New Frontiers in the Law of the Sea and Policy Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the results of the held conference in an appropriate, clear and articulated manner.

Authors should correct the references according to the journal’s. instructions.

Author Response

Comments: The article presents the results of the held conference in an appropriate, clear and articulated manner.

Authors should correct the references according to the journal’s instructions.

Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback and recognition of the manuscript's clarity and articulation. The authors are grateful for the valuable suggestion to correct the references in accordance with the journal’s instructions, which has been carefully implemented in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The general theme of the manuscript revolves around addressing water resource management and sustainability, specifically exploring methods to optimize the use and preservation of water in the context of environmental and socio-economic challenges. It focuses on integrating innovative approaches, such as advanced modeling techniques, policy frameworks, or case studies, to tackle issues related to water scarcity, quality, and distribution.

The abstract should better highlight the novelty of the research and provide a more explicit statement on the study's implications. Consider revising the abstract to include how the findings contribute to the broader field or practical applications.

The literature review within the introduction could be expanded. Including more recent studies or contrasting perspectives would strengthen the context and rationale for the research. Additionally, the introduction could more explicitly frame the research gap the study aims to fill.

The literature review is somewhat superficial. It does not delve deeply into contrasting theories or recent developments. Including a critical evaluation of previous findings and identifying unresolved questions would position the study more effectively within the academic discourse.

Some methodological aspects are underexplained. For example:

• The criteria for selecting specific variables or models are not sufficiently justified.
• Details about assumptions, limitations, or potential biases in the data collection and analysis process are missing. Including these would enhance transparency and credibility.
• If applicable, diagrams or flowcharts explaining the methodological process would improve clarity.

While the results are well-organized, some sections could benefit from deeper interpretation. Explaining why certain results emerged and linking them more explicitly to the research objectives would strengthen this section. Additionally, some numerical results lack sufficient context or comparison to prior studies.

Critical analysis of the results is limited. For example:

• How do unexpected findings compare to previous studies?
• What might explain any discrepancies?
• What are the broader implications of the findings for policy or theory?
• Limitations of the study are not adequately addressed. Discussing these in detail would improve the overall rigor of the manuscript.

Conclusions could be more impactful by including clear recommendations for future research. Additionally, emphasizing how the findings address the research gap identified in the introduction would provide a stronger sense of closure.

Some sections are dense with technical details. Simplifying the language or breaking down complex concepts would make the manuscript more accessible to a wider audience.

Author Response

Comments: The general theme of the manuscript revolves around addressing water resource management and sustainability, specifically exploring methods to optimize the use and preservation of water in the context of environmental and socio-economic challenges. It focuses on integrating innovative approaches, such as advanced modeling techniques, policy frameworks, or case studies, to tackle issues related to water scarcity, quality, and distribution.

The abstract should better highlight the novelty of the research and provide a more explicit statement on the study's implications. Consider revising the abstract to include how the findings contribute to the broader field or practical applications.

Response: In response to the reviewer’s comment, the authors acknowledge the constructive feedback and insightful suggestion. While the original abstract addressed the novelty of the conference report, the authors have revised, enhance the clarity, and refined it in the revised manuscript to further highlight the research’s contribution and provide a more explicit statement of its broader implications, in line with the reviewer’s valuable suggestion.

Comment: The literature review within the introduction could be expanded. Including more recent studies or contrasting perspectives would strengthen the context and rationale for the research. Additionally, the introduction could more explicitly frame the research gap the study aims to fill.

The literature review is somewhat superficial. It does not delve deeply into contrasting theories or recent developments. Including a critical evaluation of previous findings and identifying unresolved questions would position the study more effectively within the academic discourse.

Some methodological aspects are underexplained. For example:

• The criteria for selecting specific variables or models are not sufficiently justified.
• Details about assumptions, limitations, or potential biases in the data collection and analysis process are missing. Including these would enhance transparency and credibility.
• If applicable, diagrams or flowcharts explaining the methodological process would improve clarity.  

