Podcasts about sea unclos

Deep sea mining in the U.S. is entering a new chapter after a recent executive order signed by former President Donald Trump authorized exploration and extraction not only in U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones but potentially in international waters. This move marks a dramatic shift in ocean policy and raises serious questions about compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which governs activities beyond national jurisdiction. The risks of deep-sea mining are substantial. From disturbing unique and fragile ecosystems on the ocean floor to triggering global geopolitical tensions, the implications stretch far beyond resource extraction. Marine biologist Dr. Andrew Thaler joins the show to explain the science behind deep-sea habitats, the governance gaps in current policy, and why this executive order could undermine decades of international ocean conservation work. This episode examines the legal, environmental, and political aspects of U.S. deep sea mining efforts. Listeners learn what's at stake, who is challenging the decision, and how this could affect the global push for sustainable ocean management. If you care about the future of deep ocean ecosystems and global cooperation, this episode is essential listening. Links: Southern Fried Science: https://www.southernfriedscience.com/understanding-the-executive-order-on-deep-sea-mining-and-critical-minerals-part-2-what-is-in-the-executive-order/ Follow a career in conservation: https://www.conservation-careers.com/online-training/ Use the code SUFB to get 33% off courses and the careers program.   Do you want to join my Ocean Community? Sign Up for Updates on the process: www.speakupforblue.com/oceanapp   Sign up for our Newsletter: http://www.speakupforblue.com/newsletter   Facebook Group: https://bit.ly/3NmYvsI Connect with Speak Up For Blue: Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube  

Jim and Ray talk to Indonesian expert Aristyo Darmawan about how international law applies to the contest over the South China Sea. Aristyo explains how a rules-based international order ensures equal footing for all countries, and unpacks the history and significance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)--particularly from an Indonesian perspective. They also discuss the challenges and limitations of the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct negotiations, and whether they will ever result in an actual agreement or whether they are being used by Beijing as a delaying tactic while it consolidates control. Specifically, Aristyo answers the question of whether ASEAN is able to address the actual security concerns of a nation under direct threat such as the Philippines currently faces from China. The conversation concludes with a comparison of Canberra and Jakarta as capital cities, and then Jim tells the story of how his family weathered severe flooding during his tour in Indonesia.

What is the strategic significance of the Indian Ocean to Australia? What challenges and opportunities does the region present for Australia and its partners? And how much can Australia realistically achieve in such a vast region? In this episode, Darshana Baruah, David Brewster and Shafqat Munir join Rory Medcalf to discuss the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean to Australia and the region. Darshana Baruah is a Fellow with the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where she directs the Indian Ocean Initiative. David Brewster is a Senior Research Fellow at the ANU National Security College (NSC) and focuses on security in India and the Indian Ocean region, and Indo-Pacific maritime affairs. Shafqat Munir is a Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Bangladesh Centre for Terrorism Research at the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies. Professor Rory Medcalf AM is Head of NSC. His professional experience spans more than three decades across diplomacy, Intelligence analysis, think tanks, journalism and academia. Show notes: Securing our Future – national security conference, 9–10 April, 2024: secure your tickets United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): find out more Foreign Policy White Paper (2017): find out more We'd love to hear from you! Send in your questions, comments, and suggestions to NatSecPod@anu.edu.au. You can tweet us @NSC_ANU and be sure to subscribe so you don't miss out on future episodes. The National Security Podcast is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on World Ocean Radio we're offering two extremely important ocean examples where the opposition of sovereignty and commonality collide. This first is the UN Treaty for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the second is a treaty for the management of the high seas and seabed--the vast areas that make up the boundaries beyond national jurisdiction. About World Ocean Radio5-minute weekly insights dive into ocean science, advocacy and education hosted by Peter Neill, lifelong ocean advocate and maritime expert. Episodes offer perspectives on global ocean issues and viable solutions, and celebrate exemplary projects. Available for syndicated use at no cost by college and community radio stations worldwide.

