DOCSLIB.ORG

Maritime Boundaries Delimitation, Management and Dispute Resolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MARITIME BOUNDARIES DELIMITATION, MANAGEMENT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION DELIMITATION OF THE MOZAMBIQUE MARITIME BOUNDARIES WITH NEIGHBOURING STATES (INCLUDING THE EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF) AND THE MANAGEMENT OF OCEAN ISSUES ELÍSIO BENEDITO JAMINE The United Nations and Nippon Fellowship Programme 2006-2007 Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs United Nations, NY, USA ABSTRACT The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) establishes the jurisdictional regimes under which a coastal State can claim, manage, and utilize its ocean resources. With an increasing recognition of the need to administer competing resource use interests in the ocean and seabed, and the requirement to ensure sustainable exploitation of these resources, Mozambique has an ambitious program for the establishment of its maritime boundaries, including the outer limits of its extended Continental Shelf (CS). Mozambique faces the problem of lack of delimitation and negotiation of the maritime boundaries, connected to the lack of a comprehensive framework for management of maritime issues, lack of appropriate technology to quantify, qualify, and exploit the resources that lie in the sea, and lack of means by which to exercise and guarantee its sovereign rights. These problems obstruct the Mozambican State, as a sovereign subject of international law of the sea (LOS), from being able to take independent initiatives in pursuit of her internal and external policy objectives. The lack of delimitation of the maritime boundaries appears as a constraint for the State. Mozambique is not in a position to exercising all her rights and duties in accordance with LOSC with respect to jurisdiction and the exercise of sovereignty in these spaces. Moreover, delimiting boundaries alone is not sufficient to solve sovereignty concerns, since there is still a lack of knowledge and capacity to carry out management, research, and evaluation of resources; for example: fish stocks within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Hence the question: what costs and benefits would result from the delimitation of Mozambique’s maritime boundaries? It is in the context of LOSC that this study intends to understand the Mozambican situation, and discuss the problems involved in the delimitation and negotiation of Mozambique maritime boundaries and the management of ocean issues. This research presents and analyzes options for delimitation, negotiation of maritime boundaries, and management of maritime issues and boundaries. i DISCLAIMER The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations, the Nippon Foundation of Japan, the Center for Oceans Law and Policy University of Virginia School of Law, or that of the Government of Republic of Mozambique. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study could not have been possible without the support of the United Nations, funding from the Nippon Foundation of Japan, and could not have been achieved without the support and assistance of individuals and institutions. For that reason, I wish to record my grateful appreciation for the assistance and guidance given to me by Professor John Norton Moore, who supervised this study and his wonderful team, namely: Professor Myron H. Nordquist (The Associate Director of the Center for Oceans Law and Policy), Ms. Donna D. Ganoe, Ms. Judy Ellis, and Ms. Kay Wood, they provided me with all the facilities necessary to complete this work. I equally thank to Ms. Sarah Johnson, Associate Director of the Graduate Studies of the University of Virginia School of Law. My thanks are also due to Mr. Robert Smith for the comments and recommendations on the “draft paper” of the present study. My deep gratitude also extends to the kind assistance given by the staff of the Division for Oceans Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the United Nations. A very special expression of gratitude is due to Mr. François Bailet (The Programme Advisor), who gave me support and assistance since the beginning. I’m therefore especially glad to Mr. Miguel A. Chissano (President of National Institute for Maritime and Borders Affairs), Mr. Cristiano F. A. dos Santos (Director of Legal Affairs, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation), and Mr. Eugenio Muianga (Director of Sea, National Institute for Maritime and Borders Affairs) for their encouragement and unfailing assistance. An acknowledgement is also due to the National Institute for Maritime and Borders Affairs and all colleagues/friends for their cooperation and efforts in making my research phase easier and pleasant, and finally to all the people who directly and indirectly supported my research. