Suchergebnisse

This paper analyzes the potential risks of the Russia-North Korea-South Korea (RNS) gas pipeline, comparing it with the Russia-Ukraine-Europe (RUE) pipeline. I argue that the possibility of disputes is much higher in the RNS case. Furthermore, I propose that the South Korean government opt to import liquefied natural gas by ship directly from Russia if contingency plans in the case of gas supply disruptions in the RNS pipeline are not available.

This article examines the legal dispute over the Caspian Sea, which began soon after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The pertinent contextual information is as follows. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the sea was governed by the two states that controlled its coasts-the Soviet Union & Iran. Now, there are five countries bordering the Caspian -- Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, & Turkmenistan. As a result, there has been a need for a new international regime. The discovery of huge, previously undetected deposits of hydrocarbon resources in the sea has added urgency to the need. More than a decade after the Soviet collapse, the Caspian legal regime is still in dispute; each of the five littoral states have different views on the proper management of the sea. This article examines the Caspian legal dispute, focusing on evens since the signing in July, 1998 of an agreement between Russian & Kazakhstan on the delimitation of the northern Caspian seabed. It is suggested that the present study is needed because few analysts have written about recent developments. T. K. Brown

AbstractThis paper examines why there is no multinational regime governing resource extraction in the East China Sea. After comparing the East China Sea case with the partially successful regime governing Caspian Sea resources, we suggest two explanatory variables: relative power relations and trust factors.