Category Archives: High Seas

There exist over 430 submarine cables in operation around theworld that carry over more than 97 per cent of transoceanic databetween countries and continents.2 These cables providephysical links between the continents that enable our digital worldto function, and have been described by the United Nations as a'critical communications infrastructure' that is'vitally important to the global economy and the nationalsecurity of all states'.3 From a solely domesticviewpoint, these cables face a plethora of legal requirements asone follows the cable from the beachhead in any given country tothe ends of that country's territorial sea and beyond. Thereare multiple legal requirements at the national, provincial andlocal government levels that can regulate such cables, which anycable will face or need to satisfy. Installing such a cable canrequire in each country at the outset seafloor lease agreements,environmental clearance certificates, heritage certificates for theonshore landing and the near offshore maritime landing to ensurecultural heritage is preserved, maritime permits, land-use permits,and building permits. The ongoing maintenance for existing cablesruns a similar gauntlet and provides numerous grounds for potentialliability with the law of the coastal state applying to cablelandings and at least to the edge of the territorial sea. Cabledamage claims are by their nature multi-jurisdictional and requirea strategic approach to be taken by the parties involved and theirlawyers, bearing in mind the various jurisdictions potentiallyinvolved.

Where things can get complicated, however, is beyond thestate's territorial sea in instances where the cable passesthrough maritime zones that are disputed. Owing to theirinternational nature, submarine cables linking different countriesand continents inevitably cross multiple maritime zones in whichcoastal states may have jurisdiction or sovereign rights. Indisputed maritime areas, namely areas where one coastal state'sentitlement to a maritime zone overlaps with another coastalstate's entitlement to the same zone,4 submarinecables and activities that arise from them may therefore become asource of potential dispute. The question then arises as to whatone can do in the situation where a submarine cable passes throughdisputed waters.

This article focuses itself on these situations where a cablefinds itself in disputed maritime areas. It will first provide anoverview of submarine communication cables, and the legal regimethat applies to them under public international law. It will thenanalyse the scenario where submarine cables cross through disputedmaritime areas, and will set out where disputes that arise fromsuch situations can be addressed.

There are two main types of submarine cables: communicationcables and power cables.5 This chapter focuses on theformer. In short, a submarine communication cable consists of'a set of six to 24 glass fibers, an electrical conductor, aninternal steel strength member, and a protective sheath of marinegrade polypropylene, which are constructed to withstand harshenvironmental conditions for up to 25 years'.6 Inless technical terms, submarine cables are fibre optic cables nothicker than garden hoses, but that are built in a way that enablesthem to last for up to 25 years underwater, and to support the vastmajority of international telecommunicationsworldwide.7

These cables are typically laid on or buried within the seabed.In practice, this is done in two stages. First, an 'optimalcable route' is determined through surveys which take intoaccount landing sites, the seabed itself, the fishing routes, thecable and pipeline crossings, and boundaries with other coastalstates.8 Second, once the designated route is approved,cables are deployed by a trained crew on special, cable-layingvessels, which roll the cables out of holding tanks.9Depending on the route, the cable can either be buried beneath theseabed, or will be laid on the seabed itself (but usually only atdepths of more than 1,500 metres, that is, a depth that enablesless risk arising from human activities such as fishing oranchoring).10

The majority of countries now rely on submarine cables for theircommunication needs.11 To date, the global cable networkis composed of more than 430 cables,12 amounting to morethan 1.3 million kilometres of submarine communication cables, andcarries over more than 97 per cent of transoceanic data betweencountries and continents.13 There are no substitutes forthese submarine communication cables. By way of example, were thenetwork to disappear, the entire capacity of the Earth'ssatellite network could handle only 7 per cent of the data producedby the United States.14

Financially, submarine cables are essential. They carry anexcess of US$10 trillion a day of financial transfers,15and process some 15 million financial transactionsdaily.16 The Society for Worldwide Interbank FinancialTelecommunications (SWIFT) relies on submarine cables to sharefinancial data to 'more than 8,300 member financialinstitutions in 195 countries',17 and the USClearing House Interbank Payment System processes over US$1trillion a day to more than 22 countries.18Unsurprisingly, the staff director for management of the FederalReserve has highlighted the importance of submarine cable networks:'when the communication networks go down, the financial sectordoes not grind to a halt, it snaps to a halt.'19

As the United Nations Oceans and the Law of the Sea Report ofthe Secretary-General dated 9 September 2020 underscores, the abovenumbers have only intensified as a result of the covid-19pandemic.20 With an increase in the world's internettraffic of approximately 25 to 50 per cent, reliance on submarinecables is more important now than ever before:21

Reliance on submarine cables, whichcarry approximately 99 per cent of the world's Internettraffic, intensified by approximately 2550 per cent, asusage for communication, commerce, teleworking, telemedicine andtele-education expanded.

Functioning as a 'backbone of the internationaltelecommunications system',22 submarine cables aretherefore essential to the critical global infrastructure and playa direct role in the global economy.23

By their very nature, submarine cables cross a number ofmaritime zones over which various forums' international legalprovisions may apply. In light of this, it is essential tounderstand the international legal regime applicable to submarinecables.

There are four primary legal instruments that set out theinternational regime for submarine cables: (1) the 1884 Conventionfor the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables (the 1884Convention), (2) the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas (nowsuperseded), (3) the 1958 Convention on Continental Shelf (nowsuperseded), and (4) the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS).

The earliest international law convention on submarine cables isthe 1884 Convention. It is a stand-alone convention that deals onlywith the protection of submarine telegraph cables, and has as itsmain goal that states adopt legislation that protects cables laying'outside territorial waters'.24 Of relevance,Article II sets out that it is a 'punishable offence' tobreak or injure a submarine cable wilfully or by culpablenegligence (with the caveat that this does not apply if this wasdone with the object of saving lives or a ship).25 InArticle XII, the signatories agree to implement nationallegislation to impose the penalties for violating thetreaty.26 The 1884 Convention presently has 36 stateparties.27

More recently, maritime law has played a crucial role in thelegal regime applicable to maritime cables. As the GenevaConvention on the High Seas and the Convention on the ContinentalShelf of 195828 were both superseded29 by the1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the focus inthis article will be solely on the latter. One hundred and nineteenstates signed the UNCLOS, and it presently has 168 MemberStates.30 UNCLOS establishes legal regimes for theterritorial seas, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), thecontinental shelf, and the high seas. Each of these regimesprovides states with rights and obligations relevant to the layingand maintenance of submarine cables in the different maritimeareas.

Starting first with the territorial seas, according to UNCLOSArticle 2, a coastal State's sovereignty will extend beyond itsland territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea,described as the 'territorial sea'.31 Accordingto UNCLOS Article 3, territorial seas may not exceed 12 nauticalmiles from the coastal baseline.32

Within its territorial sea, a coastal state has rights andduties that are inherent in sovereignty. For example, UNCLOSArticle 21(1)(c) sets out that the coastal State is allowed toadopt laws and measures for the 'protection of cables andpipelines', which may limit innocent passage of vessels withinterritorial seas.33 Coastal states therefore haveextensive authority to regulate ships engaged in layingoperations.34

In light of the importance of submarine cables, countries haveestablished detailed regulations for any cable system that seeks toland in a state or to transit in its territorial sea.35For example, Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, Colombia and Denmarkhave modern domestic laws in their national waters that establishprotected zones around international cables that land in thesecountries.36 In practice, coastal states will usuallyrequire permits, licences and environmental conditions to be metbefore permission is given to deploy submarine cables in thesemaritime zones.37

UNCLOS also creates a specific legal regime for the EEZ and thecontinental shelf, where coastal states will enjoy specificsovereign rights over the exploration and exploitation of naturalresources, but other states will still have the right to navigateand the freedom to lay and maintain submarine cables.38The EEZ regime is set out in Part V of UNCLOS, and the continentalshelf regime in Part VI of UNCLOS. As both maritime zones largelyoverlap, and as the rights set out in the EEZ regarding the seabedand subsoil are to be 'exercised in accordance with Part VI onthe continental shelf',39 the regimes for both theEEZ and the continental shelf will be addressed together in thebelow subsection.40

The EEZ regime is set out in Part V of UNCLOS, which recognisedthe rights of the coastal state to claim an EEZ up to 200 nauticalmiles from the territorial sea baseline,41 that givescoastal states sovereign rights to the exploration and exploitationof resources of 'the waters superjacent to the seabed and theseabed and subsoil' (which includes both non-living resourcessuch as oil and gas and living resources such asfisheries).42 Article 56 of UNCLOS sets out that a statealso has jurisdiction over (1) the establishment and use ofartificial islands, installations and structures, (2) marinescientific research and (3) the protection and preservation of themarine environment.43

With regard to the continental shelf, the legal regime is setout in Part VI of UNCLOS, which states that a coastal state hassovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the continental shelfand exploiting its natural resources (i.e., only non-livingresources),44 which consist of 'the mineral andother non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil, together with. . . organisms which either are immobile on or under the seabed orare unable to move except in constant physical contact with theseabed or the subsoil'.45 These rights areexclusive, in the sense that if the coastal state does not explorethe continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one mayundertake these activities without the express consent of thecoastal state.46 The continental shelf extends over 200nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline, and may(depending on qualifying geological criteria under UNCLOS) berecognised as extending beyond the 200 nautical miles boundary upto a maximum of 350 nautical miles (this is known as the extendedcontinental shelf (ECS)).47

UNCLOS has therefore two distinct legal bases (Part V and PartVI of UNCLOS) for rights over the seabed within 200 nautical miles.Article 56(3) of UNCLOS resolves this issue and provides that therights set out in the EEZ regarding the seabed and subsoil shouldbe 'exercised in accordance with Part VI on the continentalshelf'.48 For anything beyond 200 nautical miles,that is, in the ECS, the continental shelf regime appliessolely.

