James Harrison joined the School of Law as a member of academic staff in July 2007. He holds law degrees from the University of Edinburgh (PhD, LLM) and the University of East Anglia (LLB). James teaches on a number of international law courses, including specialist courses in the law of the sea, international environmental law, and international investment law.
James’ research interests span several areas of international law, including law of the sea, international economic law and international environmental law. In all of these areas, he is particularly interested in the role that international organizations and international courts and tribunals play in the development of international law.
James has recently published his first monograph called Making the Law of the Sea - A Study in the Development of International Law. This book explores the way in which various international organizations have contributed to the development of the law of the sea and what types of instruments and law-making techniques have been used. James' research particularly focuses on the work of the Meeting of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, the International Labour Organization, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
James also has an active research agenda in relation to international investment law. He is interested in the on-going development of this area of international law, both through international tribunals and through the negotiation of investment treaties. James was the United Kingdom national rapporteur for a report on the protection of foreign investment being compiled for the XVIIIth International Congressof the International Academy of Comparative Law in August 2010.
James is an Annual Case Review Editor for the Journal of Environmental Law. He is also an occasional author for the International Law Observer blog.
'The Law and Practice for Participation in Multilateral Relations as a Sovereignty-restrained Sui Generis Entity in International Law: the Case of the European Union and Maritime Affairs'
This book examines how various international organisations have contributed to the development of the law of the sea and what kinds of instruments and law-making techniques have been used.
Journal Articles
James Harrison 'Recent Developments to Promote Transparency and Public Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration' (2010) L'Observateur des Nations Unies 119-137
In the past, concerns have been expressed about the secrecy of international treaty arbitration. This paper attempts to show how the investment treaty arbitration system has responded to these criticisms. It starts by reviewing the arguments in favour of transparency and what different forms transparency can take in the context of investment treaty arbitration. The paper then sketches out the main developments in relation to transparency and highlights key issues that still remain to be resolved. In conclusion, it is noted that the extent of publicity and publication participation in a particular arbitration will depend on the instrument under which the claim is being brought. Whilst a small number of states have sought to promote the transparency agenda in their investment treaties, much more could be done by the majority of states.
James Harrison 'Regime pluralism and the global regulation of oil pollution liability and compensation' (2009) International Journal of Law in Context 379-391
Whilst international law has traditionally been dominated by states, non-state actors today have an increasing influence on many spheres of international life. This paper argues that non-state actors, in particular business interest non-governmental organisations (BINGOs), not only participate actively within those inter-governmental regimes which have been created by states, but they are also able to establish their own private regimes on particular issues in which they have an interest. The global regulation of oil pollution liability and compensation is used as an example to show how inter-governmental and private regimes can overlap and interact with one another. Such interplay poses several challenges for the way in which we understand traditional state-centred international law-making. At the same time, private regimes themselves raise their own questions of legitimacy and effectiveness.
James Harrison 'Judging the Judges: the New Scheme for Judicial Conduct and Discipline in Scotland' (2009) Edinburgh Law Review 427-444
This article discusses the legal and political processes available within the WTO for the scrutiny and oversight of waivers. These procedures include the initial approval procedures, as well as procedures for overseeing the implementation of waivers once they have been approved. It is submitted
that certain aspects of a waiver are inherently political and the principal mechanisms for their oversight are therefore through the political organs of the WTO. Dispute settlement is, however, available as a tool for determining whether or not a WTO Member has complied with the substantive terms and conditions of a waiver. In this light, this article considers the legal status of waivers in the context of dispute settlement. It concludes that waivers are best characterized as exceptions so that the state invoking the waiver bears the burden of proving that the terms and conditions have been met. The article also suggests that there is no need for a narrow interpretation of waivers and that the customary international law rules of treaty interpretation should apply.
This article explores the powers of courts and tribunals in developing the legal order of the oceans. It is generally accepted that the rules of treaty interpretation allow courts to look beyond the strict confines of a treaty to other sources of evidence. Such an approach allows an evolutionary interpretation which
takes into account the contemporaneous views of the parties. In practice, courts and tribunals have adopted a pragmatic approach to the interpretation of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention in light of other rules of international law. By doing so, they promote flexibility in the Convention regime, albeit
at the risk of undermining the transparency and legitimacy of their decisions. In the context of the applicable law, the 1982 Convention seeks to safeguard itself against change by asserting priority over other sources of law. From a practical perspective, the role of courts in developing the Convention is limited
by the fact that few decisions have come before the courts to date. Thus, it is clear that courts by themselves cannot provide a satisfactory mechanism for change in the legal order of the oceans.