This episode of the PME Podcast focuses on the U.S. Navy. My guest is Dr. Henry “Jerry” Hendrix, and he is the author of a book called To Provide and Maintain a Navy. In this interview, we discuss the many challenges that the U.S. Navy faces. Dr. Hendrix thinks that America needs to get serious about the threats from Russia and China in the maritime domain. He argues U.S. defense policy has been too land focused and neglected maritime strategy.    Additional topics include the following: The link between the concept of the “free sea”, natural law, and individual liberty Current laws of the sea to include the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)  How America's strategic outlook has shifted from being Naval focused to “continental” focused The evolution of both China and Russia's ambitions from territorial to maritime  The development of China's Navy and their goal to become a “blue water” Navy The decline of the U.S. Navy in the post-Cold War era  U.S. shipbuilding infrastructure relative to China's shipbuilding infrastructure  How the U.S. industrial base consolidated in the post-Cold War era and the impact that the shrinking industrial base has had on America's ability to re-build a Navy Dr. Hendrix sees our Naval policy and America's overall national security policy as being fundamentally “unserious”  The tactical and strategic challenge that the Navy faces specifically as it relates to Anti-Access Aerial Denial (A2AD) weapons Dr. Hendrix book is called To Provide and Maintain a Navy and can be found here.  Dr. Hendrix has a Twitter account @jerryhendrixII and can also be found at the Sagamore Institute  Two of his recent articles can be found at National Review and Foreign Policy.  HELP SPREAD THE WORD! If you like the interview and want to hear others, subscribe in iTunes, Spotify, or Audible. Support the show with written reviews, share on social media, and through word of mouth.  I recently started a Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/pmecomplete Please consider showing your support for the show by becoming a patron.  To request additional shows or guests, e-mail me: tim@professionalmilitaryeducation.com  Check out the website: www.professionalmilitaryeducation.com  

The UN has established a legal framework for marine and maritime activities called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is a convention that allows fishing, shipping, and exploration rights, among others, to countries over waters owned by them. However, with wars and annexations of territories, the rights of ownership become ambiguous. In such cases, how far is the UNCLOS competent in solving sovereignty issues?In the first episode of our new themed series War and Peace, Dr. Valentin Schatz, a postdoctoral researcher at the Chair for International Law of the Sea and Environmental Law at the University of Hamburg, talks about the issues of arbitration concerning territorial domination, citing examples of Chagos Archipelago and the South China Sea, while emphasizing the need for a reasoned and balanced argument when it comes to territorial sovereignty, in the context of his work “The Status of Crimea and the Sea of Azov as a Jurisdictional Hurdle in Ukraine v. Russia”, published by Brill.Guest: Dr. Valentin SchatzHost: Leigh Giangreco

