Subsea Cable Crossing Agreement

By October 10, 2021 Uncategorized No Comments

Before addressing the content of cross-breeding agreements, it is advantageous to check the interests of the parties. Crossing agreements are a fascinating example of the conflict between established companies and intruders over the use of the same maritime area. The fundamental question remains: how to find a balance between the interests of the party, which first moved to an open territory, and the interests of the newcomers? The Convention contains the essential principles, but, as the review of treaty practices has shown, many additional provisions are needed and different solutions must be found to resolve possible conflict situations. Therefore, the agreement between the two parties on a crossover agreement has considerable advantages. Last but not least, the possible “role reversal” in the post-completion phase of subsequent crossings/projects will encourage the parties to seek balanced solutions rather than if the crossing in question were considered an isolated case. Most agreements do not distinguish between solutions according to the parties, which means that the provisions are symmetrical and that the party concerned will adopt the same position as the cross-border party. The person concerned cannot therefore expect to avoid possible consequential costs simply because he was the first in the region, even if his situation may be regarded as worse than that of the border part. However, it may happen that the party concerned benefits from certain concessions in the event of difficult access or temporary removal of the cross connector, typically due to certain circumstances. Will the principle of liability for the cross-border party be maintained even if it can be demonstrated that the damage was caused by the person concerned or the group concerned? This may be considered unreasonable and many legal systems will not accept such a principle in cases of gross negligence.

There are several ways to solve this problem and the right solution depends on the current legislation chosen by the parties. One element is the seriousness of the acts of the group concerned, with an exception in the case of pre-early misconduct, including, where appropriate, up to gross negligence. The other element is the identity of the persons concerned: some cross-border agreements limit exclusion in this context to such measures at management level. The content of the provisions relating to the pre-installation phase depends on whether the parties have opted for an `early` or `late` crossing agreement, as discussed in point 4.4. If the “early” approach has been adopted, the party concerned must provide information about the connector concerned, which generally covers existing documentation and is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information transmitted. . . .

Help us keep the movement going!! Donate