диссертация (1169796), страница 61
Текст из файла (страница 61)
O. Article 76 of the LOSC on the Definition of theContinental Shelf: Questions concerning its Interpretation from a Legal Perspective / A.G. O. Elferink // The International Journal of Marine And Coastal Law. – 2006. — Vol21, No 3. – P. 269 – 285290.Elferink A. G. O. Causes, Consequences, and Solutions Relating to theAbsence of Final and Binding Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf / A. G. O.
Elferink// Symmons, Clive Ralph. Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, Brill |Nijhoff , 2011.– P. 253 – 272291.Elferink A. G. O. Maritime Delimitation Between Denmark/Greenland andNorway / A. G. O. Elferink // Ocean Development and International Law. – 2007. – 38.– P.
375-380292.Elferink A. G. O. “Openness” and Article 76 of the Law of the SeaConvention: The Process Does not Need to be Adjusted / A. G. O. Elferink // OceanDevelopment & International Law. – 2009. — 40.– P. 36–50293.Elferink A. G. O. Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf and “DisputedAreas”: State Practice concerning Article 76(10) of the LOS Convention / A. G. O.Elferink, C.
Johnson // The International Journal Of Marine And Coastal Law. — 2006.— Vol 21, No 4. – P. 461 – 487294.Elferink A. G. O. The Continental Shelf of Antarctica: Implications of theRequirement to Make a Submission to the CLCS under Article 76 of the LOSConvention / A. G. O. Elferink // The International Journal Of Marine And CoastalLaw. – 2002. — Vol 17. — P. 485-520295.Elferink A. G. O. The Establishment of Outer Limits of the ContinentalShelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles by the Coastal State: The Possibilities of Other Statesto Have an Impact on the Process / A. G.
O. Elferink // The International Journal ofMarine and Coastal Law. – 2009. — Volume 24, Issue 3. – P. 535 – 556296.Franckx E. The International Seabed Authority and the Common Heritageof Mankind: the Need for States to Establish the Outer Limits of Their ContinentalShelf / E. Franckx // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law.
— 2010. —Vol. 25. № 4. – P. 543-567270297.Friedmann W. The North Sea continental shelf cases: a critique /W.Friedmann // American Journal of International Law. – 1970. – 64:2. – P. 229-240298.Golitsyn V. Continental Shelf Claims in the Arctic Ocean: A Commentary /V. Golitsyn // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. – 2009. — 24.
– P.401–408299.Henkin L. International Law and «the Interests»: the Law of the Seabed / L.Henkin // The American Journal of International Law. – 1969. – Volume 63, Issue 3. –P. 504-510300.Huang Y. Natural Prolongation and Delimitation of the Continental ShelfBeyond 200 nm: Implications of the Bangladesh/Myanmar Case / Y. Huang, X. Liao //Asian Journal of International Law. -2014. – 4. – P. 281–307301.Jares V. The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The Work ofthe Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the Arctic / V.Jares //Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. – 2009. – Vol.
42. – P.1265 – 1305302.Jensen Ø. Russia's Revised Arctic Seabed Submission / O.Jensen // OceanDevelopment & International Law. – 2014. – Volume 47. Issue 1. – P. 72-88303.Jensen Ø. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: AnAdministrative, Scientific, or Judicial Institution? / Ø. Jensen // Ocean Development &International Law. – 2014. — 45:2.– P. 171-185304.Jensen Ø.
The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Lawand Legitimacy / Ø. Jensen // Brill, Publications on ocean development. – 2014. —Volume 77. – 316 p.305.Jia B. B. Effect of Legal Issues, Actual or Implicit, upon the Work of theCLCS: Suspensive or without Prejudice? / B. B. Jia // Chinese Journal of InternationalLaw. – 2012.
– P. 107–126306.Jia B.B. The Notion of Natural Prolongation in the Current Regime of theContinental Shelf: An Afterlife? / B.B. Jia // Chinese Journal of International Law. –2013. – P. 79–103271307.Jia B. B. The Principle of the Domination of the Land over the Sea: AHistorical Perspective on the Adaptability of the Law of the Sea to New Challenges / B.B. Jia // German Yearbook of International Law.
– 2014. – 57. – P. 1 – 32308.Kaye S. Territorial Sea Baselines along Ice-Covered Coasts: InternationalPractice and Limits of the Law of the Sea / S. Kaye // Ocean Development andInternational Law. – 2004. – 35(1). – P. 1 – 30309.Kerr A. Hydrographic And Geologic Concerns of Implementing Article 76/ A. Kerr, M. J. Keen // International Hydrographie Review, Monaco.
-1985. — LXII(1), January. – P. 139 – 148310.Kim H. J. Natural Prolongation: A Living Myth in the Regime of theContinental Shelf? / H. J. Kim // Ocean Development & International Law. — 2014. —45:4. – P. 374-388311.Kunoy B. Establishment of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: IsCrossing Boundaries Trespassing? / B. Kunoy // The International Journal of Marineand Coastal Law. – 2011. – 26. – P. 313-334312.Kunoy B.