Lecture summary: The legal regime for deep seabed mining in the international seabed Area is a rare example of the international community joining forces to regulate a potential new industry in the interests of humankind as a whole. As set forth under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international seabed Area and its mineral resources are the “common heritage of mankind”, on whose behalf the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an autonomous organization established under UNCLOS, is to act. The mandate comes with concomitant obligations for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits and adoption of the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects of deep-sea mining. Despite this historic legal framework based on visions of equity, common interest, environmental health and prosperity for all, tensions are rising. In late June 2021, the Government of the Republic of Nauru called for the ISA to accelerate its work on regulations for exploitation of deep seabed minerals so that NORI, its sponsored entity, could submit an application for authorization to mine as soon as 2023. Just prior to that, hundreds of marine scientists and policy experts issued a Call for a Pause to Deep-Sea Mining, expressing concern that deep-sea mining could result “in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning that would be irreversible on multi-generational timescales.” In September 2021, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) adopted a resolution calling upon IUCN Member States to support and implement a moratorium on deep seabed mining until specific conditions have been satisfied, including improved scientific understanding, independent review, application of precaution and institutional reforms (IUCN, 2021 WCC Motion 069). Despite recognizing the need for rigorous and binding environmental safeguards, the Secretary General of the ISA has described the rising calls for a moratorium on deep seabed mining in the Area as “anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-development and anti-international law.” All this is happening at the same time the United Nations is developing a new agreement under UNCLOS for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries, and the UN Ocean Envoy, Peter Thomson has called on the global community to recognize the importance of ensuring “synergy between the forthcoming global conferences addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and the well-being of the ocean.” (Open letter by Peter Thomson, UN Special Envoy for the Ocean, to Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC). The Open Letter further stresses that “the days are gone when any one of these existential challenges can be meaningfully negotiated without bringing the other two to the table.” This presentation will explore these issues in light of the legal regime established under UNCLOS and its 1994 Implementation Agreement, modern environmental norms, procedural principles and current scientific understanding about deep sea ecosystems and the potential impacts of deep seabed mining. It will further describe prior examples of internationally declared “moratoria” or conditional pauses on specific activities. Finally, it will explore some pathways ahead for addressing the potential contradictions between deep sea mining and protection of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries. (With many thanks to Pradeep Singh, LLM, Researcher, University of Bremen, who co-authored and assisted with this presentation) Kristina M. Gjerde, J.D., is Senior High Seas Advisor to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Global Marine and Polar Programme. Kristina received her Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law with a focus on comparative and international law, and practiced admiralty law for several years in a New York City law firm. For the past 30+ years, Kristina has focused on the nexus of law, science, and policy relevant to sustaining marine biodiversity. Kristina has co-founded four science-policy partnerships: the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, The Sargasso Sea Project, the High Seas Alliance and the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI). In addition to advancing a new UN treaty for marine life beyond boundaries, she has authored or co-authored more than 150 publications. Kristina is an Honorary Fellow of the University of Edinburgh School of Geosciences, an adjunct professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, and lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lecture summary: The legal regime for deep seabed mining in the international seabed Area is a rare example of the international community joining forces to regulate a potential new industry in the interests of humankind as a whole. As set forth under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international seabed Area and its mineral resources are the “common heritage of mankind”, on whose behalf the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an autonomous organization established under UNCLOS, is to act. The mandate comes with concomitant obligations for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits and adoption of the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects of deep-sea mining. Despite this historic legal framework based on visions of equity, common interest, environmental health and prosperity for all, tensions are rising. In late June 2021, the Government of the Republic of Nauru called for the ISA to accelerate its work on regulations for exploitation of deep seabed minerals so that NORI, its sponsored entity, could submit an application for authorization to mine as soon as 2023. Just prior to that, hundreds of marine scientists and policy experts issued a Call for a Pause to Deep-Sea Mining, expressing concern that deep-sea mining could result “in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning that would be irreversible on multi-generational timescales.” In September 2021, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) adopted a resolution calling upon IUCN Member States to support and implement a moratorium on deep seabed mining until specific conditions have been satisfied, including improved scientific understanding, independent review, application of precaution and institutional reforms (IUCN, 2021 WCC Motion 069). Despite recognizing the need for rigorous and binding environmental safeguards, the Secretary General of the ISA has described the rising calls for a moratorium on deep seabed mining in the Area as “anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-development and anti-international law.” All this is happening at the same time the United Nations is developing a new agreement under UNCLOS for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries, and the UN Ocean Envoy, Peter Thomson has called on the global community to recognize the importance of ensuring “synergy between the forthcoming global conferences addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and the well-being of the ocean.” (Open letter by Peter Thomson, UN Special Envoy for the Ocean, to Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC). The Open Letter further stresses that “the days are gone when any one of these existential challenges can be meaningfully negotiated without bringing the other two to the table.” This presentation will explore these issues in light of the legal regime established under UNCLOS and its 1994 Implementation Agreement, modern environmental norms, procedural principles and current scientific understanding about deep sea ecosystems and the potential impacts of deep seabed mining. It will further describe prior examples of internationally declared “moratoria” or conditional pauses on specific activities. Finally, it will explore some pathways ahead for addressing the potential contradictions between deep sea mining and protection of marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries. (With many thanks to Pradeep Singh, LLM, Researcher, University of Bremen, who co-authored and assisted with this presentation) Kristina M. Gjerde, J.D., is Senior High Seas Advisor to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Global Marine and Polar Programme. Kristina received her Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law with a focus on comparative and international law, and practiced admiralty law for several years in a New York City law firm. For the past 30+ years, Kristina has focused on the nexus of law, science, and policy relevant to sustaining marine biodiversity. Kristina has co-founded four science-policy partnerships: the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, The Sargasso Sea Project, the High Seas Alliance and the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI). In addition to advancing a new UN treaty for marine life beyond boundaries, she has authored or co-authored more than 150 publications. Kristina is an Honorary Fellow of the University of Edinburgh School of Geosciences, an adjunct professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, and lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

On Friday (April 9), India said it protested a U.S. decision to conduct a navy patrol in India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the western Indian Ocean. The Ministry of External Affairs highlighted India's position on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that the Convention does not authorise other States to carry out military manoeuvres or exercises in the EEZ without the consent of the coastal state. The U.S. Navy, however, defended the move, saying its ship USS John Paul Jones had carried out Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the Indian EEZ and challenged what it called India's “excessive maritime claims.” In this episode, we analyse the claims made by both sides, what the international law says, the significance of FONOPs and how they sit with India's views of its maritime rights and interests, and the broader implications for ideas of building a "rules-based order" in the Indo-Pacific region. Guest: Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation (ORF) Host: Ananth Krishnan, China correspondent, The Hindu

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or Law of the Sea - for short, is my favourite framework, not just because of its amazing name but because it is the foundation on which we build our management approaches when it comes to the sea. I could talk hours about what that means in practice, but for this episode I kept it short to the space boundaries of the UNCLOS and what that means and why it's important.