Both the regime of the EEZ and of the continental shelf are verysimilar with regards to submarine cables. The rights and freedomsof submarine cables on the EEZ and the continental shelf are setout in Articles 58 and 79 UNCLOS, respectively and as setout above, both regimes will apply simultaneously for rights overthe seabed within 200 nautical miles. First, UNCLOS affirms thatall states have the freedom to lay submarine cables in the EEZ(Article 58 of UNCLOS)49 and the continental shelf(article 79(1) of UNCLOS),50 and that coastal states'may not impede the laying or maintenance of suchcables'.51 The right of 'all States' to laysubmarine cables should not be read restrictively, as in practicemany submarine cables and pipelines are privately owned, and laidby private entities. The term therefore refers to the right ofstates and their nationals. Article 79 UNCLOS has been interpretedto mean that permits, taxes or fees imposed on internationaltelecommunication cables by coastal states outside of theirterritories are not authorised under UNCLOS.52 Layingsubmarine cables also includes the right to repair and maintainthem, both for the EEZ (article 58 of UNCLOS)53 and thecontinental shelf (implicitly accepted in Article 79(2) ofUNCLOS).54

However, the right to lay cables in the EEZ or continental shelfis not unlimited. States or companies conducting cable operationsin the EEZ or continental shelf must have due regard to the cablesor pipelines already in position and not prejudice the repair ofexisting cables (Article 79(5) of UNCLOS),55 as well asto the rights and duties of the coastal state in the EEZ and thecontinental shelf, to the extent that it overlaps with theEEZ.56 In particular, it has been underlined that these'rights and duties' correspond to rights over theexploration and exploitation of living and non-living resources,other economic resources such as the production of energy from thewater, currents and winds, jurisdiction over artificial islands,installations and structures, marine scientific research,protection and preservation of the marine environment,etc.57

In addition, Article 79(4) of UNCLOS expressly sets out anexception to the freedom to lay submarine cables in theEEZ/continental shelf when these cables are used 'in connectionwith the exploration of its continental shelf or exploitation ofits resources or the operations of artificial islands,installations and structures under itsjurisdiction'.58 In such a situation, the coastalstate will keep its jurisdiction over submarine cables. This is adirect consequence of a coastal state's sovereign rights overthe resources of the continental shelf or EEZ, and would appear toapply to submarine cables used to provide communications for oiland gas platforms and wind farms:59

The coastal state's jurisdiction over submarine cables underArticle 79(4) is a direct consequence of its sovereign rights overthe resources of the continental shelf or EEZ as well as over otheractivities for the economic exploitation and exploration of thezone (such as the production of energy from water, currents andwinds), and its jurisdiction over the establishment and use ofartificial islands, installations, and structures. This provisionwould appear to apply to submarine communications and power cablesused to provide communications for oil and gas platforms and windfarms.

Moreover, Article 58 UNCLOS sets out that States conductingcable operations in the EEZ (and the continental shelf to theextent it overlaps with the EEZ) 'shall comply with the lawsand regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with theprovisions of this Convention and other rules of international lawin so far as they are not incompatible with thispart'.60 The question here is to what extent acoastal state can regulate cable operations in the EEZ orcontinental shelf.61 Under Article 79(2) of UNCLOS,coastal states are permitted to impose reasonable measures 'forthe exploration of the continental shelf, the exploitation of itsnatural resources' and the 'prevention, reduction andcontrol of pollution from pipelines'.62 It isimportant to note here that the criteria is for the measures to be'reasonable'. Applied to the case of submarine cables(rather than pipelines), a coastal state could, therefore, subjectsubmarine cables to reasonable measures if this is for theexploration of the continental shelf, and for the exploitation ofits natural resources (as the issue regarding pollution appliesmore to pipelines than submarine telecommunicationcables).63 It has been argued (although as will bediscussed below this is not a universally shared view) thattelecoms cables are not involved in the exploration or exploitationof natural resources.64 Therefore, a coastal state wouldnot, for example, have the basis to impede the maintenance of cablesystems on the EEZ or continental shelf by imposing permits,delays, taxes, fees, custom duties or guard boatrequirements.65

Article 79(3) of UNCLOS also states that 'the delineation ofthe course for the laying of such pipelines on the continentalshelf is subject to the consent of the coastalState'.66 The wording of the clause implies thatwhile the delineation of the course of pipelines is subject to theconsent of the coastal state, the delineation of the course ofsubmarine telecoms cables are not. However, a state could rely onthe right to impose 'reasonable measures' for theexploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of itsnatural resources as per Article 79(2) of UNCLOS as a legal basisto justify the delineation of the course for laying submarinecables.67 Finally, although the coastal state thereforemaintains some rights in the EEZ or continental shelf with regardto submarine cables, these remain strongly limited by Article 78(2)of UNCLOS, which highlights that 'the exercise of the rights ofthe coastal State over the continental shelf must not infringe orresult in any unjustifiable interference with navigation and otherrights and freedoms of other States as provided for in thisConvention.'

Finally, the UNCLOS sets out the legal regime for submarinecables in the high seas. Article 87(1)(c) of UNCLOS affirms thefreedom of the high seas, which includes the freedom for all states(and their nationals)68 to lay submarine cables, both onthe continental shelf as seen above (subject to restrictions justdiscussed),69 and beyond the continental shelf as perArticle 112(1) UNCLOS.70 This includes the possibilitiesof repairing existing cables.71

Although maritime zones appear to be clearly delineated by theUNCLOS, the reality is that there can be overlapping claims to amaritime zone. These overlapping claims generally arise from thecalculation of baselines from which the maritime zones aredelineated, and the different approaches taken by states in doingso. Overlapping claims are problematic to the countries involved asit creates ambiguity as to which one between them has the right toexploit the area such as through royalties or licence fees forsubmarine cables traversing the area, and this ambiguity canprevent international investors from investing in thearea.72

In the first instance, of course, states can negotiate asolution to their boundary dispute directly. International lawprovides some incentive for such a resolution as until the disputeis resolved, neither is to undertake activity in the area. Eachclaim of maritime boundary is legally valid, and each is thereforelegally entitled to claim the rights of exploration andexploitation in the disputed area.73 There exists apresumption in international law that in the absence of a'dividing line', each of the affected states will beentitled to claim the relevant rights in the area inquestion.74

In such a situation, international law provides that the statesinvolved are to agree an equitable solution. UNCLOS Articles 74(1)and 83(1) are identically phrased as follows:

The delimitation of the exclusiveeconomic zone [or 'the continental shelf'] between Stateswith opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement onthe basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of theStatute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achievean equitable solution.

In the interim, UNCLOS provides that neither state is to takeany action that will prejudice the final delimitation. Articles74(3) (for the EEZ) and 83(3) (for the continental shelf) ofUNCLOS, are again identically worded in this regard:

Pending agreement as provided for inParagraph 1, the states concerned, in a spirit of understanding andcooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisionalarrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitionalperiod, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the finalagreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to thefinal delimitation.75

What then of a forum for these disputes necessary to unlock theeconomic potential of these areas?

