Coral reefs are a source of marine diversity that must be protected, not only for the relationship between their ecosystem and other biota, but also for their economic value. Indonesia is an archipelagic country with 116 small islands and groups of small islands that are susceptible to ecological damage. Indonesia possesses a great diversity of flora and fauna, including coral reefs. Indonesia’s sea territory is twothirds the size of its land territory, and much of the nation’s ecological diversity lies within this water expanse. As coral reefs form a part of Indonesia’s marine diversity, we must protect them. This paper will discuss Indonesian regulations pertaining to the protection of coral reefs with a particular focus on Radja Ampat, Papua. The principal sources of relevant Indonesian statutory law are Law No. 23 Year 1997, regarding Environmental Management, and Law No. 5 Year 1990, regarding Biological Diversity and Ecosystems. These laws may be used to protect marine environments, especially coral reefs. At the international level, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity complement the laws enacted by Indonesia. Radja Ampat is located in Papua Province, and is known as a premier diving site. Surveys have brought Raja Ampat’s total number of confirmed species of coral to 537, representing an incredible 75% of all known coral species. Sadly, marine pollution in Radja Amapt is decreasing both the quality and quantity of coral reefs.

“Coastal zone”is an area with interface between the land and the sea, and naturally contains unique character with multi-dimensional values, enjoyed by different users, based on different purposes, and finally led to conflicts among various stakeholders. To promote sustainable management of coastal zone as well as sustainable development, a new mechanism called “Integrated Coastal Zone Management or ICZM”was introduced for maintaining both “ interdependence”between environment and development and “integration”of various measures, policies, processes, institutions and full public participation through coordinating mechanisms at both the local and national levels. ICZM is used by most coastal countries to ensure that all activities relating to the coast will harmoniously function to achieve common goals rather than replacing the traditional single-sector resources management. Thailand is on the process of introducing ICZM to the existing system.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the present state and problems of Japanese measures against the protection and preservation of the marine environment from the perspective of international law and Japanese domestic laws and regulations. The analysis is divided into three sections. Firstly, the relationship between Part XII of UNCLOS and the IMO marine environmental treaties will be addressed in brief. Secondly, Japanese implementation of the IMO treaties will be addressed in the context of the regulations regarding both dumping waste into the sea from vessels and marine pollution from vessels. Finally, this paper will clarify the problems regarding the Japanese implementation of marine environmental treaties.

This paper analyzes legal remedies for marine ecological damage as provided in Article 90, Section 2 of the Marine Environment Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. In doing so, the paper examines the Tasman Sea Oil Spills Case, the first civil case in China to claim marine ecological damage involving foreign interests. The paper finds that many issues arise in practice due to the simplicity of the relevant legal provisions. The existing international treaties on marine oil pollution damage caused by ships do not cover marine ecological damage. However, domestic courts of some countries have relevant judicial practice on the matter. Hence, it is urgent to establish a set of new rules on marine ecological damage compensation in China and to specify the claimants, the scope for compensation and the measure of indemnity with the aim of providing an effective legal remedy for marine ecological damage.

More than a century before Grotius wrote his famous work on international law, his countryman Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam laid the foundations for the modern critique of war. In several writings, especially those published in the period 1515- 1517, the “prince of humanists”brilliantly and devastatingly condemned war not only on Christian but also on secular/rational grounds. His graphic depiction of the miseries of war, together with his impassionate plea for its avoidance, remains unparalleled. Erasmus argued as a moralist and educator rather than as a political theorist or statesman. If any single individual in the modern world can be credited with“ the invention of peace,”the honour belongs to Erasmus rather than Kant whose essay on perpetual peace was published nearly three centuries later.

Much has been written about the general ability (or lack thereof) of international development organizations to effectively monitor and evaluate the impact of their Rule of Law projects on the ground. However, less research has focused on particular development organizations’methods of project evaluation, the politics behind them and their strengths and weaknesses. This paper offers such an analysis of the evaluation methods of GTZ Legal Advisory in Beijing. After describing the work of GTZ in general and its Legal Advisory in particular, the paper offers a detailed evaluation of the tools that it uses to gauge the impact of its projects on the ground. What is gained from such a particularized analysis is a deeper understanding of both the donor politics and organizational tradeoffs inherent in monitoring and evaluation decisions, two factors often given insufficient attention in more theoretical discussions.

Since its establishment in the year 2001, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea has assumed the role of primary governmental entity addressing human rights issues in the country. In addition to investigating complaints of human rights violations and discrimination, the NHRCK has a policy advisory function, and engages in research, education, and publicizing of human rights issues. This article examines the role of the NHRCK, which came into being in part due to the advocacy of victim rights groups, in promoting and protecting victim rights. It addresses both the rights of crime victims and the rights of victims of human rights abuses. The article analyzes the different ways in which the NHRCK has addressed victim issues, while offering concluding observations as to how the NHRCK can more effectively promote and protect victim rights in the future.