Over the past decade the hotly disputed South China Sea has become increasingly used as example of the rising strategic competition between the People’s Republic of China and the United States. Overlapping territory claims and maritime jurisdiction, strategic control over maritime domain, and differences in legal interpretations of freedom of navigation combine in a broader contest that affects multiple countries in Southeast Asia as they defend their maritime entitlements. Even regional non-claimant states such as Australia, Japan, India and South Korea claim stakes in the South China Sea, reflecting concerns about the shifting regional order and China’s intentions in the maritime domain. How do these different countries approach the South China Sea disputes? How are concepts around sovereignty, history and the law of the sea used and abused in foreign policy discussions and discourses? And what capacity is there for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – the so-called Constitution for the Oceans – to resolve these complex problems? Panel Gregory Poling (Director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies) Dr Lynn Kuok (Shangri-La Dialogue Senior Fellow for Asia-Pacific Security, International Institute for Strategic Studies) Dr Rebecca Strating (Executive Director, La Trobe Asia, La Trobe University) Chair Professor Nick Bisley (Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University) Recorded on 15 June, 2020.

The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was agreed in 1982 and was signed by 159 countries. It did not enter into force until a year after it had been ratified by 60 states. The 60th instrument of ratification was deposited on 16 November 1993, and the Convention entered into force on 16 November 1994. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this episode of Byte-Sized Human Geography, China is front and center.  We take a brief look back at the relationship with the US and China, then we discuss possible scenarios of what what could happen with their quarter of a trillion dollar relationship in the future. Looking at the current events, it's possible that we are already seeing signs of what's to come.This is Human Geography byte-sized - big concepts in small chunks of time for all learners at every level. It's Human Geography, made simple!Support this podcast by clicking “Subscribe” to get the latest updates as they happen.Email your questions and podcasts ideas to bytesizedhumangeo@gmail.comListener Notes:EEZs - Exclusive Economic Zones - connected to the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which says that countries can control from their coastline to 200 nautical miles out - fishing, drilling, etc.Additional Information:Census Page of Trade Balances with ChinaTimeline of China's Modern HistoryChinas Nine Dash Line is DangerousGreat Maps from Wikipedia of SEZsWhat China Has Been Building in the South China SeaDoes ASEAN Support US Military Presence in South China Sea

During December 2019 and January 2020, Indonesia and China have again become involved in a series of periodic confrontations over fisheries to the north of Indonesia’s Natuna Islands. Chinese Coast Guard vessels have accompanied a fleet of fishing boats in an area China says is part of its traditional fishing grounds, but which Indonesia claims as its exclusive economic zone under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Indonesia has sent naval and civilian patrol vessels in an effort to force the Chinese craft to leave, and Indonesian president Joko Widodo has personally visited the Natunas to underline the importance of the dispute to Indonesia, as he did in the aftermath of a previous confrontation with China in 2016. What do such incidents tell us about the implications of China’s rise for Indonesia, and how is the Indonesian government tackling the challenge of China as an ever larger strategic and economic power on its doorstep? In this week’s Talking Indonesia podcast, the first episode for 2020, Dr Dave McRae discusses these issues with Emirza Adi Syailendra, Associate Research Fellow in the Indonesia Programme of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who has written extensively on Indonesia and its foreign policy approach to China. The Talking Indonesia podcast is co-hosted by Dr Dave McRae from the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute, Dr Jemma Purdey from Monash University, Dr Dirk Tomsa from La Trobe University, and Dr Charlotte Setijadi from the Singapore Management University. Look out for a new Talking Indonesia podcast every fortnight. Photo credit: M Risyal Hidayat for Atara Foto

