Historic title is just one of many legal instruments which may be raised by parties and used by judges to decide a territorial dispute. If a claim of historic title in given circumstances may be deemed to have been extinguished as a result of its relative weakness, the elements advanced in support of its construction, for example uti possidetis or eff ective occupation, may be used to support other types of legal claims. Taking into account its construction and its systemic conditional criteria, historic title gains maximum eff ectiveness when conditions exist which would support a fi nding of its incremental consolidation. This involves a multi-dimensional interpretation in reliance on particular elements which, taken together, create a complicated factual state in a particular territorial dispute. On the other hand, consolidation of historic title is not an argument which can be used by the indigenous native inhabitants of a territory, since their arguments are not based on claims of sovereignty.

Article 51 of the UN Charter, in affi rming the inherent right of self-defence of each UN Member State “against which an armed attack has occurred”, clearly indicates that the concept of armed attack plays a key role in delineating the right of self-defence. The concept in question was not, however, defi ned in the UN Charter, and no universally acceptable defi nition has yet emerged either in practice or in doctrine. One of the fundamental questions to be addressed in this context is who must engage in armed activity for it to qualify as an armed attack. This question is of particular relevance today because of the threat of international terrorism and the expansion of the concept of armed attack through the inclusion of an act of terrorism. The article discusses in some detail the emerging legal framework for attribution of actions undertaken by non-state actors to states.

This Article investigates how the European Court of Human Rights becomes competent to make decisions in cases concerning (or taking roots in) “historical situations” preceding the ratifi cation of the European Convention by a given Member State or even the enactment of the Convention. “Historical situations” refer to events that occurred in the period of Second World War or shortly thereafter. In all such cases, the preliminary question arises whether the Court is competent temporally (ratione temporis) to deal with the application. This group of cases concerned usually allegations touching upon the right to life and the right to property. The Court had to decide if the allegation in question related to a temporally closed event (making the Court not competent) or rather to a continuous violation (where the Court could adjudicate). A specifi c set of legal questions arose vis-à-vis the right to life, fi rst of all that of the autonomy of the procedural obligation to conduct an effi cient investigation. The Strasbourg case law did not provide a clear answer. However, following two crucial judgements rendered by the Grand Chamber, the Court has established an interesting legal framework. Article analyses also two other situations having a historical dimension: bringing to justice those accused of war crimes or other crimes under international law (in light of the alleged confl ict with the principle of nullum crimes sine lege) and pursuing authors of pro-Nazi statements or speech denying the reality of Nazi atrocities.

The article goes into the seldom discussed topic of offshore installations, such as oil platforms. The author categorizes these structures and discusses legal issues surrounding them, namely regarding mobile platforms as vessels, the international status of artificial islands, and the questions of jurisdiction. The article also touches on legality of construction of such installations, safety zones, hot pursuit and removal of decommissioned structures.

The author points that the key deficiency in maritime law is the absence of international convention on liability for pollution damage from oil rigs.

Maritime economy is one of the fields of economy of coastal states. The article tries to identify the legal framework of environmental maritime economy, as the environmental conditions influence and shape the maritime economy in acontemporary world. Environmental maritime economy is a consequence of coexistenceof three fields of law. Economic law, environmental law and maritime law. Those fields of law, which has been extracted from the body of law in an artificial way by using the objective criteria but still they are deeply interre-lated and the borders between them are blurred. Sustainable development principle is one of the main indicators of how the environmental maritime economy should function. Legal framework, international law, EU law and Polish internal law try to precise the exact meaning of sustainable development in the sphere of economic use of maritime resources. This is specially complicated as the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea is highly vulnerable and lots of environmental pressure is being putted on it. Successful implementation of environmental maritime economy should result in achieving prosperous economic activity that will be taking place in the environment of a good quality.

The article discusses data processing in e-Maritime systems. Operations within those systems are automatic, yet the actual system machinery is poorly understood by lawyers. The authors call for greater involvement of scholars and practicing lawyers in e-Maritime development.

The article analyses e-Maritime systems as implemented by Singapore Port and the european e-Maritime initiative. Furthermore, the authors examine electronic documents in Polish administrative and civil law — in particular, electronic bill of lading, NCTS communication, electronic transport records, electronic billing and the Internet of Things.

The author reviews port services — which in current Polish maritime law system include shipping agency, shipbroking, pilotage and towage.

The first part of the article examines the legal status of ports and of services themselves as categorized by the Maritime Code. The author provides their outlines, noting terseness and shortcomings of the regulation.

The second part presents draft amendments to the Code proposed by Maritime Law Codification Committee. Among the changes proposed the author dis-cusses dockage.

The final part concerns European Union Law, as the primary impulse behind the study is draft Regulation of European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports of 23 May 2013. The emergence of the draft stirred the EU member states, and, in particular, the entities professionally associated with port industry. The author sets out the basics of the proposal and criticizes them as being contrary to free market principles and subjects port services to admin-istrative regulation.

Although legal matters surrounding maritime administration system have been subject of extensive studies for nearly half a century, recent 90th anniversary of its foundation sparked some renewed interest in the matter. In 2010 agroup of authors, all being maritime administration practitioners, produced acollection of scientific studies on the subject. The present article adds to the discussion and formulates conclusions de lege lataand de lege ferenda.

The method of delimitation of maritime boundaries changed with time. Between 1969 and 1982 the International Court of Justice decided these matters upon 1958 Geneva conventions and international custom. The years 1982 to 1994 saw entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the year 2009 — the landmark Black Sea ruling (Romania v Ukraine, judgment of 3 February 2009).

While the method is straightforward, the delimitation itself is a fairly complicated process. The article deals with that second phase. The author explains the concept of special circumstances — a rather indistinct notion composed of geographical (mostly) and non-geographical factors.

The article analyses in this context some recent delimitation cases regarding the Black Sea and the Carribbean (Nicaragua v Colombia), and the Bay of Bengal case, where the judgment was delivered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Bangladesh v Myanmar, judgment of 14 March 2012).