Legal Problems Relating to Differences Arising betweenRecommendations of the CLCS and the Submission of a Particular State / B. Kunoy //Symmons, Clive Ralph. Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, Brill |Nijhoff, 2011. – P. 305 – 338313.Kunoy B. The 10 Year Time Frame to Disputed Areas / B.
Kunoy // OceanDevelopment & International Law. – 2009. — 40:2.– P. 131-145314.Kunoy B. The Admissibility of a Plea to an International AdjudicativeForum to Delimit the Outer Continental Shelf Prior to the Adoption of FinalRecommendations by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf / B.Kunoy // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. – 2010.
— 25. – P. 237–270315.Kunoy B. The Rise Of The Sun: Legal Arguments In Outer ContinentalMargin Delimitations / B. Kunoy // Netherlands International Law Review. – 2006. —LII. – P. 247-272272316.Kunoy B. The Terms of Reference of the Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf: A Creeping Legal Mandate / B. Kunoy // Leiden Journal ofInternational Law. – 2012. — 25. – P. 109–130317.Kwiatkowska B. Submissions to the UN Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf: The Practice of Developing States in Cases of Disputed andUnresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes. PartOne / B. Kwiatkowska // The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law.
– 2013.— 28. – P. 219-341318.Kwiatkowska B. Submissions to the UN Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf: The Practice of Developing States in Cases of Disputed andUnresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes. PartTwo / B. Kwiatkowska // The Intemational Joumal of Marine and Coastal Law. – 2013.— 28 – P. 615-679319.Lathrop C.
G. Continental Shelf Delimitation Beyond 200 Nautical Miles:Approaches Taken by Coastal States Before the Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf / C. G. Lathrop // International Maritime Boundaries. D.A. Colson &R.W. Smith eds. Netherlands.
2011. – P. 4139-4160320.Lee K. B. Should the Invocation of Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the CLCSRules of Procedure Result in an Automatic Deferral of the Consideration of aSubmission? / K. B. Lee // Chinese Journal of International Law. — 2014. – P. 605–619321.Liao X.
Evaluation of Scientific Evidence by International Courts andTribunals in the Continental Shelf Delimitation Cases / X. Liao // Ocean Development& International Law. – 2017. — 48:2. – P. 136-157322.Llewellyn H. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: JointSubmission by France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom / H.
Llewellyn //International and Comparative Law Quaterly. – July 2007. – 56. – P. 677-694323.Macnab R. Canada and Article 76 of the Law of the Sea: Defining theLimits of Canadian Resource Jurisdiction Beyond 200 nautical miles in the Atlantic andArctic Oceans”. Geological Survey of Canada. Open File. Report 3209 / R. Macnab(editor). – Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 1994. – 34 p.273324.Macnab R. Continental Shelf Submissions: The Record to Date / R.Macnab, L. Parson // The International Journal Of Marine And Coastal Law. — 2006.— Vol 21, No 3. – P.
309 – 322325.Macnab R. Submarine Elevations and Ridges:Wild Cards in the PokerGame of UNCLOS Article 76 / R. Macnab // Ocean Development & International Law.– 2008. — 39. – P. 223–234326.Macnab R. The Case for Transparency in the Delimitation of the OuterContinental Shelf in Accordance with UNCLOS Article 76 / R.
Macnab // OceanDevelopment & International Law. – 2004. – 35. – P. 1–17327.Macnab R. Third-Party Reactions to Continental Shelf Submissions andTheir Treatment by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf / R. Macnab// Symmons, Clive Ralph. Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea, Brill |Nijhoff, 2011. – P. 285 – 303328.Magnusson B. M. Can the United States Establish the Outer Limits of ItsExtended Continental Shelf Under International Law? / B. M.
Magnusson // OceanDevelopment & International Law. – 2017. – 48: 1. – P. 1-16329.Magnússon B. M. Dispute Settlement and the Establishment of theContinental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of therequirements for a postgraduate degree at the University of Edinburgh / B. M.Magnússon. — The University of Edinburgh, 2012. – 263 p.330.Magnússon B. M. Is there a Temporal Relationship between theDelineation and the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles? /B.
M. Magnússon // International Journal of Marine And Coastal Law. – 2013. — 28. –P. 465—483331.Magnússon B. M. Outer Continental Shelf Boundary Agreements / B. M.Magnússon // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. – 2013. – 62. – P. 345–372332.Magnusson B. M.
The Rejection of a Theoretical Beauty: The Foot of theContinental Slope in Maritime Boundary Delimitations Beyond 200 Nautical Miles / B.M.Magnusson // Ocean Development & International Law.- 2014. – Volume 45. – Issue1 – P. 41-52274333.McDorman T. L. The Continental Shelf Regime in the Law of the SeaConvention: A Reflection on the First Thirty Years / T. L. McDorman // TheInternational Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. – 2012. — 27. – P. 743–751334.McDorman T. L. The Role of the Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf: A Technical Body in a Political World / T. L.
McDorman // TheInternational Journal of Marine and Coastal Law. – 2002. — Vol 17, No 3. – P. 301 –324335.More R. F. Considerations about the recommendations of the Commissionon the Limits of the Continental Shelf on the Amazon fan / R.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