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... i DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS ....................................................................................... vi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS......................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 PART I: DELIMITATION OF THE MOZAMBIQUE MARITIME BOUNDARIES AND THE EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF .......................................................... 6 1. Mozambique Maritime Geographic Context .................................................................. 6 2. Internal Jurisdiction and Legal Issues Related to Maritime Boundaries in Mozambique vs. Law of the Sea Convention ........................................................................................... 8 2.1. The Establishment of Baselines......................................................................... 12 2.2. Charts and Geographical Coordinates ............................................................... 18 3. Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf: Law of the Sea Convention vs. Act of Sea (4/96).................................................. 20 3.1. Legal Principles ................................................................................................. 20 3.2. The Delimitation Method................................................................................... 24 4. Disputes Affecting the Process of Delimitation of Mozambique Boundaries.............. 28 4.1. Conflict Between France and Madagascar ........................................................ 28 4.2. Conflict Between France and Comoros ............................................................. 30 5. Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone............................................................. 31 5.1. Boundary Between Mozambique and Madagascar, and the Status of French Possessions................................................................................................................ 32 5.1.1. Defining the Weight of Possessions ............................................................... 33 5.1.1.1. Bassas da India............................................................................................. 39 5.2. Boundary Between Mozambique and Comoros ................................................ 40 5.3. Boundary Between Mozambique and South Africa .......................................... 41 5.4. Tri-point Issues .................................................................................................. 42 6. Delimitation of the Extended Continental Shelf........................................................... 43 6.1. Outer Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles ........................................ 46 7. The Negotiation Process and Final Agreement ............................................................ 52 7.1. Principles of Negotiation ................................................................................... 53 7.2. Options for Strategies ........................................................................................ 54 7.3. Delimitation Agreement..................................................................................... 55 8. Potential Disputes Settlement Scenarios....................................................................... 56 9. Managing Maritime Boundaries ................................................................................... 58 PART II- MANAGEMENT OF OCEAN ISSUES IN MOZAMBIQUE ........................ 61 1. Current Status of Mozambique Ocean Issues Management ......................................... 61 1.1. Coastal Management.......................................................................................... 67 1.2. Fisheries Management ....................................................................................... 71 1.3. Marine Environment Management .................................................................... 75 iv 2. Exploring Integrated Management ............................................................................... 79 3. Exploring the (Sub) Regional, International and/or Global Approach......................... 81 3.1. (Sub) Regional Context/Approach..................................................................... 82 3.1.1. Peace and Maritime Security .......................................................................... 84 3.2. International
Recommended publications
  • Global Scores the Ocean Health Index Team Table of Contents

