Legal History and the Present State of Use of the Caspian Resources
This chapter does not discuss issues relating to the legal regime of the Caspian Sea, but concentrates on deliberations concerning the status of this water basin. The rules of public international law that are applicable to the Caspian’s legal status depend primarily on the legal character of this body of water. How the Caspian Sea is regulated will therefore depend on its legal classification and the accompanying body of law. If the Caspian Sea is a “sea” in legal terms, the UNCLOS would be applicable. If, on the other hand, the Caspian Sea is a “lake” in legal terms, then customary international law concerning border lakes would apply. Given the great number of often contradictory legal opinions on its status, it seems that, rather than looking for new future regulation, it would be more rational to try to assess the compatibility of every option with current international public law doctrine. As the Caspian does not appear to fall into either category, it is therefore necessary to take into consideration its historical, geophysical and legal peculiarity in deciding whether it is an international lake or an enclosed sea. The weight of the here presented arguments suggests that the Caspian Sea is not governed by a condominium regime. It also does not appear to be a sea, so the UNCLOS does not apply directly. Nor does it seem to be an international lake. So which legal concept should be applied to successfully define the legal status of the Caspian? It is clear that there are great difficulties in resolving this issue. At the current stage of interstate negotiations regarding future legal situation of the Caspian Sea, as well as in the contemporary practice of states regarding the Caspian Sea there is, however, absolutely no reference to either of the two categories mentioned above, which are today only referred to in research papers about that subject. What remains beyond dispute is that the Caspian Sea is a water basin surrounded by five sovereign states, which must determine its future legal status. After the benefits for each of these states are considered, such a decision needs to be mutual, because only a multilateral solution can guaranty legal stability of the Caspian region.
Ownership of Oil and Gas Resources in the Caspian Sea
In the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the birth of new sovereign nations bordering the Caspian Sea, the legal status of the sea has emerged as one of the most contentious international problems facing the region. The discovery of large offshore oil and gas deposits in the area has added urgency to the need to resolve the twin issues of the legal status of the sea and the corresponding mining rights. The Caspian, the largest inland body of water in the world, is approximately the size of Japan. The south Caspian is the deepest part and contains the most productive oil and gas fields. The oil-producing area of the south Caspian that holds the most promise extends along a narrow structural zone across the sea from the Apsheron Peninsula in Azerbaijan to the Peri-Balkhan region of western Turkmenistan.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.