The traditional forum to whom one can submit disputes overborders or between states is of course the International Court ofJustice (ICJ),76 and the ICJ has entertained disputesover maritime delimitation before,77 primarily inrelation to oil and gas exploration. It was the ICJ to which Greeceaddressed its dispute with Turkey concerning the determination ofthe continental shelf boundary in the disputed area of the AegeanSea.78

While the ICJ remains an option, UNCLOS provides further optionsfor signatory states. According to Article 287 of UNCLOS, a stateis free to make a declaration indicating the means of settlement itchooses between the ITLOS, the ICJ, or an arbitral tribunal forgeneral disputes concerning the interpretation or application ofthe Convention and that do not belong to a more specificcategory.79 If the choices of the parties match, thenthe common choice will prevail.80 If not, then anarbitral tribunal will be constituted in accordance with Annex VIIof the UNCLOS. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague willusually be the institution that provides the arbitration servicesfor these Annex VII arbitrations. In fact, the PCA has served in'all but one of the UNCLOS Annex VII arbitrations todate'.81 Further, these procedures are compulsory,and parties shall submit the dispute to the court or tribunalhaving jurisdiction according to the UNCLOS provisions unless theyare able to resolve their dispute peacefully.

Other, specific categories of disputes are expressly attributedto ITLOS. The first specific category concerns provisional measurespending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a disputeis submitted (which provisional measures can therefore be decidedby ITLOS).82 This could apply, for example, in thecontext of disputes relating to submarine cables in disputedmaritime areas when one state acts in a way which is seen tocontradict the obligation of mutual restraint set out in Articles74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS. A second specific category concerns theprompt release of vessels, which disputes must also be submitted toITLOS unless otherwise agreed by the state parties within 10 daysfrom the time of detention.83 One can foresee such apotential situation arising, for example, where a cable-laying shipis seized by one of the disputing countries. A final type ofdispute between states is set out in Article 288(2) of UNCLOS,which provides that the settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS can beextended to other conventions related to UNCLOS, for example otherdisputes relating to the law of the sea.84

For many states, compulsory jurisdiction as set out in UNCLOSwas only acceptable if certain issues were excluded fromit.85 However, the possibility of making reservationswas excluded since UNCLOS contains a general prohibition ofreservations in Article 309 of UNCLOS: 'No reservations orexceptions may be made to this Convention unless expresslypermitted by other articles of the Convention.'86 Acompromise was reached by enabling some flexibility in the rulesconcerning the settlement of disputes, set out in Articles 297 and298 of UNCLOS.87 Article 298 UNCLOS allows state partiesto exclude a limited number of categories of disputes from bindingdispute settlement by a declaration made by the parties toUNCLOS.88 These declarations may be made upon signature,ratification or accession to the UNCLOS or at any moment, and maybe withdrawn at any moment.89 They must be depositedwith the Secretary General of the United Nations.90 Asset out in Article 298 of UNCLOS, the state need simply declarethat 'it does not accept any one or more of the proceduresprovided for' with respect to specific categories ofdispute.91

There are three categories of exclusions listed in Article 298of UNCLOS, which must be 'interpreted narrowly anduniformly' because provided by the UNCLOS and not drafted bythe state parties:92 disputes relating to theinterpretation of articles concerning, inter alia, seaboundary delimitations; disputes concerning military activities;and disputes where the Security Council exercises functionsassigned to it by the UN Charter.93 Most states,including, for example, China, made declarations using the wholerange of exclusions.94 In light of the rule ofkompetenz-kompetenz, it is then a task for the selectedtribunal to appreciate whether the subject matter of the disputefalls within the authorised exceptions, and therefore the scope ofits own jurisdiction.95 It is important to highlightthat states will not be allowed to make exclusions that go beyondthe scope set out in Article 298 UNCLOS. For example, Russia made adeclaration excluding some matters from the compulsory settlementmechanism that went beyond the issues listed in Article 298 ofUNCLOS, in particular disputes 'concerning law enforcementactivities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights orjurisdiction'.96 In the Arctic Sunrise disputebetween the Netherlands and Russia, the Tribunal scrutinised thisdeclaration and stated in its award that 'Russia'sDeclaration can only apply to an exception that is permitted underArticle 298.'97 Therefore, as far as the disputesconcerning law enforcement activities went, the only limits to theTribunal's jurisdiction resulted in the limits set out inArticle 297(2) and (3), contrary to Russia'sdeclaration.98

Article 297 of UNCLOS deals with disputes that may arise aboutthe way a coastal state exercises its freedoms andrights.99 Fortunately, Article 297(1) affirms theprinciple of the applicability of the compulsory procedures, inparticular in regard to 'the freedoms and rights of navigation,overflight, or the laying of submarine cables andpipelines'.100 This article therefore makesexpressly clear that disputes arising from the way a coastal stateexercises its sovereign rights relating to the laying of submarinecables shall be subject to the compulsory settlement mechanism inUNCLOS. Article 297(1) thereby gives the highest level ofprotection to the laying and maintaining of submarine cables, asdisputes relating to this subject matter will be subject to themandatory requirements of the dispute provisions inUNCLOS:101

[I]n the context of disputes ofcompeting uses in the EEZ, upon the continental shelf, or on thehigh seas, it is of special importance to recognize that the layingand maintaining of submarine cables enjoys the highest level ofprotection under the UNCLOS dispute resolution provisions wheresuch disputes with coastal States are subject to the mandatoryrequirements of these provisions.

Between 1969 and 2013, there were about 20 maritime boundarydisputes adjudicated before an international forum. Ten were beforethe ICJ, one was before ITLOS, two were Annex VII cases and sixproceeded before ad hoc arbitration panels. Of these cases, the ICJhas taken an average of five years and nine months to conclude,while the initial two UNCLOS Annex VII cases lasted between 26 and43 months, respectively. The only boundary case to have come beforeITLOS at that time took 27 months to conclude. Since 2014, therehas been at least one additional case before the ICJ, and onebefore ITLOS.

While in all cases, there is the issue of delimiting theboundary, the more interesting disputes and those likely to addressprivate actors most immediately, albeit indirectly, address theobligation of mutual restraint that each state has pursuant toArticles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS. To date, there have been threecases in which an international decision-making body has beencalled upon to adjudicate Articles 74(3) and 83(3). The first twowere Guyana v. Surinam, which was an arbitration takingplace under Annex VII. The second was Ivory Coast v.Ghana, which was heard by the Special Chamber of ITLOS in2017, and the third was Somalia v. Kenya, which proceededin the ICJ and was decided in October 2021. In each of theseinstances, the boundary was delimitated, and brought clarity to endthe dispute.

As such, international law provides for several forums forresolving potential disputes in contested maritime areas, albeitthe capacity to act in them has so far been limited to stateactors. Under customary international law, rights accrue not tonatural or juridical persons, but rather to their state ofnationality, which can enforce alone the rights through themechanism of diplomatic protection. A considerable body ofauthority supports the view that natural or juridical persons arenot themselves the holder of rights under customary internationallaw. As such, the default situation is that they may not invokethose rights against a given state unless specifically given thoserights, as well as jurisdictional consent by a State to be made thesubject of action. Nevertheless, these disputes have the ability toaffect private commercial actors engaged in activity in a disputedzone.

Given that UNCLOS provides that neither state is to take anyaction that will prejudice the final delimitation pursuant toArticles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS, the same forums are availablefor interim measures to prevent unilateral activity in suchdisputed areas. As one can expect, the economic and politicalimplications of delineating a line between two states involved areimmense. For some countries, the seabed resources 'could provecrucial to the well-being and political stability of coastalstates'.102 Moreover, maritime delimitation is aprocess that has been proven to betime-consuming.103

Accordingly, the pressure to take action before the resolutionof the dispute can thus be immense. This pressure was demonstratedin the situation between Guyana and Surinam. In the year 2000, anoil rig and drill ship of Guyana concessionaires were ordered toleave and escorted from the area by the Surinamese navy. Guyanainitiated arbitral proceedings on 24 February 2004, pursuant toArticles 286 and 287 and Annex VII of United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), with a decision coming only in 2007.That decision found that both parties had breached the others'rights under Articles 73(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS for the actionsthey took prior to the final decision.104

Perhaps intending to avoid the same result where both partieswould be found having violated the Articles 73(3) and 83(3) rightsof the other as in Guyana v. Suriname, the parties inIvory Coast v. Ghana took a different approachwhen their delimitation dispute crystallised in a dispute in 2014.Thereafter, Ghana launched arbitration proceedings against theIvory Coast under Annex VII of UNCLOS in September2014.105 In February 2015, the Ivory Coast filed arequest for provisional measures with the Special Chamber, seekingan order directing Ghana to 'take all steps to suspend all oilexploration and exploitation operations under way in the disputedarea' pending delimitation of the maritime boundary. ITLOSissued its order on provisional measures in April 2015. It orderedthat no new drilling should take place in the disputed area pendingthe decision of the Special Chamber on the maritime boundary.However, it rejected the Ivory Coast's request that ongoingactivities also be suspended, because it considered that suchsuspension would 'entail the risk of considerable financialloss to Ghana and its concessionaires'.

