Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Teff-Seker, Yael
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Mackelworth, Peter C., Vega Fernández, Tomás, McManus, John, Nam, Jungho, Tuda, Arthur, Holcer, Drasko
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/14944
Resumo: By definition, marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) address spatial aspects of the ecological processes and marine features. Such a requirement is especially challenging in areas where there is no clearly defined jurisdiction. However, in these areas, assigning sovereignty and rights can be achieved through bilateral or multilateral agreements, or with the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tools such as mediation and arbitration. In some cases, states may engage in transboundary marine conservation initiatives to provide an entry point to enable wider collaboration. These processes can also evolve into a form of ‘environmental peacebuilding’ while ideally maintaining ecosystem functioning and resilience as a core goal. Conversely, MPAs and OECMs can also be used to assert maritime sovereignty rights over disputed waters, under the pretext of conserving marine habitats. This paper identifies emerging issues of conflict resolution and their interaction with transboundary marine conservation. While ADR focuses on negotiations and facilitated processes between state representatives (“track one diplomacy”), we also discuss other forms and levels of marine environmental peacebuilding and dispute resolution, particularly those between civil society organizations (“track two diplomacy”). The six case studies presented highlight areas of recent maritime conflict or border disputes in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the West Indian Ocean, the Korean West Sea and the South China Sea. In all cases, high ecological value, vulnerable ecosystems, and the need to conserve ecosystem services provide a shared interest for cooperation despite on-going diplomatic difficulties. The strategies used in these cases are analyzed to determine what lessons might be learned from cross-border collaborative marine initiatives in situations of territorial dispute. The use of ADR tools and their ability to support joint marine initiatives are examined, as well as how such initiatives contribute to formal border negotiations. Other forms of inter-state dialogue and cooperation between local or civil organizations, circumventing formal treaties and negotiations between state leaders (‘track two’) are also investigated. Finally, other influencing factors, including third-party involvement, stakeholder interests, power dynamics, economic context, and socio-cultural aspects, are considered.
id RCAP_237f79dad4545a9440626c89edcf1532
oai_identifier_str oai:sapientia.ualg.pt:10400.1/14944
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputesTrack two diplomacyMarine protected areasMarine conservationMaritime disputeAlternative dispute resolutionMediationArbitrationScience diplomacyBy definition, marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) address spatial aspects of the ecological processes and marine features. Such a requirement is especially challenging in areas where there is no clearly defined jurisdiction. However, in these areas, assigning sovereignty and rights can be achieved through bilateral or multilateral agreements, or with the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tools such as mediation and arbitration. In some cases, states may engage in transboundary marine conservation initiatives to provide an entry point to enable wider collaboration. These processes can also evolve into a form of ‘environmental peacebuilding’ while ideally maintaining ecosystem functioning and resilience as a core goal. Conversely, MPAs and OECMs can also be used to assert maritime sovereignty rights over disputed waters, under the pretext of conserving marine habitats. This paper identifies emerging issues of conflict resolution and their interaction with transboundary marine conservation. While ADR focuses on negotiations and facilitated processes between state representatives (“track one diplomacy”), we also discuss other forms and levels of marine environmental peacebuilding and dispute resolution, particularly those between civil society organizations (“track two diplomacy”). The six case studies presented highlight areas of recent maritime conflict or border disputes in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the West Indian Ocean, the Korean West Sea and the South China Sea. In all cases, high ecological value, vulnerable ecosystems, and the need to conserve ecosystem services provide a shared interest for cooperation despite on-going diplomatic difficulties. The strategies used in these cases are analyzed to determine what lessons might be learned from cross-border collaborative marine initiatives in situations of territorial dispute. The use of ADR tools and their ability to support joint marine initiatives are examined, as well as how such initiatives contribute to formal border negotiations. Other forms of inter-state dialogue and cooperation between local or civil organizations, circumventing formal treaties and negotiations between state leaders (‘track two’) are also investigated. Finally, other influencing factors, including third-party involvement, stakeholder interests, power dynamics, economic context, and socio-cultural aspects, are considered.European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST):15121Frontiers MediaSapientiaTeff-Seker, YaelMackelworth, Peter C.Vega Fernández, TomásMcManus, JohnNam, JunghoTuda, ArthurHolcer, Drasko2021-01-08T09:52:17Z20202020-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/14944eng10.3389/fmars.2020.593265info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-24T10:27:18Zoai:sapientia.ualg.pt:10400.1/14944Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:05:52.845532Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
title Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
spellingShingle Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
Teff-Seker, Yael
Track two diplomacy
Marine protected areas
Marine conservation
Maritime dispute
Alternative dispute resolution
Mediation
Arbitration
Science diplomacy
title_short Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
title_full Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
title_fullStr Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
title_full_unstemmed Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
title_sort Do Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and track two processes support transboundary marine conservation? Lessons from six case studies of maritime disputes
author Teff-Seker, Yael
author_facet Teff-Seker, Yael
Mackelworth, Peter C.
Vega Fernández, Tomás
McManus, John
Nam, Jungho
Tuda, Arthur
Holcer, Drasko
author_role author
author2 Mackelworth, Peter C.
Vega Fernández, Tomás
McManus, John
Nam, Jungho
Tuda, Arthur
Holcer, Drasko
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Sapientia
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Teff-Seker, Yael
Mackelworth, Peter C.
Vega Fernández, Tomás
McManus, John
Nam, Jungho
Tuda, Arthur
Holcer, Drasko
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Track two diplomacy
Marine protected areas
Marine conservation
Maritime dispute
Alternative dispute resolution
Mediation
Arbitration
Science diplomacy
topic Track two diplomacy
Marine protected areas
Marine conservation
Maritime dispute
Alternative dispute resolution
Mediation
Arbitration
Science diplomacy
description By definition, marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) address spatial aspects of the ecological processes and marine features. Such a requirement is especially challenging in areas where there is no clearly defined jurisdiction. However, in these areas, assigning sovereignty and rights can be achieved through bilateral or multilateral agreements, or with the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tools such as mediation and arbitration. In some cases, states may engage in transboundary marine conservation initiatives to provide an entry point to enable wider collaboration. These processes can also evolve into a form of ‘environmental peacebuilding’ while ideally maintaining ecosystem functioning and resilience as a core goal. Conversely, MPAs and OECMs can also be used to assert maritime sovereignty rights over disputed waters, under the pretext of conserving marine habitats. This paper identifies emerging issues of conflict resolution and their interaction with transboundary marine conservation. While ADR focuses on negotiations and facilitated processes between state representatives (“track one diplomacy”), we also discuss other forms and levels of marine environmental peacebuilding and dispute resolution, particularly those between civil society organizations (“track two diplomacy”). The six case studies presented highlight areas of recent maritime conflict or border disputes in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the West Indian Ocean, the Korean West Sea and the South China Sea. In all cases, high ecological value, vulnerable ecosystems, and the need to conserve ecosystem services provide a shared interest for cooperation despite on-going diplomatic difficulties. The strategies used in these cases are analyzed to determine what lessons might be learned from cross-border collaborative marine initiatives in situations of territorial dispute. The use of ADR tools and their ability to support joint marine initiatives are examined, as well as how such initiatives contribute to formal border negotiations. Other forms of inter-state dialogue and cooperation between local or civil organizations, circumventing formal treaties and negotiations between state leaders (‘track two’) are also investigated. Finally, other influencing factors, including third-party involvement, stakeholder interests, power dynamics, economic context, and socio-cultural aspects, are considered.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
2021-01-08T09:52:17Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/14944
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/14944
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.3389/fmars.2020.593265
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers Media
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers Media
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799133298902958080