Forum shopping under community trade mark regulation

Abstract

Taking a state to court for maritime disputes is not necessarily a straightforward issue for a given state under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This article examines state choices under Article 287 when a disagreement has escalated beyond negotiations. To identify and concretise these options, the focus is on an Arctic case, namely the Svalbard Treaty, signed in 1920. The dispute in question is Norway's unilateral decision to establish a 200 mile fishery protection management regime around the archipelago in 1976, and reserve the right to later transform this into a full Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Many states have threatened to take Norway to an international court over this action, but as of yet, no state has taken the step to fulfil this threat. The article explores a future scenario wherein Norway chooses to change the management regime into an EEZ, in light of changing distributions of marine resources under a changing climate, including snow crab, mackerel and other fish species. Court choices are discussed relative to which – if any - may best be suited for this case – both from the perspective of Norway as well as its potential challenger(s).