Subsequent to ITLOS's April 2015 provisional order, Ghana,which had issued two concessions in the area, wrote to itsconcessionaire, and invited it to take appropriate steps to allowGhana to comply with its obligations. The subsequent cessation ofactivity was the subject of a force majeure claim betweenthe owner of a deep water semi-submersible drilling.106Consequently, while the legal proceedings involve states, therepercussions inevitably flowed down to private actors. The casewas finally decided in 2017, delimiting the maritime boundary anddismissing the Ivory Coast's claims against Ghana for violatingits Article 83(3) sovereign rights for its conduct in the interim,based at least in part on the discussions held between the partiesto resolve the dispute and Ghana having complied with theprovisional order. While no similar request for provisional reliefwas made in the more recent case involving Somalia and Kenya, theICJ in that case held that activity in a disputed zone does notviolate the other state's sovereign rights, even if the area isultimately allocated to the other.107

To date, the only jurisprudence over this issue arises in thecontext of oil and gas exploration. Whether a tribunal wouldsimilarly be persuaded to order provisional measures in the contextof submarine communication cables, as there is less likelihood ofphysical damage to the seabed or subsoil of the area under dispute,has not as yet been the subject of review. Indeed, the distinctionbetween activity that is manifestly prejudicial and irreparable andactivity that is not originates from the order of the ICJ in theAegean Sea Continental Shelf case of 1976 addressingGreece's request for interim measures pursuant to Article 41 ofthe ICJ Statutes. The court rejected the request on the basis thatexploratory activities conducted by Turkey are not likely to causea permanent effect as would drilling and the establishment ofinstallations.108 The tribunal in Ivory Coast v.Ghana in its preliminary ruling similarly prevented Ghana fromcarrying out any further drilling activity but did not order it tocease less intrusive activity such as seismic surveying, althoughit ordered Ghana to take all steps necessary to ensure theinformation gleaned could not be used the detriment of Ivory Coast,suggesting to some that the less intrusive acts could form thebasis for a violation of sovereignty albeit it not to the standardrequired for preliminary relief.109 Thus, althoughsubmarine cable installations are generally considered lessintrusive than other activities such as drilling and extraction,the activity, if carried out in disputed zones, may still be foundviolative of sovereign rights.

Submarine cables lie at the heart of our world'sinternational telecommunication systems and have become essentialto the modern society and economy. Owing to their internationalnature, submarine cables inevitably pass through differentinternational maritime zones, which at times may be disputed asbetween two states. In such event, a concessionaire of one of thestates may find itself in the middle, and the only real solution isto resolve the underlying issue, that is, launch a process ofdelimitation to assess to whom the disputed maritime area belongs.In the interim, international law provides that neither state is totake any action that would prejudice the final delimitation.Fortunately, there exist forums for the resolution of the moreintractable of such disputes, as well as jurisprudence, which isnow lending some degree of certainty to these circumstances.

Footnotes

1 Michael J Stepek is a partner at Winston & StrawnLLP and visiting scholar at the Center for Oceans and Coastal Law,University of Maine.

2 United Nations, 75th session, 9 September 2020,'Oceans and the law of the Sea Report of the SecretaryGeneral', paragraph 8, p. 3; 40th Edition of Subtel Forum'sSubmarine Cable Almanac, 2021, pp. 1617. FinancialTimes, 29 March 2021, 'Facebook to build submarine cableslinking US and Indonesia', Mercedes Ruehl. See also Blog of theEuropean Journal of International Law, 29 July 2020,'The Law of Maritime Neutrality and Submarine Cables',James Kraska; Lawfare, 21 November 2017, 'Cutting the Cord: TheLegal Regime Protecting Undersea Cables', Garrett Hinck;TeleGeography, Submarine Cable Frequently Asked Questions, lastaccessed on 22 March 2022; Catholic University Journal of Lawand Technology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1,'Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: AnIntersectional Analysis', p. 22, Tara Davenpart.

3 United Nations, General Assembly, 7 December 2010,65/37 Oceans and the Law of the Sea, pp. 3 and 21. See alsoCatholic University Journal of Law and Technology,December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, Submarine Cables, Cybersecurityand International Law: An Intersectional Analysis, Tara Davenpart,as well as Lawfare, 21 November 2017, Cutting the Cord: The LegalRegime Protecting Undersea Cables, Garrett Hinck.

4 UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence Vol.5(1), 2016, Oil and Gas Development in Disputed Waters underUNCLOS, Constantinos Yiallourides.

5 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, p. 60.

6 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, at p. 62.

7 Data Center Dynamics, 26 August 2021, 'What is asubmarine cable? Subsea fiber explained', Dan Swinhoe. See alsoTeleGeography, Submarine Cable Frequently Asked Questions, lastaccessed on 22 March 2022.

8 Subsea Cables Installation Procedures andMethods, KINGFISHER INFO. SERV.- OFFSHORE RENEWABLE & CABLESAWARENESS (accessed in March 2022); Catholic University Journalof Law and Technology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1,'Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: AnIntersectional Analysis', Tara Davenpart, p. 68.

9 Douglas Burnett et al., 'Submarine cables in thesargasso sea: legal and environmental issues in areas beyondnational jurisdiction' 10 (2015), p. 11.

10 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, at p. 69. Douglas Burnett et al.,'Submarine cables in the sargasso sea: legal and environmentalissues in areas beyond national jurisdiction' 10 (2015), pp.1011.

11 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, p. 63.

12 40th Edition of Subtel Forum's Submarine CableAlmanac, 2021, pp. 1617.

13 TeleGeography, Submarine Cable Frequently AskedQuestions, last accessed on 22 March 2022; United Nations, 75thsession, 9 September 2020, Oceans and the law of the Sea Report ofthe Secretary General, Paragraph 8, p. 3.

14 US Chamber of Commerce (2012) Statement of the USChamber of Commerce on Hearing on the United Nations Law of the SeaConvention, p. 7.

15 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, at p. 63; Michael Sechrist, NewThreats, Old Technology: Vulnerabilities In Undersea CommunicationsCable Network Management Systems 9 (Harv. Kennedy Sch., Belfer Ctr.for Sci. & Int'l Affs., Discussion Paper No. 2012-03,2012); Policy Exchange, 2017, Undersea Cables, Indispensable,Insecure, Rishi Sunak MP, p. 5.

16 Michael Sechrist, New Threats, Old Technology:Vulnerabilities In Undersea Communications Cable Network ManagementSystems 9 (Harv. Kennedy Sch., Belfer Ctr. for Sci. & Int'lAffs., Discussion Paper No. 2012-03, 2012), at p. 9.

17 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24 Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, at p. 63; Michael Sechrist, NewThreats, Old Technology: Vulnerabilities In Undersea CommunicationsCable Network Management Systems 9 (Harv. Kennedy Sch., Belfer Ctr.for Sci. & Int'l Affs., Discussion Paper No. 2012-03, 2012)at p. 10.

18 Michael Sechrist, New Threats, Old Technology:Vulnerabilities In Undersea Communications Cable Network ManagementSystems 9 (Harv. Kennedy Sch., Belfer Ctr. for Sci. & Int'lAffs., Discussion Paper No. 2012-03, 2012), p. 10.

19 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014, Submarine Cables,The Handbook of Law and Policy, Introduction - Why SubmarineCables? Douglas Burnett, Tara Davenport and Robert Beckman,page 2, citing S Malphrus, Board of Governors of the FederalReserve System, First Worldwide Cyber Security Summit, EastWestInstitute, Dallas, Texas, 35 May 2010.

20 United Nations, 75th session, 9 September 2020, Oceansand the law of the Sea Report of the Secretary General, Para. 8, p.3.

21 United Nations, 75th session, 9 September 2020, Oceansand the law of the Sea Report of the Secretary General, Para. 8 p.3.

22 United Nations General Assembly, A/70/74, 30 March2015, Para. 55 p. 18.

23 United Nations General Assembly, A/70/74, 30 March2015, Para. 55 p. 18.

24 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24 Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, at p. 67; 1884 Convention, ArticleI.

25 1884 Convention, Article II.

26 1884 Convention, Article XII.

27https://cil.nus.edu.sg/databasecil/1884-convention-for-the-protection-of-submarine-telegraph-cables/

28 The 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.

29 UNCLOS, Article 311(1).

30https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm.Please note that the United States has not ratified UNCLOS.However, President Reagan's 1983 United States Ocean PolicyStatement said that the US would follow the provisions of UNCLOSrelating to 'balance of interests relating to the traditionaluses of the ocean'.

31 UNCLOS, Article 2.

32 UNCLOS, Article 3. See also International SubmarineCables and Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, theCloud Beneath the Sea, 2017, Douglas R Burnett and Lionel Carter,p. 14; Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology,December 2015, Volume 24 Issue 1, 'Submarine Cables,Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, at p. 76.