As the Australian government continues to invest in its signature 'Pacific Step up' program, Barry Jones, manager of the Pacific Patrol Boat program (PPB), joins host Phil Tarrant to discuss the role of Australian naval shipbuilding and the University of Tasmania's Australian Maritime College in supporting regional security. Originally designed to fulfil a maritime border, fisheries, resource-security and economic exclusion zone (EEZ) patrol capacity following changes made by the United Nations to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Australian-designed and built Pacific Patrol Boats have served as an important contribution to the south Pacific. During this podcast, Jones will discuss Australia's contribution to the PPB ranging from the original design and construction phase, through to the existing training, maintenance and sustainment programs keeping the vessels and crews capable in the current operating environment. Jones and Tarrant will also cover the rationale behind supporting the PPB project and the similar guidance behind introducing the platforms in the 1980s, the expansion of the program with the introduction of the Guardian Class vessels and the addition of Timor-Leste into the program. They will also discuss the role the Australian Maritime College, part of the University of Tasmania, plays in supporting the development of both Pacific and Australian capability to train, develop and maintain skills across leadership, maintenance, administration and all the facets needed to run a modern naval vessel. Enjoy the podcast, The Defence Connect team  

Subsea cable systems need to navigate many interacting demands and complexities. In coastal areas, they are subject to regulatory requirements of permitting and environmental perspectives, that weigh heavily in the case of proposed projects. Once deployed, subsea cables can face outage risks from commercial shipping and fishing activities. Traditionally, in international waters, subsea cabling has enjoyed freedoms under Art 112 of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)but will this be retained, and in what form? How should the subsea cable operate as the sea floor is industrialized? Subsea Cables vs the Environment On the high seas, defined as the ocean space between areas of national jurisdiction, new ideas and legislation may well further impact the subsea telecom industry. Environmental issues are building to protect the sea bed. Pressures to support Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) may increasingly rope off marine areas from any subsea telecom activity. Subsea Cables v Commercial Interests Deep sea mining both in its exploration and exploitation could pose a significant threat to the operation of existing cable systems and the routing of future ones. How should the subsea cable sector approach international negotiations to set future legislation? In many parts of the world, the fishing industry and the subsea cable industry often enjoy an uneasy relationship: most cable breaks are as the result of fishing activity. But one case study, from Oregon, shows an unblemished record. It exemplifies perhaps how the cable and fishing communities should interact. Subsea Cables v Security Finally, as major and critical elements of intercontinental infrastructure, subsea cables are seeing more attention given to security issues. Whilst the threats may appear as yet ill defined, subsea cables have been weaponised at least once before. The First World War saw the opposing powers cut subsea cables for military benefit. Today, there are both virtual and physical security concerns in the subsea telecom world and fears have been voiced that submarines are being equipped with cutters to sever subsea cable systems. Cybersecurity issues are also evident. In this podcast, from Submarine Networks World in Singapore, interviewees discuss key current issues and look variously at what is likely to emerge in the current environment. Interviewees: Graham Evans, Chair, International Cable Protection Committee Denise Toombs, Partner, Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Scott McMullen, Chair, Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee

Sebastian Unger Human interventions in marine ecosystems over the last decades have put oceans and coasts on unsustainable trajectories. Numerous factors contribute to the poor state of the marine environment, including overfishing, onshore and offshore pollution, climate change, and the increasing demand for diverse marine resources. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the management of human activities is pursued through a fragmented institutional system, making it difficult to ensure that marine resources are used sustainably. Most notable among the various gaps in the legal system is the lack of a comprehensive international agreement for the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), which cover almost 60% of the world's oceans.  Achieving ocean sustainability requires far-reaching changes in ocean governance and the use of marine resources. With many of the drivers of ocean degradation beyond the purview of marine management institutions, this will require not only greater integration within governance but also in relation to other sustainability policies and frameworks, touching on matters as diverse as employment, food security, sustainable consumption and production and climate action. While UNCLOS provides a comprehensive legal framework for the oceans, it is becoming increasingly clear that current governance frameworks must be revamped if we are to achieve ocean sustainability.

The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and the Chinese government have denounced the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague’s recent ruling. According to The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provisions, island-building activity and territorial claims in the South China Sea violated international and environmental law. Was China bound by this ruling, although China objects to The Hague Arbitration Court’s jurisdiction, and claims that consent was not given? When international law, agreements, and norms are summarily voided by a losing nation, what should be the international legal and political response? Regarding international agreements specifically, does this case provide warnings for signatories to treaties and agreements? Are there lessons for the United States in the consideration of potential reservations, opt-outs, alternate venues, or waivers, and whether they were given proper regard by the Court? -- Featuring: Prof. James Kraska, Howard S. Levie Professor in the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and Prof. Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, Hofstra University School of Law.