    Global Scores the Ocean Health Index Team Table of Contents

    2015 GLOBAL SCORES THE OCEAN HEALTH INDEX TEAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Conservation International Introduction to Ocean Health Index ............................................................................................................. 1 Results for 2015 ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Country & Territory Scores ........................................................................................................................... 9 Appreciations ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Citation ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 UC Santa Barbara, National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis INTRODUCTION TO THE OCEAN HEALTH INDEX Important note: Scores in this report differ from scores originally posted on the Ocean Health Index website, www.oceanhealthindex.org and shown in previous reports. Each year the Index improves methods and data where possible. Some improvements change scores and rankings. When such changes occur, all earlier scores are recalculated using the new methods so that any differences in scores between years is due to changes in the conditions evaluated, not to changes in methods. This permits year-to-year comparison between all global-level Index results. Only the scores most recently
  • Florida Department of Education

    Florida Department of Education

    )/25,'$ '(3$570(17 2) ('8&$7,21 ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 'DWH '2( ,1)250$7,21 '$7$ %$6( 5(48,5(0(176 )LVFDO <HDU 92/80( , $8720$7(' 678'(17 ,1)250$7,21 6<67(0 July 1, 1995 $8720$7(' 678'(17 '$7$ (/(0(176 APPENDIX G COUNTRY CODES CODE COUNTRY CODE COUNTRY AF Afghanistan CV Cape Verde AB Albania CJ Cayman Islands AG Algeria CP Central African Republic AN Andorra CD Chad AO Angola CI Chile AV Anguilla CH China AY Antarctica KI Christmas Island AC Antigua and Barbuda CN Clipperton Island AX Antilles KG Cocos Islands (Keeling) AE Argentina CL Colombia AD Armenia CQ Comoros AA Aruba CF Congo AS Australia CR Coral Sea Island AU Austria CS Costa Rica AJ Azerbaijan DF Croatia AI Azores Islands, Portugal CU Cuba BF Bahamas DH Curacao Island BA Bahrain CY Cyprus BS Baltic States CX Czechoslovakia BG Bangladesh DT Czech Republic BB Barbados DK Democratic Kampuchea BI Bassas Da India DA Denmark BE Belgium DJ Djibouti BZ Belize DO Dominica BN Benin DR Dominican Republic BD Bermuda EJ East Timor BH Bhutan EC Ecuador BL Bolivia EG Egypt BJ Bonaire Island ES El Salvador BP Bosnia and Herzegovina EN England BC Botswana EA Equatorial Africa BV Bouvet Island EQ Equatorial Guinea BR Brazil ER Eritrea BT British Virgin Islands EE Estonia BW British West Indies ET Ethiopia BQ Brunei Darussalam EU Europa Island BU Bulgaria FA Falkland Islands (Malvinas) BX Burkina Faso, West Africa FO Faroe Islands BM Burma FJ Fiji BY Burundi FI Finland JB Byelorussia SSR FR France CB Cambodia FM France, Metropolitian CM Cameroon FN French Guiana CC Canada FP French Polynesia Revised:
  • Practical Guide for Partners and Participants

    Practical Guide for Partners and Participants

    safelink INFOPACK Practical guide for partners and participants. Project’s aim and objectives safelink 2 Project’s calendar r Project Duration – 15.10.2019 – 31.01.2020 YOUTH EXCHANGE - 11/11/2019 - 18/11/2019 safelink 3 Project’s background d Taking in account the general needs of socialization of young people, they expose themselves on the internet without knowing methods and measures through how to use the social networks in a conscientious, responsible and safe way. At general level we can observe a weak social virtual responsibility among young people. Behind an avatar, they feel free to experiment, without any awareness of the real life impact. The general need of socialization of the young people, in the context of modern technology and social networks development, facilitated also the development of the virtual threats, at social, personal and professional level. Thus, in the last years, the number of cyber bulling cases increased dramatically, especially those cases where the young people were the victims. safelink 4 Activities and methodology y During the youth exchange, the young participant will get involved in activities special designed to contribute to their self development, most of them based on non formal education methods with a big impact on their intercultural learning process and many other active and creative methods, games or exercises meant to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and the exchange between participants. 5 08:30 - 09:30 Breakfast 17:00 - 17:30 Coffee break 10:00 - 11:30 1st working session 17:30 - 19:00 4th working session timetable / 11:30 - 12:00 Coffee break 19:00 - 19:30 Reflection groups 12:00 - 13:30 2nd working session 19:30 - 20:30 Dinner 13:30 - 15:30 Lunch break 21:00 - 22:00 Evening activities working session 15:30 - 17:00 3rd session Arriving day (10/11/2019): We will start after dinner with [GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER GAMES] and continue with an [welcome party] Day 1 (11/11/2019): AM: [Project’s presentation, Get to know each other games] [Teambuilding games] PM: [Expectations, Contributions, Fears.
  • Pre-Election Assessment Mission Report

