Emory International Law Review


Seongbae Park


This Comment proceeds in three parts. Part I discusses the three types of forms available for the construction of underwater sea tunnel in Estonia and Finland in detail and explains that Hyperloop One is seeking to utilize the submerged floating tunnel form. Part II explores the existing international conventions, treaties, and regulations related with the Sea that are both compatible and incompatible with Hyperloop One Technology. Part III then argues that the construction of submerged floating tunnel as is, without engineering solutions, is not permitted as it potentially violates existing international legislation and that because of the violation, the interpretation of the existing law should be expanded to include the submerged floating tunnel.