Nelson F. Coelho

Ports are essential nodes of the global supply chain that are under pressure to become ‘smart’ ports. The digital transition and possible adoption of AI-decision support tools destabilise routine port operations, creating uncertainties about a port’s future identity narrative and resulting in potential ontological insecurities. Given the scant literature on smart port transitions from the lens of a smart port’s self-identity and ontological security, this study aims to fill this gap. The study explores how ports navigate digitalisation and AI adoption while maintaining their ontological security using Pratt’s (2016) Relational Ontological Security theory lens. We conduct a document-based comparative case study of ports in the Netherlands and Denmark, using PRISMA reporting and deductive content analysis. This study reveals that the digital and AI transition is a strategic negotiation of the institutional self to maintain the existing port identity amidst (anticipated) digital disruptions. The findings highlight a clear difference in how they secure ontological security; Dutch ports seek to set global normative standards. In contrast, Danish ports stabilise their identities by aligning with established standards to secure their specialised, customised regional niches. These findings conclusively highlight that port digitalisation and AI adoption in ports in Denmark and the Netherlands are not just a technological challenge but also a strategic re-establishment of the port’s self-identity and maintenance of ontological security.

This article examines the emergence of collaborative governance within the EU maritime transport sector in response to the European Green Deal (EGD) and its decarbonization agenda. Using a nested case study design, it analyses policy arrangements for shipping and ports, applying a combined analytical framework based on the policy arrangement concept and collaborative governance theory. The findings highlight that while shipping and port sectors have historically operated in siloed arrangements, the EGD has prompted cross-sectoral collaboration through initiatives such as green shipping corridors, alternative fuel infrastructure projects, and stakeholder alliances. Increased collaborative dynamics are evident both within and between these two sectors, fostering trust, alignment, and early joint problem-solving. However, large-scale joint action and fully integrated governance mechanisms remain limited, indicating that the emergent collaborative governance regime is in its formative stage. The study demonstrates how the EGD is reshaping sectoral interactions, providing a foundation for transformative change in maritime transport governance, while highlighting the need for sustained institutionalization, joint investment, and system-level adaptation to realize long-term impact.

This paper discusses the governance of port classification through the lens of multi-level governance theory, with a particular focus on the Port of Aalborg and the issue of classification of Limfjord waters, in Denmark. The study identifies a conflict wherein national governmental decisions regarding the classification of navigable waterways obstruct the port’s access to funding opportunities. Despite the port’s autonomous operational capacity, national control over waterway classification and port typology shows a nested governance dynamic, thereby highlighting the intricacies of the European Union’s subsidiarity principle. This paper argues that the case illustrates how the classification of inland waterways, although ostensibly legal, is intrinsically political and subject to national interests. The Danish government’s refusal to designate the Limfjord as a navigable waterway potentially hinders regional development and impedes the EU’s policy objectives for intermodality. Methodologically, the research synthesizes desk-based analysis with key-informant interviews to examine the legal, political, and geographical dimensions of this issue. The findings contribute to multi-level governance theory by describing the case as a hybrid model that integrates both nested and polycentric elements, thereby enriching the debate on governance complexities within the European context.

"Islands, Law and Context – the Treatment of Islands in International Law, written by Malcolm D. Evans and Reece Lewis" published on 08 Jan 2025 by Brill | Nijhoff.

"Coastal State Jurisdiction over Ships in Need of Assistance, Maritime Casualties and Shipwrecks, written by Iva Parlov" published on 24 Oct 2023 by Brill | Nijhoff.

A new motivation for marine restoration has been observed, associated with the dissatisfaction with current marine restoration governance arrangements (MRGAs). An MRGA consists of alliances of public and private actors (coalitions) who, through their common conceptualisation of the problem (discourses), try to influence and design marine restoration activities while considering the rules of decision‐making, and the management of limited resources. Emerging MRGAs rise in parallel to existing ones and aim to contribute to the same goals or show another way of reaching those goals. This phenomenon raises questions of legitimacy both for the emerging and the existing arrangement. Building on existing literature, this paper proposes an analytical framework to simultaneously explore input, throughput and output legitimacy as three essential pre‐conditions of legitimacy for MRGAs. The framework is tested in three European cases of MRGAs that were part of the European Union MERCES project (http://www.merces-project.eu/). Analysis showed that actors who are influential in achieving restoration goals, and also those who are impacted by restoration actions, should be involved in the MRGAs (input legitimacy); actors within MRGAs should establish and follow procedures for decision‐making that are both transparent and clear (throughput legitimacy); and actors within MRGAs need to establish a common understanding of restoration, of the goal to reach and of the related uncertainties (output legitimacy). Awareness of these pre‐conditions allows actors internal and external to MRGAs to address aspects that give legitimacy to restoration actions. It also creates a language that allows actors to engage in discussion on legitimacy that goes beyond the mere application of the rule of law.

Ship-source pollution represents a threat to the environment, regardless of where it occurs. The European Union has been developing standards that aim to counter accidental, operational and intentional pollution in the waters under its member-state’s jurisdiction. However, and precisely because marine pollution knows no boundaries, the EU is not coy in contemplating what ships do beyond waters under the sovereignty of its member states. This article analyses the international lawfulness of EU claims to port state jurisdiction over ship-source pollution. It demonstrates that port state jurisdiction is today not only a means to ensure compliance with international standards but also a means to unilaterally enforce more stringent environmental standards.