Comment: While the results are well-organized, some sections could benefit from deeper interpretation. Explaining why certain results emerged and linking them more explicitly to the research objectives would strengthen this section. Additionally, some numerical results lack sufficient context or comparison to prior studies.

Critical analysis of the results is limited. For example:

• How do unexpected findings compare to previous studies?
• What might explain any discrepancies?
• What are the broader implications of the findings for policy or theory?
• Limitations of the study are not adequately addressed. Discussing these in detail would improve the overall rigor of the manuscript.

Conclusions could be more impactful by including clear recommendations for future research. Additionally, emphasizing how the findings address the research gap identified in the introduction would provide a stronger sense of closure.

Some sections are dense with technical details. Simplifying the language or breaking down complex concepts would make the manuscript more accessible to a wider audience.

Responce: The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful feedback and constructive suggestions, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

In response to the reviewer’s comments on the literature review, the authors have expanded and revised this section to elaborated recent studies and contrasting perspectives. These edits provide a more robust contextual foundation and explicitly highlight the research gap addressed by the study. Particular emphasis has been placed on the symposium’s role in bridging these gaps within the framework of ocean governance.

To address methodological aspects, the authors have added two new paragraphs to the introduction, elaborating on the study’s limitations and methodology. These revisions include a detailed explanation of the criteria for data selection, the assumptions underlying the analysis, and potential biases inherent in the methodology. Specifically, the manuscript adopts an empirical legal methodology, with 70% of the data derived from contributions by experts and scholars at the symposium and 30% sourced from external literature. The observational nature of the analysis has been clarified to align with the study’s objectives.

Given the empirical legal focus of the manuscript, diagrams and flowcharts were deemed neither necessary nor relevant to the methodological framework. However, the authors have prioritized transparency and clarity throughout the revised manuscript to ensure methodological rigor.

In line with the reviewer’s suggestions, efforts have been made to simplify complex terminology wherever possible. Nonetheless, certain terms remain unchanged as they are field-specific and integral to maintaining precision and accuracy within the legal framework.

The authors reiterate their gratitude to the reviewer for their valuable comments and trust that the revisions made address all concerns raised. The authors are confident that these enhancements strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to the academic discourse on ocean governance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article gives a report on the 11th Ocean Law and Governance International Symposium held in the last September. It summarized the presentations of the main points they delivered. It is worth to be reported for its useful and new information in the domain of ocean law activities and topics to be studied and updated at present and in the near future. Organization and writing of the article are fine and fulfill the requirements of a journal paper. In my opinion, revision is almost unnecessary except for the only one minor misprint below, which has, by large, been found by the authors.

1. At the end of line 306, please look at it again.

Author Response

Comments: The article gives a report on the 11^th Ocean Law and Governance International Symposium held in the last September. It summarized the presentations of the main points they delivered. It is worth to be reported for its useful and new information in the domain of ocean law activities and topics to be studied and updated at present and in the near future. Organization and writing of the article are fine and fulfill the requirements of a journal paper. In my opinion, revision is almost unnecessary except for the only one minor misprint below, which has, by large, been found by the authors.

1. At the end of line 306, please look at it again.

Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. The authors are delighted that the study has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the field of ocean law and governance, particularly for its utility in presenting new and relevant information from the 11^th Ocean Law and Governance International Symposium. The reviewer kind remarks regarding the organization and writing of the manuscript, as well as its fulfillment of journal standards, are deeply appreciated. The authors are grateful for your careful review and acknowledgment of the minimal need for revisions. The identified minor misprint has been addressed in the revised version to ensure the manuscript is polished and accurate. Thank you once again for your valuable insights and for recognizing the importance of this work in advancing discourse within the domain of ocean law and governance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have some concerns regarding the suitability of the current manuscript as a conference report for publication in Water. While I appreciate the effort to summarize the discussions from the symposium, I am skeptical about whether this format aligns with the journal's standards for academic publication. Therefore, my initial recommendation is to reject the manuscript. However, if the editor determines that this type of conference report is indeed appropriate for Water, I would be happy to continue reviewing the paper.