33 UNCLOS, Article 21(c). See also InternationalSubmarine Cables and Biodiversity of Areas beyond NationalJurisdiction, the Cloud Beneath the Sea, 2017, Douglas RBurnett and Lionel Carter, p. 14.

34 The Handbook of Law and Policy, Douglas RBurnett, Robert Beckman and Tara Davenport, p. 140.

35 International Submarine Cables and Biodiversity ofAreas beyond National Jurisdiction, the Cloud Beneath the Sea,2017, Douglas R Burnett and Lionel Carter, p. 14.

36 International Submarine Cables and Biodiversity ofAreas beyond National Jurisdiction, the Cloud Beneath the Sea,2017, Douglas R Burnett and Lionel Carter, p. 14.

37 Catholic University Journal of Law andTechnology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue 1, 'SubmarineCables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An IntersectionalAnalysis', Tara Davenpart, p. 76.

38 International Submarine Cables and Biodiversity ofAreas beyond National Jurisdiction: The Cloud Beneath the Sea,2017, Douglas R Burnett and Lionel Carter, p. 15.

39 UNCLOS, Article 56(3).

40 The relevant UNCLOS articles on the EEZ and thecontinental shelf are Articles 56, 58, 78 and 79.

41 UNCLOS, Article 57.

42 UNCLOS, Article 56. See also Catholic UniversityJournal of Law and Technology, December 2015, Volume 24 Issue1, 'Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: AnIntersectional Analysis', Tara Davenpart, p. 72.

43 UNCLOS, Article 56. See also Catholic UniversityJournal of Law and Technology, December 2015, Volume 24, Issue1, 'Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: AnIntersectional Analysis', Tara Davenpart, p. 72.

44 UNCLOS, Article 77(1).

45 UNCLOS, Article 77(4).

46 UNCLOS, Article 77(2).

47 UNCLOS, Article 76.

48 UNCLOS, Article 56(3). See also CatholicUniversity Journal of Law and Technology, December 2015,Volume 24 Issue 1, 'Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity andInternational Law: An Intersectional Analysis', Tara Davenpart,at p. 72.

Read this article:

Claims In Disputed Maritime Areas: Resolving International Disputes Arising From Activities Relating To Submarine Cables In Disputed Maritime Areas -...

The front cover of the 103rd volume of "One Piece" (c) Eiichiro Oda/Shueisha Inc.

TOKYO -- Total printed copies of the "One Piece" manga series topped 510 million worldwide after the hit comic's 103rd volume was published on Aug. 4, boosting its own world record.

Tokyo-based publisher Shueisha Inc. made the announcement that day. According to the firm, more than 410 million copies of the manga by Eiichiro Oda have been printed in Japan, and over 100 million copies have been issued across 60 foreign countries and regions.

One Piece was certified by Guinness World Records in 2014 for the "most copies published for the same comic book series by a single author." The record was renewed at over 410 million copies in July this year.

The series started in the Shukan Shonen Jump weekly comic magazine in 1997. It relates the high-seas adventures of Monkey D. Luffy and his "Straw Hat Pirate" companions as he strives to become King of the Pirates. A TV anime adaptation has been broadcast by Fuji Television Network Inc. and affiliated stations in Japan. A new movie, "One Piece Film Red," will hit Japanese theaters on Aug. 6.

(Japanese original by Hisanori Yashiro, Cultural News Department)

Link:

Japan's 'One Piece' manga hits over 510 mil. copies in print, boosts own world record - The Mainichi - The Mainichi

Petty Officer 1st Class Ryan McMillen participates in world's largest international maritime warfare exercise

PEARL HARBOR A 2005 North Marion High School graduate and St. Paul native is serving in the U.S. Navy as part of the world's largest international maritime warfare exercise, Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC).

Petty Officer 1st Class Ryan McMillen is a boatswain's mate serving aboard the USS Gridley currently operating out of Everett, Washington.

A Navy boatswain is responsible for preservation, driving and overall readiness of the ship.

Today, McMillen uses skills and values similar to those he learned in St. Paul.

"I learned a sense of ownership," McMillen said. "You take the job you are given. Taking ownership and running with it are things I learned before joining the Navy. I've brought these traits with me into my naval service, and it's helped me excel both professionally and personally."

As the world's largest international maritime exercise, RIMPAC provides a unique training opportunity that helps participants foster and sustain cooperative relationships that are critical to ensuring safety at sea and security on the world's oceans. RIMPAC 2022 is the 28th exercise in the series that began in 1971.

The theme of RIMPAC 2022 is Capable, Adaptive Partners. The participating nations and forces exercise a wide range of capabilities and demonstrate the inherent flexibility of maritime forces. These capabilities range from disaster relief and maritime security operations to sea control and complex war fighting. The relevant, realistic training program includes gunnery, missile, anti-submarine and air defense exercises, as well as amphibious, counter-piracy, mine clearance operations, explosive ordnance disposal and diving and salvage operations.

"I enjoy interacting with other nations," McMillen said. "I'm looking forward to bouncing ideas off each other. Seeing how they do things are a couple things I want to see happen at RIMPAC."

Serving in the Navy means McMillen is part of a team that is taking on new importance in America's focus on rebuilding military readiness, strengthening alliances and reforming business practices in support of the national defense strategy.

"Our presence at sea offers comfort to other countries," McMillen said. "The Navy keeps the sea lanes open and provides security around the world."

With more than 90% of all trade traveling by sea, and 95% of the world's international phone and internet traffic carried through fiber-optic cables lying on the ocean floor, Navy officials continue to emphasize that the prosperity and security of the United States is directly linked to a strong and ready Navy.

According to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, four priorities will focus efforts on sailors, readiness, capabilities and capacity.

"For 245 years, in both calm and rough waters, our Navy has stood the watch to protect the homeland, preserve freedom of the seas, and defend our way of life," Gilday said. "The decisions and investments we make this decade will set the maritime balance of power for the rest of this century. We can accept nothing less than success."

RIMPAC 2022 will be led by Vice Adm. Michael Boyle Commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet, who will serve as Combined Task Force commander. Royal Canadian Navy Rear Adm. Christopher Robinson will serve as deputy commander of the CTF, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Rear Adm. Toshiyuki Hirata as the vice commander, and Fleet Marine Force will be led by U.S. Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Joseph Clearfield.

Other key leaders of the multinational force will include Commodore Paul O'Grady of the Royal Australian Navy, who will command the maritime component, and Brig. Gen. Mark Goulden of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who will command the air component.

"Providing for my wife and my daughter are the values and opportunities the Navy has given me," McMillen said.

During RIMPAC, a network of capable, adaptive partners train and operate together in order to strengthen their collective forces and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. RIMPAC 2022 contributes to the increased interoperability, resiliency and agility needed by the Joint and Combined Force to deter and defeat aggression by major powers across all domains and levels of conflict.

As a member of the U.S. Navy, McMillen and other sailors know they are part of a legacy that will last beyond their lifetimes providing the Navy the nation needs.

"Continuing the traditions and the history my family has with the Navy is very important to me," McMillen added.

Additional information about RIMPAC is available at ttp://www.cpf.navy.mil

John Sorensen is a chief mass communication specialist for the Navy Office of Community Outreach.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

More:

Pamplin Media Group - From St. Paul to the high seas - Portland Tribune

SailGP will hold its third event this weekend at the Great Britain Sail Grand Prix in Plymouth, UK, where Great Britain hopes to grab a win from Australia, which has dominated this season, winning the first two events in Bermuda and Chicago.

Great Britains team driver Ben Ainslie said sailing in the UK was a huge motivation in his teams battle against the Aussies, led by Tom Slingsby. We want to be racing against the best talent and Toms team have been really turning it on at the end of last season and into this season, said Ainslie at a press conference.

But you also dont get many opportunities to race at this sort of level and its extra special to race in front of a home crowd, he added.

While the sailing promises to be fast and furious this weekend, the league has also trimmed the mainsails on its sustainability commitment, one of its founding pillars. It said the Great Britain Sail Grand Prix will be the most sustainable on-water event ever, with the largest number of electric solutions.

The series will have the largest solar array SailGP has ever used, employ renewable energies like HVO to power its technical area, and include displays featuring bio-methanol as an energy source. This will enable the entire race village to be 100 percent powered by clean energy, said a league statement.

The event will also feature a foiling sailboat with propulsion technology that produces green hydrogen from the wind, with only oxygen emitted. This technology could be used on future raceboats, noted the statement.