Chapters
James Harrison 'The role of international conventions in solving transboundary pollution disputes' in M. Faure and S. Ying (eds) China and International Environmental Liability (Edward Elgar, 2008) 38-63
James Harrison 'Sea and Continental Shelf' in (eds) Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia (Butterworths and the Law Society of Scotland, 1996) Reissue (2006)
Notes and Reviews
James Harrison 'Book Review: Trade Law and Regulation in Korea edited by Seung Wha Chang and Won-Mog Choi' (2011) Climate Law 296-298
James Harrison 'Book Review: The Transformation of International Environmental Law edited by Yann Kerbrat and Sandrine Maljean-Dubois' (2011) Environmental Law Review 352-353
James Harrison 'Significant International Environmental Cases: 2010-11' (2011) Journal of Environmental Law 517-532
James Harrison 'Book Review: The Manual of International Courts and Tribunals, edited by MacKenzie, Romano, Shany and Sands' (2011) Edinburgh Law Review 340-342
James Harrison 'Significant International Environmental Cases: 2009-10' (2010) Journal of Environmental Law 22: 499-507
James Harrison 'Current Legal Developments - The International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships' (2009) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 727-736
James Harrison 'International Law - Significant Environmental Cases 2008-09' (2009) Journal of Environmental Law 501-511
James Harrison 'International Law - Significant Environmental Cases 2007-08' (2008) Journal of Environmental Law 475-481
James Harrison 'Conflicting Interpretations - The Slops Incident and the Application of the International Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Regime to Offshore Storage and Transfer Operations' (2008) Journal of Environmental Law 455-464
This analysis discusses recent developments in the international regime for oil pollution liability and compensation. It considers whether or not the regime is applicable to certain offshore storage and transfer operations. The analysis takes into account developments in the policy of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund on this topic, as well as the decisions of the Greek courts in the case of the Slops incident. It concludes that the current scope of the regime is unclear and there is a need to promote greater uniformity in the interpretation of the international regime.
James Harrison 'Book Review: The Yearbook of European Environmental Law, Volume 7' (2008) Edinburgh Law Review 503-505
James Harrison 'Recent Developments to Promote Transparency and Public Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration', School of Law Working Paper Series, U. of Edinburgh (SSRN, 2011)
In the past, concerns have been expressed about the secrecy of international treaty arbitration. This paper attempts to show how the investment treaty arbitration system has responded to these criticisms. It starts by reviewing the arguments in favour of transparency and what different forms transparency can take in the context of investment treaty arbitration. The paper then sketches out the main developments in relation to transparency and highlights key issues that still remain to be resolved. In conclusion it is noted that the extent of publicity and public participation in a particular arbitration will depend on the instrument under which the claim is being brought. Whilst a small number of states have sought to promote the transparency agenda in their investment treaties, more could be done by the majority of states.
The legal regime for the regulation of marine resources in the United Kingdom has undergone significant reforms over the past few years. The introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 was the first step towards the more integrated management of marine resources in United Kingdom waters. Yet, the achievement of this aim is complicated by the arrangements for the devolution of power to regional administrations throughout the United Kingdom. This paper looks at the regime established by the Act and the challenges for its implementation.
The move toward integrated marine management has partly been a response to initiatives at the international level. The first part of the paper therefore discusses the relevant sources of international law and EU law which apply to the management of marine resources. The paper then describes the development of the regime for the management of marine resources within the United Kingdom and it analyses the main features of that regime. In particular, it considers marine spatial planning, marine licensing and marine protected areas. The paper concludes that whilst the 2009 Act and related legislation mark an important development in marine policy in the United Kingdom, integrated marine management will require on-going cooperation between the devolved administrations, as well as other decision-makers involved in marine policy.
James Harrison 'The International Seabed Authority and the Development of the Legal Regime for Deep Seabed Mining', School of Law Working Paper Series, 2010/17 (SSRN, 2010)
The International Seabed Authority was established in 1994 in order to oversee the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed for minerals. The deep seabed is designated as the common heritage of mankind. The Authority is responsible for managing the mineral resources in this area on behalf of the international community. The legal framework for deep seabed mining is found in Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention. However, the Convention was not intended to contain a comprehensive framework for seabed mining and the Authority was also invested with powers to adopt rules and regulations to fill in the gaps in Part XI of the Convention. This paper considers the scope and limits of those powers. It analyses the processes and procedures which apply to the law-making powers conferred on the Authority and to what extent the exercise of these powers amounts to quasi-legislative activity. Finally, it considers what mechanisms are available to control the ability of the Authority to make rules and regulations.