    Pre-Election Assessment Mission Report

    Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa EISA Pre-Election Assessment Mission Report SIERRA LEONE 19 – 24 November 2017 EISA Pre-Election Assessment Mission Report | Sierre Leone 2017 CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE 2018 ELECTIONS 4 Historical background 4 Context of the 2018 elections 5 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 6 The Constitution 7 The electoral system 7 Election management 8 Election Dispute Resolution 9 KEY FINDINGS ON THE PRE-ELECTION PHASE 10 Constituency delimitation 10 Voter registration 10 Political party registration and candidate nomination 12 The media 13 Civil society 14 Gender and minority rights 14 Civic and voter education 16 Security 16 Campaigns 16 Preparedness of the EMB 17 Appendix 1: Schedule of stakeholders interviewed 18 2 EISA Pre-Election Assessment Mission Report | Sierre Leone 2017 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADP Alliance Democratic Party ACDEG African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance APC All People’s Congress CDP Citizens Democratic Party CSOs civil society organisations DFID Department For International Development EISA Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa EU European Union IESPC Integrated Elections Security Planning Committee IGR Inter Governance Reforms IMC Independent Media Commission IRIN Integrated Regional Information Networks NECDiP NEC Disability Policy NDA National Democratic Alliance NEC National Electoral Commission NPD National Progressive Democrats ONS Office of the National Security PAM
  • Capital Region: Inventory of Sector-Based Workforce Strategies 2016

    Capital Region: Inventory of Sector-Based Workforce Strategies 2016

    Capital Region: Inventory of Sector-Based Workforce Strategies 2016 Capital Region Workforce Development Board Columbia-Greene Workforce Development Board Saratoga-Warren-Washington Workforce Development Board Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Sector-based workforce strategies a. Machine tool Technology Training b. Introduction to Craft Brewing c. Allied Health Care Trainings d. Health Care Support e. Central Sterile Processing Technicians f. Hudson River-Adirondack Region EPA Environmental Workforce Development Job Training Program g. Clean Technologies and Sustainable Industries Early College High school h. Agricultural Initiatives i. Business Central j. STEM Initiatives k. Tourism Industry Employment Pipeline Initiative l. CEG – Workforce m. CEG – Productivity and Quality III. Workforce Development Board Contacts I. Executive Summary This inventory of sector-based workforce strategies has been developed as part of the regional planning process described in the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) that was implemented July 1, 2015. In addition to promoting regional planning and regional workforce programming, this new legislation calls for an emphasis of engaging businesses in a sector-based approach to identify needs and provide workforce solutions. Further, this inventory of sector-based workforce strategies involves coordination with the REDC (and their priority sectors) as well as with other organizations in the region involved in sector based workforce strategies. The intent of the inventory is to assist the Regional Economic Development Council in addressing the Governor’s priority to “Train the Workforce for Today and Tomorrow” outlined in the 2016 REDC Competition Guidebook. This inventory identifies specific sector-based workforce strategies that the workforce boards participate in along with their local career centers, as well as other relevant initiatives identified by workforce and training related entities in the region.
  • 1 ITALY Europe 2 USA North America 3 BRASIL South America 4