Vitas electric Seal will also be used as the official fleet boat for Plymouth and upcoming SailGP events in Copenhagen and Saint-Tropez. The electric rigid-hulled inflatables have a top speed of 30 knots, with AC and DC fast charging. SailGPs Tom Verity said the electric RIBS will be a great step forward in our transition to clean energy on-water.

The series plans to be fully powered by nature by 2025, said SailGPs global impact and purpose director Fiona Morgan, highlighting the UKs record high temperatures last week as evidence of climate change. Plymouth will be a real showcase of how we need to work together to tackle the climate emergency and every change makes a big difference.

SailGP also set up an Impact League, a separate competition that measures each teams sustainability efforts during the season, from how they travel to events to the types of clothing they wear. Sixty percent of team members said they are going vegan at different events; three of Great Britains racer rode bicycles to Plymouth, and virtually every team has sought ways to make tenders more fuel efficient. Last year, Team New Zealand, which did poorly in the sailing competition, won $100,000 for finishing first in the Impact League. The money was donated to Live Ocean to fund ocean research.

Were just getting started and youll see more and more sporting and performance benefits given to Impact League winners, said Morgan. I really hope other sports follow suit.

Watch this weekends races live via Facebook, YouTube or via the SailGP app. The CBS Sports Network will have a delayed broadcast.

Read more:

SailGP Is Back With a Fast and Furious Weekend of Racing on the High Seas - Robb Report

Disney has plenty of treats in store for parkgoers this spooky season.Mickeys Not-So-Scary Halloween Partyis returning to the Magic Kingdom for the first time since 2019. The Sanderson Sisters will once again be running amok, amok, amokat the spooktacular event, while the Pumpkin King a.k.a. Jack Skellington will host Disneys Not-So-Spooky Spectacular fireworks display.

Walt Disney World Resort, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, isn't the only place where Disney fans can have a ghoulishly good time. From the West Coast to the open seas and abroad, here are scary fun Disney events to look forward to this year.

Related: 101 Disney Trivia Questions and Answers to Make Game Night Magical

Get ready to trick-or-treat at the most magical place on earth!Mickeys Not-So-Scary Halloween Partyis returning to Magic Kingdom for 37 select nights between Aug. 12 and Oct. 31.

In other gloriousnews, theSanderson Sisters will be back for theHocus Pocus Villain Spelltacular. Winifred, Mary and Sarah, with help from Disney villains, will mix "sinister shadows, terrifying nightmares and use the nefarious powers of their frightening colleagues to conjure the ultimate Hocus Pocus Party Potionand cast a spell on everyone in Magic Kingdom park!"

Jack Skellington from Tim Burtons The Nightmare Before Christmas will host Disneys Not-So-Spooky Spectacular. The evening will also include Mickey's Boo-to-You Halloween Parade and Disney Junior Jam at Storybook Circus.

Disney has teased that some attractions at the park, like Mad Tea Party, Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor and Space Mountain, will have a"Halloween twist."

The ticketed event takes place from 7 p.m. until midnight and guests are allowed to dress up for the party.

Meanwhile on the West Coast, the Oogie Boogie Bash A Disney Halloween Party will be taking place in Disney California Adventure Park on select nights starting Sept. 6 from 6 p.m. until 11 p.m.

(scroll to keep reading)

Highlights from the ticketed event include immersive treat trails, Mickeys Trick and Treat live show and the Frightfully Fun Parade starring Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse and Disney villains. Cars Land will be getting into the spooky spirit with Mater's Graveyard JamBOOree and Radiator Screams. Guests can also embark on a Halloween adventure on the Guardians of the Galaxy attraction atAvengers Campus.

Over at Disneyland Park, the Halloween Screams fireworks show will kick off on Sept. 2 (happening on select nights), in addition to the Main Street Pumpkin Festival.TheHaunted Mansion is also set to reopen on Sept. 2 as Haunted Mansion Holidayfeaturing decorations inspired by Tim Burtons The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Related: 103 Best Disney Movie Quotes

Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse and Clarabelle Cow make their costume debut as the Sanderson Sisters from "Hocus Pocus."

Disney

Pack your swimsuits and costumes because Halloween is hitting the high seas on board Disney Cruise Line's shipsthe Disney Magic, Disney Wonder, Disney Dream, Disney Fantasy and Disney Wishstarting in September.

Guests sailing on the "Halloween on the High Seas" cruises will see Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse and Clarabelle Cow make their costume debut as the Sanderson Sisters from Hocus Pocus,plus enjoyMickey's Mouse-querade, Halloween-themed desserts,Halloween activities and more.

Disney Cruise Line's newest ship, the Disney Wishwhich began sailing summer 2022will also debut a magical Pumpkin Tree in the Cinderella-inspired grand hall.

The Villains Rockin Halloween parade will kick off at Tokyo Disneylandon Sept. 15 and run through Oct. 31. During that same time period, Night High Halloween, a "spectacular fireworks will add color to the Halloween atmosphere at" both Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea.

Disneyland Paris will be welcoming back the Disney Halloween Festival on Oct. 1 through Nov. 1.Disneyland Park, one of the two parks in France, will also offerDisney Halloween Parties until 2 a.m. on Oct. 29 and Oct. 31.

Next, check out our favorite quotes from Walt Disney.

See the rest here:

Get Your Spook on With Disney in the Parks and at Sea This Halloween Season - Parade Magazine

It's been a very busy summer of TV watching, so I'm happy to say that this week is a little lighter on new offerings, which makes it the perfect time to catch up on shows like The Bear (FX on Hulu) or Netflix's Virgin River. (Speaking of, read our latest with the romantic drama's new showrunner.) There's also plenty of great, smaller shows you might have missed, like PBS's docuseries In Their Own Words, which re-airs the episode on Queen Elizabeth II this week.

Perhaps most exciting of all though is the comfort TV food that premieres this week, starting with Hallmark Channel kicking off its annual Fall into Love programming event with four new original movie premieres each Saturday. Up first: Love in the Limelight with the PenaVegas.

For the foodie, there's Alex vs. America on the Food Network, which premieres this Sunday night and includes episodes on Italian food and brunch. Say no more. Also happening this week: The Bachelorette heads to the high seas this week, while Netflix airs Wedding Season on Friday.

A lot of new shows are on the way next week, including season three of Netflix's Never Have I Ever and the debut of Prime Video's A League of Their Own, so enjoy the slight break now. I'll see you back here next Sunday.

The Golden Girls (Hallmark Channel): There's a Golden Girls pop-up restaurant that's now open in Los Angeles and will be coming to New York City, San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago beginning later this year. It's a fully-functioning (and delicious!) caf and bar that transports guests into the wicker-loving land of palm trees, cheesecakes, and lanai's.

To get in the mood before you go, you can stream the classic sitcom on Hulu or tune into one of the series's best episodes when it airs on the Hallmark Channel tonight. To Catch a Neighbor (season two, episode 24) features George Clooney and Joe Campanella as police officers who set up a stakeout at Blanche's house to capture neighborhood jewel thieves; it is the penultimate episode of season two and originally aired on Saturday, May 2, 1987 on NBC. For more on what it's like to visit the pop-up, take a look on my Instagram page (in feed) here. Reservations available at Bucketlisters. You can stream Golden Girls on Hulu or watch the Clooney episode at 10 p.m. ET/PT tonight on Hallmark Channel.

The Golden Girls (from left): Betty White, Bea Arthur, Estelle Getty, Rue McClanahan.

Read the original post:

What to Watch the Week of July 31: Hallmark's Fall Romance Movies Have Begun - Glamour

Michelle Obama is coming to dinner! Obviously, the best-dressed family on television would bring their sartorial A-game, thanks to nine-time Emmy nominee Michelle Cole earning her fifth nom for her work on the final season of the Kenya Barris-created sitcom.

While hosting the 44th first lady (playing herself), the Johnsons invited the laughs, too especially after physician Rainbow (Tracee Ellis Ross) and advertising exec Dre (Anthony Anderson) exclude the kids and grandparents from the occasion. I love how theyre plotting to figure out how to see her, says Cole, who collaborated via top-secret Zooms with Obamas stylist, Meredith Koop, on her vibrantly cozy JW Anderson sweater. Its a casual dinner for her, but everybody else was over-the-top.

Dres pumpkin-hued velvet smoking jacket by Etro, over a black turtleneck, signals his professional success and accompanying pay bump. Hes dressed up for his wife, and hes doing it for Michelle Obama, says Cole.

As the three settle in for dinner, Junior (Marcus Scribner), in a graphic-patterned Dries Van Noten sweater, unsubtly attempts a photo with Obama. Then, college grad Zoey (Yara Shahidi) saunters across the room in a too-chic-for-doing-laundry lavender and python-print set by Alessandra Rich under the guise of a performing the chore only to inquire about gifting samples from her upstart fashion line to the ultimate influencers, Sasha and Malia. Shes carrying the laundry basket with her gold boots on, says Cole with a laugh.

