Skip navigation

Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: https://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/28302
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.creatorMELLO FILHO, EDUARDO CAVALCANTI DE-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-06T13:26:33Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-21-
dc.date.available2023-09-06T13:26:33Z-
dc.date.issued2021-07-20-
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.ufpb.br/jspui/handle/123456789/28302-
dc.description.abstractThis monographic work seeks to answer the question: what does international law say about the conduct of foreign military exercises or maneuvers in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)? In general terms, the context of this endeavor is that some coastal states require their consent for third parties to conduct such activities in their EEZs, while others claim to be free to do so, regardless of the coastal state's consent. The issue, beyond its political content, is full of questions, which concern, above all, the legal regime applicable to the EEZ and the application of the prohibition of the use of force in this maritime space. With this in mind, the first chapter deals with the international law of the sea in contemporary times, from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. The second chapter is dedicated to detailing the legal regime applicable to the EEZ, both according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to customary international law. In a first step, the general aspects of the regime are detailed. Secondly, the regime is analyzed focusing on the practice of military exercises or maneuvers. The third chapter deals with the prohibition of the use of force. Similarly to the previous chapter, first the general aspects are examined, and then the issue in focus. The paper ends with specific conclusions, leading to a general and defining conclusion.pt_BR
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gracineide Silva (gracineideehelena@gmail.com) on 2023-09-06T13:26:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ECMF 200721.pdf: 1152646 bytes, checksum: 832d3a59cd109cd9a653020ac4c79601 (MD5)en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2023-09-06T13:26:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ECMF 200721.pdf: 1152646 bytes, checksum: 832d3a59cd109cd9a653020ac4c79601 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021-07-20en
dc.languageporpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal da Paraíbapt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso abertopt_BR
dc.subjectDireito do Marpt_BR
dc.subjectDireito Internacionalpt_BR
dc.subjectAtividades Militarespt_BR
dc.subjectLaw of the Seapt_BR
dc.subjectInternational Lawpt_BR
dc.subjectMilitary Activitiespt_BR
dc.title“ESSE MAR É MEU!” A PRÁTICA DE EXERCÍCIOS OU MANOBRAS MILITARES ESTRANGEIROS NA ZONA ECONÔMICA EXCLUSIVApt_BR
dc.typeTCCpt_BR
dc.contributor.advisor1Franca, Alessandra Correia Lima Macedo-
dc.contributor.advisor1Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2569246842918284pt_BR
dc.description.resumoEste trabalho monográfico busca responder à pergunta: o que diz o direito internacional sobre a condução de exercícios ou manobras militares estrangeiras na zona econômica exclusiva (ZEE)? Em termos gerais, a empreitada tem por contexto alguns Estados costeiros que exigem seu consentimento para que terceiros conduzam as supramencionadas atividades em suas ZEEs e outros que alegam possuir liberdade para tanto, independentemente de consentimento do Estado costeiro. A questão, para além do teor político, é plena de interrogações, que dizem respeito, sobretudo, ao regime jurídico aplicável à ZEE e à aplicação da proibição do uso da força neste espaço marítimo. Neste sentir, o primeiro capítulo se pauta sobre o direito internacional do mar na contemporaneidade, do início do Século XX ao presente. O segundo capítulo é destinado a esmiuçar o regime jurídico aplicável à ZEE, tanto segundo a Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Direito do Mar quanto para o costume internacional. Em um primeiro momento, os aspectos gerais do regime são esmiuçados. Em um segundo momento, a análise do regime é feita tendo sob perspectiva a prática de exercícios ou manobras militares. O terceiro capítulo versa sobre a proibição do uso da força. Similarmente ao anterior, examinam-se primeiro os aspectos gerais e, posteriormente, a questão em foco. Finaliza-se o escrito com conclusões específicas, redundando numa conclusão geral e definidora do resultado deste trabalho.pt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentCiências Jurídicaspt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUFPBpt_BR