    1 ITALY Europe 2 USA North America 3 BRASIL South America 4

    1 ITALY Europe 2 USA North America 3 BRASIL South America 4 ARGENTINA South America 5 VENEZUELA South America 6 COLOMBIA South America 7 NETHERLANDS ANTILLES Deleted South America 8 PERU South America 9 CANADA North America 10 MEXICO North America 11 PUERTO RICO North America 12 URUGUAY South America 13 GERMANY Europe 14 FRANCE Europe 15 SWITZERLAND Europe 16 BELGIUM Europe 17 HAWAII Oceania 18 GREECE Europe 19 HOLLAND Europe 20 NORWAY Europe 21 SWEDEN Europe 22 FRENCH GUYANA South America 23 JAMAICA North America 24 PANAMA North America 25 JAPAN Asia 26 ENGLAND Europe 27 ICELAND Europe 28 HONDURAS North America 29 IRELAND Europe 30 SPAIN Europe 31 PORTUGAL Europe 32 CHILE South America 33 ALASKA North America 34 CANARY ISLANDS Africa 35 AUSTRIA Europe 36 SAN MARINO Europe 37 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC North America 38 GREENLAND North America 39 ANGOLA Africa 40 LIECHTENSTEIN Europe 41 NEW ZEALAND Oceania 42 LIBERIA Africa 43 AUSTRALIA Oceania 44 SOUTH AFRICA Africa 45 REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Europe 46 EAST GERMANY Deleted Europe 47 DENMARK Europe 48 SAUDI ARABIA Asia 49 BALEARIC ISLANDS Europe 50 RUSSIA Europe 51 ANDORA Europe 52 FAROER ISLANDS Europe 53 EL SALVADOR North America 54 LUXEMBOURG Europe 55 GIBRALTAR Europe 56 FINLAND Europe 57 INDIA Asia 58 EAST MALAYSIA Oceania 59 DODECANESE ISLANDS Europe 60 HONG KONG Asia 61 ECUADOR South America 62 GUAM ISLAND Oceania 63 ST HELENA ISLAND Africa 64 SENEGAL Africa 65 SIERRA LEONE Africa 66 MAURITANIA Africa 67 PARAGUAY South America 68 NORTHERN IRELAND Europe 69 COSTA RICA North America 70 AMERICAN
  • Presencing the Slovenian-Hungarian Border in Goričko and the Rába Valley

    Presencing the Slovenian-Hungarian Border in Goričko and the Rába Valley

    Acta Ethnographica Hungarica 65(2), 355–378 (2020) DOI: 10.1556/022.2020.00015 “Eyes Have No Border”. Presencing the Slovenian-Hungarian Border in Goričko and the Rába Valley Received: April 16, 2020 • Accepted: June 23, 2020 Ingrid Slavec Gradišnik – Katalin Munda Hirnök ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Ethnology, Ljubljana – Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana Abstract: The article draws on the written and oral memories of people living along the border between Slovenia (Goričko in Prekmurje) and Hungary (the Rába Valley). They are presented as comments on a century-long process of political changes in this borderland and demonstrate a plethora of ways in which border shifts intrude on people’s everyday lives. People’s concern with the border is reflected in the fact that it is a topic that emerges in any conversation with individuals living next to it, whether in the context of work, family, daily errands or stories of the past and present. In this article, informed by two concepts–border and memory– we present memories and perceptions of the border as they are expressed in casual comments or observations and semi-structured conversations with interviewees in the field. Life in borderlands is always localized, and there are visible divergences in the experience of the border on the Slovenian and Hungarian side. In Prekmurje, historical events along the border, especially the post-Trianon one, and the memory of these events are perpetuated through anniversaries of the annexation of Prekmurje to the Kingdom of SCS, whereas in the Rába Valley, memories especially relate to the Iron Curtain period.
  • The Lost Cranes of the Island of Lampedusa (Italy) Marco Masseti

