a narrow point of view (with the exception of the Malaysia Solution case). Therefore, under present law and policy, protection of boat refugees is a challenging issue in Australia where international obligations are overshadowed by domestic law and policy, and this jeopardizes the international commitment and influences other States to take similar ‘strict’ measures toward the boat refugees. As a result, the refugee protection regime is pushed back up against the cliff.

International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Volume 49, June 2017, Pages 1-9

Abstract

Maritime piracy has been an issue of longstanding concern for humanity. The threat of piracy has continuously affected various sovereigns, empires and states over the centuries. Historical evidence suggests that the incidence of piracy can be contained and be brought to a manageable level through adoption of proper strategies. A clear understanding of its historical and contemporary perspectives is also crucial to address the piracy problem. The paper provides a brief review of the evolution of the concept of piracy and explore its different faces throughout human history. The paper concludes by focusing on some of the lessons that can be drawn from history to combat modern piracy.

Tony George Puthucherril, Charu Sharma, Amritha V. Shenoy, Saurabh Sood & Stuti Lal

Abstract

In this era of the Anthropocene, where four of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed, the need for environmental stewardship, social equity and sustainability cannot be over-emphasized. So critical is the sustainability discourse that it has transcended disciplinary boundaries, permeating various aspects and sectors of human endeavour. A critical area where sustainability, as evidenced by the sustainable development goals (SDGs) framework, exerts influence is higher education and, more importantly, legal education. This article examines the intersection between sustainability (SDGs), human rights and legal education. It makes a case that if legal education, like other disciplines, has to propel the pursuit of a more liveable and equitable future, it is imperative to embed sustainability (SDGs) within legal education’s academic landscape. This central theme is examined against India’s legal education scenario. While there are a few isolated attempts to foster a culture of sustainability within the realm of legal academia in India, among these, the efforts of Jindal Global University and its law school, namely, Jindal Global Law School, stand out due to their steadfast commitment to this ideal. Jindal Global University (JGU) and Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) have strategically positioned sustainability as a foundational tenet of their institutional ethos, and their endeavours serve as a compelling example for institutions in India and elsewhere seeking to elevate their commitment to sustainability. Accordingly, based on the proactive initiatives of JGU and JGLS, this article develops a reform paradigm centred on what, why and how to revamp India’s legal education sector to infuse it with a sustainable culture.

Tony George Puthucherril*
Professor, Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, India

Given the many dams worldwide, safety is critical as a dam failure can negatively impact human health, property and the environment. India has a substantial stock of dams, ranking third after the US and China. However, about 80 percent of its large dams are over 25 years old, and nearly 227 dams are over 100 years. These ‘geriatric’ dams continue to function but raise serious safety concerns, with a classic example being the 127-year-old Mullaperiyar Dam. Although India’s track record of dam safety is more or less satisfactory, there has been poor maintenance and several failures. Even though ‘water’ under India’s Constitution is a matter that India’s States determine, India recently enacted the Dam Safety Act, 2021 at the national level. Many have expressed criticism of this statute for being ‘antifederal’. This article evaluates the law on dam safety in India by highlighting the salience of India’s Dam Safety Act. The core argument is that given legislative laxity on the part of States in adopting dam safety measures, and the limitations on a State to legislate beyond its borders, the Union did need to intervene via the Dam Safety Act. By enacting this statute, the Union has not usurped the States’ powers. Instead, it has fortified cooperative federalism by creating institutional structures at the central and State levels to ensure that dam safety is not compromised and that people do not have to lose their lives unnecessarily.

Tony George Puthucherril* & Akash Anand Dubey**

For a long time, despite the notorious operating conditions of its ship-recycling yards affecting both human lives and the envi-ronment, India was the epicenter of the shipbreaking industry. Due to judicial activism, the enactment of new rules and regulations, projects for infrastructural improvement and stricter implementa-tion, however, the winds of change have begun blowing over these yards in recent years. The highlight of these changes was India rat-ifying the IMO-sponsored Hong Kong Ship Recycling Convention (HKC) and enacting the Recycling of Ships Act to domesticate the terms of the HKC. India has slowly but surely moved away from traditional shipbreaking practices and adopted a more humane and environment-friendly shipbreaking culture. While these initia-tives should be a cause to attract more obsolete tonnage to India’s shores, the reality has been the opposite. India has been overtaken by Bangladesh, where the ship-breaking conditions remain rudi-mentary and underregulated. Given the deeply entrenched international dimensions of the shipbreaking industry, this paper examines the international law on the subject—which includes the HKC, the Basel Convention and the European Union Ship Recycling Regulation—to understand why India’s experiments to reform ship-recycling practices have yet to yield their desired results. It analyzes India’s recent initiatives against this extant international law and concludes that the incongruence between those legal instruments must be sorted out so they do not veer off course. This remedy will ensure a level playing field where India’s initiatives will be fruitful and, more importantly, lead to greater accountability and transparency that will also help create a sustainable ship-recycling culture.

Tony George Puthucherril*

India’s water federalism is at a crossroads. It is a unique twotier system that has the constitutional and enabling provisions for water management and inter-state water dispute resolution as its base. These support the tribunal system that adjudicates inter-state river water disputes and administers water justice. More than six decades have elapsed since its establishment. At the same time, during this period, the per capita water availability has fallen drastically. India is now one of the world’s most water-stressed countries. Water disputes between States are becoming more animated and highly volatile. This article examines water federalism in India in terms of two questions: 1) Should water be transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List? 2) Should India persist with the tribunal system or replace it with the judicial process at the Supreme Court level? The first assumes importance as India persists with the river linking project. The second is relevant because the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act is almost 65 years old. In 2016, India’s Supreme Court re-wrote the law, and, more recently, the Union Government sought to revamp the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act through amendments. All these impel the need to re-look the idea of water federalism as it operates in India in its entirety.