dc.relation.referencesGUILFOYLE, D. Article 87. In: PROELSS, A et al. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Commentary. Munique: CH Beck Hart Nomos, 2017, p. 678-682. GUOXING, J. The Legality of the “Impeccable Incident”. China Security, v. 5, n. 2, 2009, p. 19-24. GRAY, C. The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission Oversteps its Boundaries: A Partial Award? European Journal of International Law, v. 17, n. 4, 2006, p. 699-721. GROTIUS, H. The Rights of War and Peace Book II. Editado e com introdução de Richard Tuck, baseado na edição de Jean Barbeyrac. Indianápolis: Liberty Fund, 2005. HARRISON, J. Making the Law of the Sea: A Study in the Development of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. HAYASHI, M. Military and intelligence gathering activities in the EEZ: definition of key terms. Marine Policy, v. 29, 2005, p. 123-137. HENRIQUES, A; MEDEIROS, J. B. Metodologia científica na pesquisa jurídica. 9ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2017. HUH, S; NISHIMOTO, K. Article 246. In: PROELSS, A et al. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Commentary. Munique: CH Beck Hart Nomos, 2017a, p. 1649-1664. JIA, B. B. The Principle of the Domination of the Land over the Sea: A Historical Perspective on the Adaptability of the Law of the Sea to New Challenges. German Yearbook of International Law, v. 57, 2014. JOHNSTON, D. The Historical Foundations of World Order: the Tower and the Arena. Haia: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008. KENT, H. S. K. The Historical Origins of the Three-Mile Limit. American Journal of International Law v. 48 n. 4, 1954, p. 537-553 KOH, T. A Constitution for the Oceans, 1982. Disponível em:<https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Ses1-6.-Tommy-T.B.-Koh-of-Singapore-President-of-the-Third- United-Nations-Conference-on-the-Law-of-the-Sea-_A-Constitution-for-the-Oceans_.pdf>. Acesso em: 29 mar. 2021. KOPELA. S. The ‘territorialisation’ of the Exclusive Economic Zone: Implications for maritime jurisdiction. Disponível em: <https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/s_kopela_paper.pdf>. Acesso em: 9 maio 2021. 76 KWAST, P. J. Maritime Law Enforcement and the Use of Force: Reflections on the Categorisation of Forcible Action at Sea in the Light of the Guyana/Suriname Award. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, v. 4, n. 1, 2008, p. 49-91. KWIATKOWKA, B. Creeping Jurisdiction beyond 200 Miles in the Light of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and State Practice. Ocean Development and International Law, v. 22, n.2, 1991, p. 153-187. KRASKA, J. Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea: Expeditionary Operations in World Politics. Nova Iorque: Oxford University Press, 2011. KUNZ, J. Individual and Collective Self-Defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. American Journal of International Law, v. 41. n. 4, 1947, p. 872-879. _________. Bellum Justum and Bellum Legale. American Journal of International Law, v. 45, n. 3, 1951, p. 528-534. LEANZA, U.; CARACCIOLO, M. C. The Exclusive Economic Zone. In: ATTARD, D. et al. The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Volume I, The Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 177-216 LESSA, A. C. A Guerra da Lagosta e outras guerras: conflito e cooperação nas relações França-Brasil (1960-1964). Cena Internacional, v. 1, n. 1, p. 109-120, 1999. LI, G.; WAN, B.; ZHU, H. On the Rights and Obligations of Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone. China Oceans Law Review, n. 1, p. 2011, p. 148-110. LOBEL, J; RATNER, M. Bypassing the Security Council: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime. American Journal of International Law, v. 93, n. 1, 1999, p. 124-154. LONGO, A. R. O debate em busca do consenso – as negociações para os termos finais da Convenção da Jamaica. In: BEIRÃO, A. P.; PEREIRA, A. C. A. (org.). Reflexões sobre a Convenção do Direito do Mar. Brasília: FUNAG, 2014, p. 67-126. LUSA BORDIN, F. Analogy. In: D’ASPREMONT, J.; SINGH, S; MCBAIN, G. C.. Concepts for International Law: Contributions to Disciplinary Thought. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019. MÄTZ-LÜCK, N. Article 240. In: PROELSS, A et al. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Commentary. Munique: CH Beck Hart Nomos, 2017, p. 1617-1624 MURPHY, S. D. Obligations of States in Disputed Áreas of the Continental Shelf. In: Heidar, t (org.). New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea. Leiden: Brill, 2019. 77 NANDAN, S. N. The Exclusive Economic Zone: A historical perspective. In: UN Food and Agricultural Organization (org.). The Law of the Sea: Essays in Memory of Jean Carroz.Roma: FAO, 1987, p. 171-. NORDQUIST, M.; ROSENNE, S; SOHN, L. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: a Commentary, Volume V. Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff, 1989. NORDQUIST, M.; GRANDY, N.; NANDAN, S.; ROSENNE, S (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: a Commentary, Volume II. Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff, 1993. _________. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: a Commentary, Volume III. Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff, 1995. O’BRIEN, K. Article 301.In: PROELSS, A et al. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Commentary. Munique: CH Beck Hart Nomos, 2017, p. 1943-1947. ORAKHELASHVILI, A. Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ORREGO VICUÑA, F. R. The Exclusive Economic Zone — Regime and Legal Nature under International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. OXMAN, B. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: the 1976 New York Sessions. American Journal of International Law, v. 71, 1977, p. 247-269. _________. The Regime of Warships Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Virginia Journal of International Law, v. 24, 1984, p. 809-863. _________. The Territorial Temptation: a Siren Song at Sea. American Journal of International Law, v. 100, 2006, p. 830-851. PARDO, A. The Common Heritage: Selected Papers on Oceans and World Order 1967- 1975. Msida: Malta University Press, 1975. PEDROZO, R. Preserving Navigational Rights and Freedoms: The Right to Conduct Military Activities in China’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Chinese Journal of International Law, v. 9, 2010, p. 9-29. _________. Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: East Asia Focus. International Law Studies, v. 90, 2014, p. 514-543. PEREIRA DA SILVA, A. O Brasil e o Direito Internacional do Mar Contemporâneo: Novas Oportunidades e Desafios. São Paulo: Almedina, 2015. 78 PREZAS, I. Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Remarks on the Applicability and Scope of the Reciprocal ‘Due Regard’ Duties of Coastal and Third States. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, v. 34, 2019, 97–116 PROELSS, A. The Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone in Perspective: Legal Status and Resolution of User Conflicts Revisited. Ocean Yearbook, v. 26, 2012, p. 87-112. _________. Article 56. In: PROELSS, A et al. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Commentary. Munique: CH Beck Hart Nomos, 2017a, p. 418-437. _________. Article 58. In: PROELSS, A et al. (org.). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Commentary. Munique: CH Beck Hart Nomos, 2017b, p. 444-457. QUINCE, C. The Exclusive Economic Zone. Wilmington: Vernon Press, 2019. RANGEL, V. M. O Novo Direito do Mar e a América Latina. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, v. 75, 1980 ,p. 41-51 RIBEIRO, J. D. S. Organizações internacionais e o princípio da igualdade. Belo Horizonte: Arraes Editores, 2017. RICHARDSON, E. L. Power, Mobility and the Law of the Sea. Foreign Affairs, v. 58, n. 4, 1980, p. 902-919. ROACH, A. J. Today’s customary international law of the sea. Ocean Development and International Law, v. 45, n. 3, 2014, p. 239-259. ROSE, S. Naval Activity in the Exclusive Economic Zone — Troubled Waters Ahead. Ocean Development and International Law, v. 20, 1990, p. 123-145. ROTHWELL, D.; STEPHENS, T. The International Law of the Sea. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010. RUYS, T. The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)? American Journal of International Law, v. 108, n. 2, 2014, p. 159-210. SHEARER, I. A. Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: The Case of Aerial Surveillance. Ocean Yearbook, v. 17, p. 548-562. _________. Ocean Management Challenges for the Law of the Sea in the First Decade of the 21st Century. In: OUDE ELFERINK, A. G.; ROTHWELL, D. R. (org.). Ocean Management in the 21st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004, capítulo 1. SCHACHTER, O. The Right of States to Use Armed Force. Michigan Law Review, v. 82, n. 5, 1984, p. 1620-1646 79 SCHARF, M. Accelerated Formation of Customary International Law. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, v. 20. n. 2, p. 305-342. SCHMITT, M. N., Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, v. 37, 1999, p. 885-938. SIMMA, B.; PULKOWSKI, D. Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law. European Journal of International Law, v. 17 n. 3, 2006, p. 483-529. STEPHENS, D. The Impact of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention on the Conduct of Peacetime Naval/Military Operation. California Western International Law Journal, v. 29, n. 2, 1999, p. 283-311. SÚAREZ, S.. The Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf: Legal Aspects of their Establishment. Heidelberg: Springer, 2008 TANAKA, Y. The International Law of the Sea. 2. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. TAFT, W. H. Self-Defense and the Oil Platforms Decision. Yale Journal of International Law, v. 29, n. 2, p. 295-306. TOLEDO, A. P.; TASSIN, V. Guide to the Navigation of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. Belo Horizonte: Editora D’Plácido, 2017. TUERK, H. The Common Heritage of Mankind after 50 years. Indian Journal of International Law, v. 57, 2017, p. 259-283. VALENCIA, M. J. The Regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone: Issues and Responses, A Report of the Tokyo Meeting, 19-20 February 2003. VAN DYKE, J. M. Military ships and planes operating in the exclusive economic zone of another country. Marine Policy v. 28, 2004, p. 29–39. WALKER, G.Defining Terms in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention IV: Round of Definitions Proposed by the International Law Association (American Branch) Law of the Sea Committee. California Western International Law Journal, v. 36, n. 1, 2005, p. 139- 183. WEIGHTMAN, M. A. Self-Defense in International Law. Virginia Law Review, v. 8, n. 8, 1951, p. 1095-1115. WELLER, M. Introduction. In: WELLER, M.(org). The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 3-34 80 WOLFRUM, R. Restricting the Use of the Sea to Peaceful Purposes: Demilitarization in Being. German Yearbook of International Law, v. 24, 1981, p. 200-241 XIAOFENG, R.; XIZHONG, C. A Chinese Perspective. Marine Policy, v. 29, 2005, p. 139- 146. YEE, S. Sketching the Debate on Military Activities in the EEZ: An Editorial Comment. Chinese Journal of International Law, v. 9, 2010, p. 1-17. YOUNG, R. Recent Developments with Respect to the Continental Shelf. American Journal of International Law, v. 42, n. 4, 1948, p. 849-857. ZANELLA, T. V. Direito ambiental do mar: a prevenção da poluição por navios. Belo Horizonte: Editora D’Plácido, 2019. ZHANG, H. Is It Safeguarding the Freedom of Navigation or Maritime Hegemony of the United States — Comments on Raul (Pete) Pedrozo’s Article on Military Activities in the EEZ. Chinese Journal of International Law, v. 9, 2010, p. 31-47. Precedentes Jurisprudenciais CIJ. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania). Judgment of 9 April, ICJ Reports, 1949. _________.Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway). Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1951a. _________Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway). Reply by Professor Waldock of 18 October 1951b, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, vol. IV. _________. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969. _________.Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974a. __________. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974b. _________.Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Jurisdiction, Judgment of 19 December 1978, ICJ Reports 1978. _________. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Lybian Arab Jamahiriya), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, 1982. _________.Continental Shelf (Lybian Arab Jamahiriya /Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985, ICJ Reports 1985. 81 _________. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. ICJ Reports, 1986. _________. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1996. _________.Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, _________. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2003a. _________. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, 2003b. _________. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 2004. _________. Armed Activities in the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda). Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2006. _________. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3 February 2009, ICJ Reports 2009 CPIJ. The S.S. Lotus Case (France v. Turkey). Judgment of 7 September 1927. TIDM. MV "SAIGA" (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea). Judgment of 1 July 1999, ITLOS Reports, 1999a. __________. MV "SAIGA" (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea). Separate Opinion of Judge Vukas. ITLOS Reports, 1999b. __________.“ARA Libertad” (Argentina v. Ghana). Provisional Measure Order of 15 December 2012, Separate Opinion of Judge Rao __________. M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), Judgment of 14 April 2014, ITLOS Reports, 2014. __________. Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, _________. Case concerning the detention of three Ukranian naval vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Provisional Measure Order of 25 May 2019, ITLOS Reports, 2019. CPA. Grisbadarna Case (Norway v. Sweden). Arbitral Award of 23 October 1909. _________. North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great-Britain v. United States). Arbitral Award of 7 September 1910 82 _________. Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission. Partial Award Jus Ad Bellum, Ethiopia’s claims 1-8, 19 December 2005. _________. Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Relating to the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone and of the Continental Shelf between them (Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago), Decision of 11 April 2006. _________. Guyana v. Suriname. Judgment of 17 September 2007. _________. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Arbitral Award of 18 March 2015. _________. “Enrica Lexie” Case (India v. Italy), Judgment of 21 May 2020. Peças Jornalísticas THE DIPLOMAT. US Destroyer Carries Out FONOP in Indian EEZ, por Abhijnan Rej. Publicada em 8 de abril de 2021. Disponível em: https://thediplomat.com/2021/04/us- destroyer-carries-out-fonop-in-indian-eez/. Acesso em 23 de abril de 2021 TIME (THE WORLD). Samba over the Waters. Publicada em 22 de maio de 1972. Disponível em:<http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,879088,00.html>. Acesso em 15 de maio de 2021. Legislação Brasileira BRASIL. Decreto-Lei 553 de 25 de abril de 1969. Altera os limites do Mar Territorial do Brasil e dá outras providências. BRASIL. Decreto-Lei 1.098 de 25 de março de 1970. Altera os limites do mar territorial do Brasil e dá outras providências. BRASIL. Lei 8.617 de 4 de janeiro de 1993. Dispõe sobre o mar territorial, a zona contígua, a zona econômica exclusiva e a plataforma continental brasileiros, e dá outras providências. Legislação Estrangeira ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA. Proclamation 2667 of September 28, 1945. Policy of the United States with respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf. ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA. Proclamation 2668 of September 28, 1945. Policy of the United States with respect to coastal fisheries in certain areas of the high seas. 83 Documentos Estrangeiros e Internacionais e Tratados Internacionais ACORDO Relativo à Implementação da Parte XI da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar, de 10 de dezembro de 1982. 29 julho 1994 ACORDO para Implementação das Disposições da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar de 10 de dezembro de 1982 sobre a Conservação e Ordenamento de Populações de Peixes Transzonais e de Populações de Peixes Altamente Migratórios. 4 dezembro 1995. ASSEMBLEIA GERAL DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. Resolução 2340 (XXII). 18 dezembro 1967 ___________. Resolução 2467 A (XXIII). 21 dezembro 1968. ___________. Resolução 2749 (XXV). 17 dezembro 1970. ___________. Resolução 2750 C (XXV). 17 dezembro 1970. ___________. Resolução 3201. 1 maio 1974. ___________. Resolução 3281. 12 dezembro 1974. ___________. Resolução 3314 (XXIX). 14 dezembro 1974. CARTA das Nações Unidas. 26 junho 1945. CONFERÊNCIA DE REVISÃO DO ESTATUTO DE ROMA. Resolução RC;Res.6. 11 junho 2010. CONSELHO de Segurança das Nações Unidas. Resolução 377 (V). 1950. CONVENÇÃO das Nações Unidas sobre Direito do Mar. 10 dezembro 1982. CONVENÇÃO das Nações Unidas sobre Imunidades Jurisdicionais dos Estados e suas Propriedades. 2004 CONVENÇÃO sobre Alto Mar. 29 abril 1958. CONVENÇÃO sobre Mar Territorial e Zona Contígua. 29 abril 1958. CONVENÇÃO sobre Pesca e Conservação dos Recursos Vivos de Alto Mar. 29 abril 1958. CONVENÇÃO sobre Plataforma Continental. 29 abril 1958. 84 DECLARAÇÃO da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre o Meio Ambiente Humano. 6 junho 1972 DECLARAÇÃO da Organização da Unidade Africana sobre Temas de Direito do Mar. 19 julho 1974 DECLARAÇÃO de Montevidéu sobre o Direito do Mar. Maio 1970 DECLARAÇÃO de Santiago. 18 agosto 1952 DECLARAÇÃO de Santo Domingo. 9 junho 1972 DECLARAÇÃO dos Estados Latino-Americanos sobre o Direito do Mar (Lima). Agosto 1970. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Annual Freedom of Navigation Report to the Congress. 2020. Disponível em:<https://policy.defense.gov/Portals/11/Documents/FY19%20DoD%20FON%20Report%2 0FINAL.pdf?ver=2020-07-14-140514-643&timestamp=1594749943344>. Acesso em 23 de abril de 2021 RESOLUÇÃO 10A da Décima Comissão do Instituto de Direito Internacional “Present Problems of the Use of Armed Force in International Law, A. Self-defence”. 2007.pt_BR
dc.subject.cnpqCNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITOpt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:TCC - Direito - João Pessoa

Arquivos associados a este item:
Arquivo Descrição TamanhoFormato 
ECMF 200721.pdf1,13 MBAdobe PDFVisualizar/Abrir


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.