    The Lost Cranes of the Island of Lampedusa (Italy) Marco Masseti

    Rivista Italiana di Ornitologia - Research in Ornithology, 86 (1): 49-54, 2016 DOI: 10.4081/rio.2016.305 The lost cranes of the island of Lampedusa (Italy) Marco Masseti Riassunto - Le gru dell’Isola di Lampedusa (Italia). INTRODUCTION La ricchezza dell’avifauna migratoria di Lampedusa (Canale di The island of Lampedusa (35°30’N - 12°31’E) lies in Sicilia, Italia) è nota a partire dal XV secolo, ma è soprattutto nel corso dell’Ottocento che sulla piccola isola è stata documentata la pre- Italy, in the Sicilian Channel only some 113 km off the senza regolare di gru. I resoconti ufficiali riferiscono della diffusione North-African coast, and about 205 km from Sicily (Fig. di questi uccelli per lo meno a partire dal secolo XVIII, indicandone 1). It is the main island of the Pelagian archipelago, which il periodo di sosta su Lampedusa (ogni anni fra maggio ed agosto), la also includes the isles of Linosa and Lampione. The surface loro regolare nidificazione, e perfino il tipo di vegetazione di cui si of Lampedusa covers about 20 km2 and reaches its highest nutrivano finendo spesso per arrecare notevoli danni alla povera agri- altitude at 133 m above sea level. Lampedusa has little coltura locale. Ciò nonostante, la letteratura scientifica non è riuscita a diagnosticare l’identità tassonomica di questi uccelli; alcuni autori water, and during the summer has to be supplied by tank- li hanno, infatti, descritti come Gru cenerine, Grus grus, mentre per ers. Its vegetation is today poor and scantly represented altri si sarebbe trattato di Damigelle di Numidia, Anthropoides virgo, by a low, thorny Mediterranean garigue.
  • Legal Rules Applicable to the Equitable Maritime Boundaries Delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: an Egyptian Perspective

    Legal Rules Applicable to the Equitable Maritime Boundaries Delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: an Egyptian Perspective

    Legal Rules Applicable to the Equitable Maritime Boundaries Delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: An Egyptian Perspective Ibrahim Ahmed EL Diwany United Nations – The Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme 2018 Disclaimer The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations, The Nippon Foundation of Japan, The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt or Utrecht University. Abstract The Eastern Mediterranean Sea Basin is a semi-enclosed Sea bordered by ten States. The growing economic interests in the basin natural resources have motivated the basin States to claim jurisdiction over its exclusive economic zones and continental shelves. The absence of defined maritime boundaries, in this confined basin with numerous islands, have generated contesting claims between basin States on the overlapping undelimited maritime areas. The majority of maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea are not delimited yet. Only four maritime boundaries, out of seventeen potential boundaries, were delimited by agreements. The delimitation of maritime boundaries in the basin is vital. It establishes legal certainty to maritime boundaries that enables basin States to exercise safely their sovereignty rights for exploring and exploiting their natural resources in their maritime areas. The research paper aims to identify the legal rules and principles governing maritime boundaries delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea Basin and its application on the delimitation of Egypt’s maritime boundaries with opposite and adjacent States. It explores in the first part the “equidistance/special circumstances” rule applicable for the delimitation of the territorial sea, the “agreement/equitable result” rule applicable for the delimitation of the extended maritime zones and the “equidistance/relevant circumstances” rule considered in recent jurisprudence.
  • Florida Department of Education

    Florida Department of Education

    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Implementation Date: DOE INFORMATION DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS Fiscal Year 1995-96 VOLUME II: AUTOMATED STAFF INFORMATION SYSTEM July 1, 1995 AUTOMATED STAFF DATA ELEMENTS APPENDIX C COUNTRY CODES CODE COUNTRY CODE COUNTRY AF Afghanistan CV Cape Verde AB Albania CJ Cayman Islands AG Algeria CP Central African Republic AN Andorra CD Chad AO Angola CI Chile AV Anguilla CH China AY Antarctica KI Christmas Island AC Antigua and Barbuda CN Clipperton Island AX Antilles KG Cocos Islands (Keeling) AE Argentina CL Colombia AD Armenia CQ Comoros AA Aruba CF Congo AS Australia CR Coral Sea Island AU Austria CS Costa Rica AJ Azerbaijan DF Croatia AI Azores Islands, Portugal CU Cuba BF Bahamas DH Curacao Island BA Bahrain CY Cyprus BS Baltic States CX Czechoslovakia BG Bangladesh DT Czech Republic BB Barbados DK Democratic Kampuchea BI Bassas Da India DA Denmark BE Belgium DJ Djibouti BZ Belize DO Dominica BN Benin DR Dominican Republic BD Bermuda EJ East Timor BH Bhutan EC Ecuador BL Bolivia EG Egypt BJ Bonaire Island ES El Salvador BP Bosnia and Herzegovina EN England BC Botswana EA Equatorial Africa BV Bouvet Island EQ Equatorial Guinea BR Brazil ER Eritrea BT British Virgin Islands EE Estonia BW British West Indies ET Ethiopia BQ Brunei Darussalam EU Europa Island BU Bulgaria FA Falkland Islands (Malvinas) BX Burkina Faso, West Africa FO Faroe Islands BM Burma FJ Fiji BY Burundi FI Finland JB Byelorussia SSR FR France CB Cambodia FM France, Metropolitian CM Cameroon FN French Guiana CC Canada FP French Polynesia Revised:
  • Donor Support to Electoral Cycles Siân Herbert GSDRC & K4D, University of Birmingham 24 February 2021