James Harrison 'The International Seabed Authority and the Development of the Legal Regime for Deep Seabed Mining', School of Law Working Paper Series, U. of Edinburgh (SSRN, 2010)
The International Seabed Authority was established in 1994 in order to oversee the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed for minerals. The deep seabed is designated as the common heritage of mankind. The Authority is responsible for managing the mineral resources in this area on behalf of the international community. The legal framework for deep seabed mining is found in Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention. However, the Convention was not intended to contain a comprehensive framework for seabed mining and the Authority was also invested with powers to adopt rules and regulations to fill in the gaps in Part XI of the Convention. This paper considers the scope and limits of those powers. It analyses the processes and procedures which apply to the law-making powers conferred on the Authority and to what extent the exercise of these powers amounts to quasi-legislative activity. Finally, it considers what mechanisms are available to control the ability of the Authority to make rules and regulations.
James Harrison 'Harmonization of International Investment Law: Illustrations from the Case of Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., Vivendi Universal S.A. and AWG Group v Argentine Republic', School of Law Working Paper Series, U. of Edinburgh (SSRN, 2010)
Arbitral tribunals charged with deciding investment treaty disputes have sought to harmonize the interpretation of those treaties in such a way that one can begin to speak of an emerging jurisprudence constante on certain issues of international investment law. One recent case which clearly demonstrates this trend for harmonization is Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., Vivendi Universal S.A. and AWG Group v Argentine Republic. This note considers how the claims made by the investors were dealt with by the tribunal. In particular, it will pay attention to whether or not differences in the language of the three BITs at issue in this case had any impact on the decision of the tribunal. It will also consider how the tribunal used previous investment arbitral awards in its reasoning. It is argued that the most convincing way of harmonizing the substantive standards of the three BITs would be to consider them as incorporating customary international law standards, as was implicitly done with the expropriation standard in this case. In contrast, the reasons for following previous arbitral awards are less convincing when the substantive rules being applied are interpreted as an autonomous treaty standard. In these circumstances, interpretation is not an appropriate technique for harmonizing international investment law, given inherent differences in the language and context of investment treaties. It does not follow that harmonization cannot occur, however. The MFN clause could be used so that a better standard of treatment is applied to all investors, as was done in relation to the procedural prerequisites in this case.
James Harrison 'Promoting the Integrity of the International Regime on Oil Pollution Compensation and Liability', School of Law Working Paper Series, 2009/08 (SSRN, 2009)
The international regime on oil pollution liability and compensation was intended to harmonise national laws on this subject in order to ensure adequate compensation for oil pollution victims. The success of the regime depends upon both its effective implementation into national law and a consistent and uniform interpretation by national courts. In practice, the uniform interpretation of the international regime has proven to be a challenge because of the different approaches taken by national courts towards the interpretation of the treaties. It is argued in this paper that the contracting parties to the treaties underlying the international regime already have a power to adopt authoritative interpretations. Whilst some decisions of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund may qualify as authoritative interpretations, it has been suggested that this power is perhaps better exercised through the International Maritime Organization, given its broader membership. Where an authoritative interpretation has been adopted, states and their courts are under an international obligation to follow that interpretation. However, there is currently no mechanism at the international level to monitor and promote compliance by national authorities. It is therefore argued that tentative discussions on monitoring the implementation of the international regime should be stepped up with a view to creating a formal compliance mechanism.
Papers and Presentations
James Harrison 'Transparency and Public Participation in EU-Korea Trade Relations' presented at 'Legal Exchange and Cooperation between Korea and the EU' (SKKU BK21 Glocal Science and Technology Law Program), SungKyunKwan University, Seoul, South Korea, 2011
James Harrison 'United Kingdom Report on the Protection of Foreign Investment' presented at International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington DC, United States, 2010
James Harrison 'Environmental Treaties - Global to Local' presented at Scottish Environment Link Annual Congress, Dunblane, Scotland, 2010
James Harrison 'Promoting the Integrity of the International Regime on Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation' presented at Interspill - International Conference on Spill Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration, Marseille, France, 2009
Synopsis