Dres parents, Ruby (Jenifer Lewis) and Pops (Laurence Fishburne), also dress for American royalty. Cole imagines Pop dusted off a tuxedo that hes had forever, while Ruby curtseys in a majestic fuchsia designer gown, bedecked with sparkling rhinestone jewelry and a tiara. Where did they get the crown? asks Cole, surmising Ruby would have repurposed youngest granddaughter Dianes (Marsai Martin) discarded toy costume jewelry. Maybe Diane had some stuff in her hope chest.

For Cole, colorful fashion plays an integral role in portraying three generations of a successful Black family living the American dream in L.A. This is what we represent, she says. This is who we are. This is how we dress.

Deborah Vance (Jean Smart) and her Gen Z writer Ava (Hannah Einbinder) take her refreshed stand-up act on tour hitting the road and the high seas. Deborah Vance going on a cruise was just like candy to me, says Kathleen Felix-Hager, who earned her second Emmy nom.

Expecting a gay-men cruise, Deborah makes her grand entrance in an on-theme pastel blouse and duster by Casablanca, featuring a distinctive sailing and racing print. Her custom-built wide-brim pink hat with matching trim snipped off the robe complete the commanding ensemble. How else will Deborah Vance walk onto a cruise ship? Shes got to look amazing. Its got to be like, Im here for all of my people! says Felix-Hager. And then she finds out theyre actually not her people.

Thats because Deborahs business manager has booked her on a lesbian cruise, and she must endear herself to an audience shes historically insulted. Making headway, Deborah confidently sports a bright orange floral-print blouse with brash silver sequins on the forearms. Deborah still wants to be the center of attention, even though its the breakfast buffet, says Felix-Hager. She still has a little bit of her Vegas flair.

Deborah brings her comedy act on board, taking the stage in her trademark sparkling pantsuit. Felix-Hager custom-designed Deborahs shimmering set with head-to-toe tiny purple and black sequins. The soft, flowing fabric supported co-creator Lucia Aniellos script and direction, with Deborah awkwardly dancing onstage (Oh no, shes doing Ellen, says a horrified Ava) and revealing her bared shoulders that further turns off attendees offended by a tone-deaf routine.

Deborah is unceremoniously kicked off the cruise. I knew that they were going to end up in a dinghy, and I wanted a color that would pop out in the ocean, says Felix-Hager about Deborahs striking red, pink and navy blouse by La DoubleJ, accessorized by a tactical orange life jacket and a vintage scarlet hat with delicate ruffling. Its just so beautiful, chic and kind of ridiculous, she adds with a laugh.

First-time nominee Dana Covarrubias fondly recalls her initial fitting with Martin Short for the Upper West Side-set mystery series. As Oliver Putnam, the comedy legend introduces his characters signature showman-esque style via a scripted line. Really?! Do you not see this coat?! yells Oliver as a driver nearly hits the former Broadway producer as hes crossing on red.

Olivers statement outerwear was written as a shaggy bergamasco dog style coat, explains Covarrubias. But due to collaborative discussions with Short (and the now-famous marigold faux fur of fellow amateur detective and true-crime podcaster Mabel Mora, played by Selena Gomez), Olivers coat evolved into the tailored, amethyst-hued Haider Ackermann. Marty is the comedian, says Covarrubias. Hes the one that should be making the joke, not necessarily the costume.

Olivers purple-and-white polka dot Turnbull & Asser scarf also set the tone for his dramatic wardrobe full of early-2000s designer jackets, vests and neckwear harking to his showbiz heyday producing the likes of Splash! The Musical and Newark! Newark! We found such a great theatrical look for him, says Covarrubias. Marty is so expressive and gestures a bunch, and the scarf moves with him.

Completing the sleuthing trio, Charles-Haden Savage (Steve Martin) sports a navy palette and short-brimmed fedora that express his professional prime as the star of the 90s police drama Brazzos. Covarrubias took inspiration from cop shows of that era to find a vintage leather trench for a throwback scene from the bayou-set show-within-a-show. We wanted to create a really strong silhouette, because we wanted to reference this Brazzos silhouette in the current timeline, she says.

Only Murders also makes for an entertaining Easter egg hunt for fans to guess which improv riffs make the final cut. Covarrubias found herself ad-libbing, too. Oliver always likes his dips. Dips for dinner! she says. She imagined Oliver always at the ready to snatch and conceal tubs of Greek delights, thus ensuring his pants featured a generous number of deep compartments.

For the re-examination of the societal treatment that Pamela Anderson (Lily James) endured after the theft and dissemination of a homemade sex tape made with then-husband Tommy Lee (Sebastian Stan), first-time nominee Kameron Lennox needed to find a very delicate balance because mid-90s fashion is just inherently funny. I didnt want to poke fun at them, says Lennox. They had their own unique style that inspired so many people then, and even today.

Historically accurate wardrobe helped highlight the rapid rise of celebrity obsession, bolstered by the tabloid paparazzi and sea change in media technology. After the VHS tapes contents are released on the burgeoning World Wide Web, Pam and Tommy attempt an incognito trip to the library to access the internet in the most conspicuous mid-90s outfits ever: Pam in a pastel blue terry cloth hoodie, cropped track pants by Hard Tail and Christian Louboutin Ugg-style stilettos, and Tommy in monochrome black mid-calf-length board shorts and a flat cap worn askew. It was a little nod to celebrities trying to hide themselves [from the paparazzi], and that never worked, says Lennox.

Tommys non-acknowledgement of the scandals impact on his wife peaks during the premiere of Barb Wire, Pams movie-headlining debut. I wanted to show that he wasnt getting it, says Lennox, who dressed Stan in a flashy suit by Fullerton, California-based heritage maker El Pachuco Zoot Suits. Its actually bright-cherry red upholstery fabric with flames indented into it, says Lennox. She imagined Tommy re-wore a mesh tank top saved from the height of his hair-metal fame and notes, there are flames on the tip of his cowboy boots.

The 90s wardrobe also emphasizes how the cruel, misogynistic humor of the era wasnt funny as exhibited by a Jay Leno interview, during which Pam maintains her dignity. Lennox found a black spring 1993 Versace dress and customized the decolletage-baring silhouette to fit James maternity prosthetic. It is a testament to her strength and personality that shes still going to own who she is, no matter what people said about her or how they viewed her, or how society would assume you should look [when pregnant], says Lennox. Shes just true to herself.

This story first appeared in a July stand-alone issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

See the article here:

How Costumes in Black-ish, Hacks, Only Murders in the Building and Pam & Tommy Helped Land the Jokes - Hollywood Reporter

Iconic cinematic teams are just hard to separate, provided nothing too horrible or conflicting prevents such reunions. Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio definitely qualify as one of those teams that doesnt seem to quit, as they even team up on upcoming movies that might not even get made. Though their latest effort Killers of the Flower Moon has been delayed into 2023, Scorsese and DiCaprio have set sights on another movie theyll be making as an Apple original.

This time, the boys are heading out to the high seas, as THR reports Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio are in talks to respectively direct and star in a tale of naval malfeasance. The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny, and Murder is the source material thats in question, as author David Granns recent historical book recounts the story of a 1740s mutiny that went to trial. With two separate groups of survivors questioning each others roles in the proceedings, survival and morality would be called into question.

One rather interesting question that needs to be answered is whether or not The Wager will see a theatrical release. Apple TV+ has certainly sent some of their films to theaters, with this years Best Picture winner CODA benefitting from a streaming and theatrical release.Then there's something like Killers of the Flower Moon, which is being sent to theaters through a partnership with the projects original studio home of Paramount Pictures. The Wager, on the other hand, is purely an Apple Original Films baby, so there's no obligation for a wider release model outside of an awards qualifying run, which would allow flexibility in how to release the film.

Non-fiction has been a common thread throughout quite a few of the films that Scorsese and DiCaprio have teamed up on in the past. Starting with 2002s Gangs of New York, the two would go on to draw from real figures and events to deliver The Aviator and The Wolf of Wall Street in the years to come. Counting Killers of the Flower Moon in the equation, Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio have made four movies that stem from non-fictional narratives.

Fans who have tracked the history of either collaborator are probably thinking that while The Wager sounds like a fantastic project, that doesnt necessarily mean its going to happen as quickly as its been announced. Seeing as Leonardo DiCaprio has been attached to The Devil in the White City since 2015, that adaptation could present a potential stumbling block for this new book on the shelf. Thats provided that White City's current incarnation as a Hulu TV series is still even on the books.