 

Regarding the current version, I have several specific concerns:

The abstract does not effectively summarize the main content of the paper. Instead, it reads more like an introductory news piece, lacking the necessary focus on key findings or insights from the symposium.

 

The content related to the law of the sea appears fragmented and lacks a clear framework. The sections do not flow logically, and the connections between different topics are weak, making it difficult to follow the overall narrative.

 

Most critically, the manuscript lacks in-depth academic discussion and does not provide meaningful conclusions. It primarily reports on the symposium's discussions without offering critical analysis, synthesis, or contributions to the field.

 

In its current form, the manuscript does not meet the academic rigor expected for publication in Water. If the authors can address these issues by restructuring the content, providing a more cohesive framework, and adding substantive academic analysis and conclusions, the paper could potentially be reconsidered.

Author Response

Comments: I have some concerns regarding the suitability of the current manuscript as a conference report for publication in Water. While I appreciate the effort to summarize the discussions from the symposium, I am skeptical about whether this format aligns with the journal's standards for academic publication. Therefore, my initial recommendation is to reject the manuscript. However, if the editor determines that this type of conference report is indeed appropriate for Water, I would be happy to continue reviewing the paper.

Regarding the current version, I have several specific concerns:

The abstract does not effectively summarize the main content of the paper. Instead, it reads more like an introductory news piece, lacking the necessary focus on key findings or insights from the symposium.

The content related to the law of the sea appears fragmented and lacks a clear framework. The sections do not flow logically, and the connections between different topics are weak, making it difficult to follow the overall narrative.

Most critically, the manuscript lacks in-depth academic discussion and does not provide meaningful conclusions. It primarily reports on the symposium's discussions without offering critical analysis, synthesis, or contributions to the field.

In its current form, the manuscript does not meet the academic rigor expected for publication in Water. If the authors can address these issues by restructuring the content, providing a more cohesive framework, and adding substantive academic analysis and conclusions, the paper could potentially be reconsidered.

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered the concerns raised and have revised the manuscript to address the issues outlined. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments:

 The authors understand the reviewer’s reservations about the compatibility of this conference report with the journal’s scope. However, the authors believe that the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of Water, as it discusses significant findings and discussions related to water governance and international frameworks. The revised version emphasizes the academic contributions derived from the symposium, ensuring that the paper provides value to the readership.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the authors have revised the abstract to ensure it effectively summarises the main content of the manuscript. The revised abstract now highlights the key findings and insights from the symposium, offering a concise and focused overview of the paper.

The authors acknowledge the fragmented structure of the original submission and have restructured the sections to improve logical flow and coherence throughout the manuscript’s contents. The revised manuscript now presents the content within a clear and cohesive framework, with well-defined connections between topics to facilitate a smoother narrative.

In response to the reviewer’s concern, the authors have significantly enhanced the academic rigor of the manuscript. Critical discussions have been incorporated throughout the text to analyse and synthesize the symposium’s findings. Additionally, the conclusion section has been extensively revised to provide meaningful insights and contributions to the field, aligning with the journal's expectations.

The entire manuscript has been reviewed and revised to address the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The authors have ensured that the content aligns with academic standards, enhancing readability and coherence. While the authors made every effort to incorporate all feedback within the given timeframe and address all the reviewers comments and incorporated their valuable suggestions in the manuscript.

The authors hope that the revised manuscript meets the expectations of the reviewer and the editorial board. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions proved  consideration of the reviewers' suggestions, with significant improvements in clarity, depth, and overall manuscript quality. Although improved, more emphasis on unexpected findings, potential discrepancies, and broader implications would enhance the discussion. Clearer recommendations for future research and tying conclusions more explicitly to the research gap could make the manuscript more impactful.

Author Response

The authors sincerely express their gratitude to the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on the manuscript. The reviewer’s valuable insights have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of the revised manuscript.