    Donor Support to Electoral Cycles Siân Herbert GSDRC & K4D, University of Birmingham 24 February 2021

    Helpdesk Report Donor support to electoral cycles Siân Herbert GSDRC & K4D, University of Birmingham 24 February 2021 Questions What are the stages of an election cycle? How have donors been providing electoral assistance to developing countries throughout the cycle? Contents 1. Summary 2. The election cycle 3. Donor support to electoral cycles 4. References The K4D helpdesk service provides brief summaries of current research, evidence, and lessons learned. Helpdesk reports are not rigorous or systematic reviews; they are intended to provide an introduction to the most important evidence related to a research question. They draw on a rapid desk- based review of published literature and consultation with subject specialists. Helpdesk reports are commissioned by the UK Department for International Development and other Government departments, but the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DFID, the UK Government, K4D or any other contributing organisation. For further information, please contact [email protected]. 1. Summary This rapid literature review explains the stages of an election cycle, and how donors provide support to electoral cycles. It draws mainly on policy guidance websites and papers due to the questions of this review and the level of analysis taken (global-level, donor-level). It focuses on publications from the last five years, and/or current/forthcoming donor strategies. The electoral cycle and its stages are well established policy concepts for which there is widespread acceptance and use. Donor support to electoral cycles (through electoral assistance and electoral observation) is extremely widespread, and the dominant donors in this area are the multilateral organisations like the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), and also the United States (US).
  • STATUS of RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AMATEUR STATIONS of DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (In Accordance with Optional Provision No

    STATUS of RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AMATEUR STATIONS of DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (In Accordance with Optional Provision No

    Annex to ITU Operational Bulletin No. 1154 – 15.VIII.2018 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION BR RADIOCOMMUNICATION BUREAU OF ITU STATUS OF RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AMATEUR STATIONS OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (In accordance with optional provision No. 25.1 of the Radio Regulations) AND FORM OF CALL SIGNS ASSIGNED BY EACH ADMINISTRATION TO ITS AMATEUR AND EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS (POSITION ON 15 AUGUST 2018) Geneva, 2018 Note from the BR In the Circular Letter CR/430 of 14 May 2018, the Radiocommunication Bureau requested administrations to advise the Union on their current position with respect to provision No. 25.1 of the Radio Regulations, concerning radiocommunications between stations of their Amateur Service and Amateur-Satellite Service and those of different countries. The Circular Letter also stated that in cases where no information was received from an administration, it shall be assumed that the concerned administration has no objection to such radiocommunications. In the same Circular Letter, administrations were requested further to advise the Bureau of the form of call signs they assigned their amateur and experimental stations. This Annex to the Operational Bulletin No. 1154 dated 15 August 2018 cancels and supersedes the previous Annex to the Operational Bulletin No. 1055 dated 1 July 2014. The Annex takes into account information received from administrations with respect to provision No. 25.1 of the Radio Regulations. As it concerns the form of call signs assigned to amateur and experimental stations, where no new information has been received from an administration, information currently held in the relevant registries of the Bureau is reproduced. This Annex will be updated by numbered series of amendments published in the ITU Operational Bulletin.