Several of Leonardo DiCaprios best movies have been shepherded by the hand of Martin Scorsese. Any time their names are mentioned as connected to something, even if its a bonkers short film/casino ad directed by Scorsese, the occasion will usually make news. For now, we'll have to wait to see what news comes out of The Wager's development cycle. In the meantime, Killers of the Flower Moon is set to bring Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio back to theaters, presumably at some point in 2023.

Continue reading here:

Ahead Of Killers Of The Flower Moon's Release, Leonardo DiCaprio And Martin Scorsese Are Re-Teaming For Another Apple Movie - CinemaBlend

Tales of pirates on the high seas and lost shipwrecks have no doubt inspired many bold endeavours.

For winemaker Sasha McDonald the idea of sunken treasures has led to the creation of an Australian first sparkling wine, cellared at the bottom of the sea.

"I mean, you might have heard of stories about ancient shipwrecks that have been discovered with bottles of sparkling wine or champagne that have been matured perfectly underwater, pulled up hundreds of years laterand they're still in mint condition," Ms McDonald says.

"That was kind of where the idea started from, but we've played with it a little bit."

Sashawas inspired to make her own drinkable treasure. It led to a collaboration between her family's Glenarty Road vineyard and Rare Foods Australia the world's first commercial abalone producer.

In 2019, they dropped a couple of hundred bottles into the deep blue sea near Augusta in Western Australia and crossed their fingers and toes.

Rare Foods provided the casing for the bottles in the safety of abalone nets in their ocean farms for the crates to be stored safely.

Lowering the wine is a job left to divers, braver than most. This stretch of the ocean comes with very big sharks and rough seas.

This wine was almost never made.

Several years ago, Sasha's husband, Ben McDonald, was about to make the tough decision to pull up the vines on the generational family farm, which was losing $60,000 a year.

"The management investment scheme and the ups and downs of the wine industry meant the price went from $2,500 a tonne down to $800," Mr McDonald says.

"I was making a pretty good loss. Six years ago, I decided I was pulling the vineyard out and putting 300 sheep in the vineyard to eat all the grapes off."

But a serendipitous knock at the door from a keen young winemaker, who would become his wife, changed those plans.

They now operate a successful paddock-to-plate restaurant and wine label that has changed the fortunes of Glenarty Road.

That includes the successful experimentation with the underwater sparkling drop.

The trial bottles spent 14 months at the bottom of the sea.

When they were brought to the surface, they had a definite shipwreck appearance. Coral and crustaceans had taken up residency on the bottles adding to the aesthetic charm.

"There were hundreds of different species of crabs, eels and little baby abalones growing on them,"Ms McDonald says.

But all this extra work is not just to give the bottles a stand-out story. There is a scientific theory too, that the lees the dead yeast particles that form a fermentation in the wine are naturally stirred by the extreme currents of the Southern Ocean.

"What we are trying to do in the Margaret River region is produce world-class wine," Ms McDonald says.

"For us, we want to build a beautiful texture into the wines that we produce.

"We've lowered down our sparkling on full lees. It's still on the fermentation solids.

"The bottles are laid on their side in crates and we basically just let the gentle ocean current move the bottles from side to side, stir up those lees and build that texture kind of like you would stir a chardonnay barrel to build up flavour."

The underwater conditions are thought to emulate the critical ageing factors that influence the flavour of wine:consistent temperatures, the absence of light, air, and movement.

MsMcDonald also thinks the salty surroundings may also change up the taste.

"We have done some blind tasting comparing a control, which didn't go underwater at all, but stayed in a similar condition," she says.

"This 'Fathoms'Cuvehas apretty amazing textural component, almost with a slight salinity to it that weget anyway in this vineyardbecause we are so close to the Southern Ocean.

"It has reallyenhanced that, and just creates such a uniqueand, I guess, a real sense of place for that one wine."

The practice of submerging wine is slowly growing worldwide, particularly among the big champagne houses in Franceand winemakers in Spain and Chile, although it is the subject of a legal battle in the United States due to sanitary concerns.

The world's first underwater wine congress was held in 2019 to explore topics such as themarine sustainability of the new industry.

"We have learntthat other people are doing it around the world. It's quite exciting,"Ms McDonald says.

At Glenarty Road Cellars, the endeavour to dive in deep has paid off with each bottle fetching several hundred dollars and they have just lowered another 550 bottles into the ocean this year for cellaring.

It's a risk that is paying off for the McDonalds.

"Now we actually want to make a proper business out of it," Mr McDonald says.

"It's all about good products going in and the care and handling, andI think there's something magical in the ocean as well."

To learn more about Sasha and Ben McDonald's underwater drop and other innovative stories,watch Movin' to the Countryon ABC TV,Fridays at 7:30pm or any time on ABC iview.

More:

Underwater drop anyone? Winemakers use the ocean as their cellar in an Australian first - ABC News

Move over birds and bees, there is another pollinator on planet Earth, and it lives in the sea.

In a study, published Thursday in the journal Science, scientists found that a tiny crustacean, Idotea balthica, played the role of pollinator for a species of seaweed. They do this by inadvertently collecting the algaes sticky spermatia, its equivalent of pollen, on their bodies and sprinkling it around as they move from frond to frond in search of food and shelter.

This is the first time an animal has been observed fertilizing an algae. This discovery not only extends the scope of species that use this reproductive strategy, it also raises questions about whether it first evolved on land or in the sea.

It was long thought that animals only pollinated plants on land. However, in 2016 scientists discovered that zooplankton pollinate Thalassia testudinum, a sea grass species found in the Caribbean. Sea grasses are the only flowering plants that grow in marine environments, but they remain closely related to terrestrial plants. Seaweeds on the other hand, while technically plants themselves, are not closely related to terrestrial plants.

The discovery that Thalassia testudinum was pollinated by animals was made after scientists noticed an unusually high density of marine invertebrates visiting sea grass flowers. Shortly after this discovery, Myriam Valero, a population geneticist at Sorbonne University in France, observed something similar happening among the red algae she was studying.

The seaweed species she was studying, Gracilaria gracilis, always seemed popular with invertebrates, specifically the isopod species Idotea balthica. Because Gracilaria gracilis produce spermatia that, like pollen grains, cannot move on their own, Dr. Valero wondered if the isopods might be playing a role in the spermatias dispersal. Earlier studies suggested that the spermatia of Gracilaria gracilis were dispersed by ocean currents, but given their abundance in calm coastal rock pools, Dr. Valero suspected another dispersal mechanism was at play.

To test her hypothesis, Dr. Valero and Emma Lavaut, a graduate student at Sorbonne, grew male and female Gracilaria gracilis and placed them six inches apart in seawater tanks. Half the tanks were populated with the tiny crustaceans, while the others were not. At the end of their experiment, they found that fertilization occurred around 20 times as much in the tanks with the isopods than in the tanks without them.

In a subsequent experiment, the researchers took crustaceans that had spent time in tanks with reproductive male Gracilaria gracilis and transferred them to tanks with unfertilized female algae. They found that doing so also resulted in high rates of fertilization. They examined the isopods under a microscope and found that they had spermatia stuck to nearly every part of their bodies.

The researchers believe the isopods have a mutualistic relationship with the seaweed. The algae provides the isopods with food in the form of a species of microalgae that grow on its surface as well as shelter. In exchange, the isopods help fertilize the algae.

This is such a profoundly fascinating study that really shakes up our understanding of how seaweeds reproduce, said Jeff Ollerton, a visiting professor at the Kunming Institute of Botany in China who was not involved with the study but co-wrote a perspective article that accompanied the study in Science on Thursday. This type of interaction may have been going on long before plants ever evolved and using a third party for reproduction may have much deeper roots than we ever realized if youll excuse the pun.

The group to which the Gracilaria gracilis belongs is thought to have evolved around 500 million years before the first plants appeared on land. Although isopods only hit the scene 300 million years ago, it is possible that before their arrival, there were red seaweeds that relied on some other now-extinct marine invertebrates to pollinate them.

It may be possible that the relationship between seaweed and animals predates the evolution of the animal-plant relationship, said Dr. Valero, who acknowledged that this hypothesis could not yet be proven. Another possibility, she said, was that animal-mediated fertilization strategies evolved independently and repeatedly in the terrestrial and marine environment.

Dr. Valero added that it was important to find out whether other red algae species relied on marine animals for fertilization because it could be critical to the maintenance of biodiversity in our oceans. While scientists are documenting how pollution and climate change affect the relationship between plants and pollinators on land, we have no idea how these forces impact the relationship between algae and their pollinators in the ocean.

In the coming years, Dr. Valero hopes to be one of the scientists to figure this out.

See original here:

Like Bees of the Seas, These Crustaceans Pollinate Seaweed - The New York Times