In the first round of revisions, the authors carefully considered and implemented all of the reviewer’s insightful suggestions. This included a comprehensive enhancement of the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and alignment with the research objectives. Specifically, the authors ensured that the discussion on gap analysis and findings followed each panel question-and-answer session and was directly integrated within the same section.

In response to the reviewer’s second-round comments, the authors have further revised the manuscript to address the highlighted areas. These revisions focused on emphasizing unexpected findings, resolving potential discrepancies, and broadening the discussion to better reflect the study's implications. Moreover, the authors have refined the conclusion section by explicitly linking the findings to the identified research gaps, providing clearer recommendations for future research, and elaborating on the contributions of the symposium.

The authors are confident that these revisions align with the reviewer’s suggestions and have substantially improved the overall quality and impact of the manuscript. Once again, the authors extend their heartfelt appreciation to the reviewer for their invaluable guidance throughout this process.

Modifications:

[3. Conclusion 

The two-day symposium convened distinguished experts to examine the evolving complexities of ocean governance and the law of the sea, with a particular focus on emerging challenges and new frontiers. The discussions illuminated critical gaps in existing literature, drawing the attention of academics and policymakers to issues such as climate change litigation, the advisory jurisdiction of ITLOS, the discharge of nuclear waste from Fukushima, and the urgent need for robust global legal mechanisms to address these challenges. A recurring theme was the necessity of modernising legal frameworks—nova editio—to meet current environmental imperatives. In particular, the recently adopted BBNJ Agreement and the global crisis of MPP were identified as areas requiring immediate legal and institutional responses. Furthermore, the balance between economic activities—such as DSM and industrial fishing, and the imperative for ecological protection emerged as a central concern. Further, the experts underscored the need for adaptive legal reforms that support ecosystem-based ocean management while safeguarding vulnerable coastal communities, who are increasingly bearing the brunt of climate change.

The integration of environmental justice into the law of the sea emerged as a key focus, with strong advocacy for legal mechanisms to protect marine biodiversity while safeguarding the livelihoods of coastal populations. Nonetheless, the discussions exposed a critical shortcoming: an insufficient emphasis on the human element—particularly vulnerable individuals whose lives are intrinsically tied to or dependent on the sea. This oversight underscores a pressing gap in the discourse, emphasising the necessity for further research and targeted policy engagement to address the socio-legal dimensions of ocean governance effectively. Moreover, the symposium explored the potential of digital technologies—such as satellite surveillance and artificial intelligence, to enhance enforcement and conservation efforts. While these innovations offer transformative possibilities, concerns over data governance, equitable access, and technological inequalities were raised as barriers to their effective implementation. Such concerns call for comprehensive regulatory frameworks to govern the ethical use of technology in ocean governance.

The symposium concluded with a call for flexible, adaptive governance frameworks that can address ongoing environmental degradation while enabling legal systems to respond to evolving challenges. Consequently, the experts emphasised the importance of global solidarity, ecological stewardship, and the adoption of innovative legal instruments to ensure sustainable ocean governance for future generations. This vision, while demanding collective effort, integrates environmental justice, technological advancements, and dynamic legal reforms to meet the pressing challenges of the 21^st century. Consequently, the symposium's contributions span academic, policymaking, and practical domains, serving as a cornerstone for initiating new debates within the transnational research community on the evolving frontiers of ocean governance. By fostering interdisciplinary discourse, it encourages researchers, policymakers, and academics to explore innovative approaches to the law of the sea. This multidisciplinary framework integrates scientific, political, economic, international relations, sociological, legal, and judicial dimensions, ultimately seeking comprehensive solutions to bridge existing gaps in understanding and practice. This approach enriches the discourse and provides a forward-looking model for experts shaping future research and policymaking in this critical field.]

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

The authors are sincerely grateful for the reviewer’s kind words and for accepting the manuscript in its present form. The reviewer’s expert review and feedback are highly valued and have greatly contributed to the authors’ academic work.

Thank you for acknowledging the effort and research behind this study. The reviewer’s positive evaluation has provided significant encouragement for the authors to continue contributing to this field with dedication and perseverance.