scholarly journals The High Seas Freedom to Lay Submarine Cables and the Protection of the Marine Environment: Challenges in High Seas Governance

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 139-143
Author(s):  
Tara Davenport

The freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, one of the most venerated high seas freedoms under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), faces an uncertain future under the new international legally binding instrument (ILBI) being negotiated in the United Nations. UN General Assembly Resolution 72/249, authorizing the intergovernmental conference for the new ILBI, does not expressly mention submarine cables or pipelines but states that “the work and results of the conference should be fully consistent with the provisions of” UNCLOS. The issues in a new ILBI that are likely to have an impact on the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines in areas beyond national jurisdiction are (1) area-based management tools, and (2) environmental impact assessments (EIAs), which are mechanisms used to protect and preserve the marine environment and biodiversity. The challenge for high seas governance (and indeed, the perennial challenge for the law of the sea) is how to balance these two ostensibly competing, but equally valuable, interests: the protection of the marine environment and biodiversity and the high seas freedom to lay submarine cables in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Author(s):  
Talitha Ramphal

Abstract Activities to tackle marine debris are conducted on the high seas by The Ocean Cleanup. The high seas are open to all States and may be used as long this is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) and other rules of international law. This article argues that the LOSC provides for the freedom to use the high seas to protect and preserve the marine environment, including tackling marine debris, when interpreting Article 87 of the LOSC in light of present day needs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-195
Author(s):  
Nilufer Oral

Abstract This article examines the duty to cooperate under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in relation to the obligations of States to protect and preserve the marine environment and in relation to the protection of the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It demonstrates that the new Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement plays an important role in creating the necessary mechanisms for cooperation, thereby fulfilling the multiple obligations that States have under UNCLOS to cooperate regarding the protection and preservation of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Additionally, the BBNJ Agreement provides an important opportunity for States to effectively operationalize the UNCLOS provisions for marine scientific research, as well as the development and transfer of marine technology and capacity building. This article further analyses the duty to cooperate in relation to area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments, which are also key components of a broad framework of global cooperation under the BBNJ Agreement.


2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Oude Elferink

AbstractThe establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles under Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) is a complex process, which requires a coastal state to dedicate significant resources. To understand the reasons for the inclusion of this complex provision in the LOSC, this article first looks at the origins of Article 76. Subsequently, a number of provisions of Article 76 are considered to illustrate the questions which exist in connection with its application and interpretation. It is concluded that Article 76 fulfills the mandate that had been given to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in respect of the definition of the limits of national jurisdiction, notwithstanding the complexity of the issue and the interests involved. Before the Third Conference started there was no certainty about the extent of the continental shelf. Article 76 provides a procedure to arrive at precisely defined outer limits. Once Article 76 will have been implemented by all the present states parties to the Convention, most of the outer limits of the continental shelf vis-à-vis the Area will be defined in precise terms.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Friedman

In 2016, countries began meeting at the United Nations (un) to prepare for negotiations to develop an international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (abnj). How the instrument will relate to submarine cables, if at all, remains to be decided. The preparatory committee will address a “package” of issues, among them the application of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas (mpas) and environmental impact assessments (eias) to activities in abnj. eias and mpas already affect submarine cable operations in national jurisdictions. In abnj, a new instrument should formalize a cooperative framework with the cable industry to provide limited environmental management where necessary without over-burdening cable operations. This approach would be consistent with the un Convention on the Law of the Sea and could also inform governance with respect to other activities likely to be benign in abnj.


Author(s):  
Corell Hans

This chapter discusses the contributions of the United Nations to the development of the law of the sea during the period following the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) in 1982. It covers preparing for the entry into force of the LOSC; informal consultations relating to the implementation of Part XI of the LOSC; establishing the Convention institutions after the entry into force of the LOSC; the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS); United Nations conferences on the human environment; the role of the General Assembly; the Meeting of States Parties to the LOSC; sustainable fisheries and straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; the Oceans and Coastal Areas Network (UN-Oceans); the United Nations open-ended informal consultative process on oceans and the law of the sea; the so-called Regular Process; the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; and piracy on the agenda of the Security Council.


Author(s):  
Erik Franckx ◽  
Aster Boeye

According to a 2018 count, there are twenty-two states that claim archipelagic state status. It was only after the independence of the Philippines and Indonesia at the end of the Second World War, when both countries made unilateral claims during the 1950s, that the demand for a specific regime for archipelagic states became articulated. Third states wanted to retain their navigational rights in archipelagic waters for economic and military purposes, while the archipelagic states wanted to claim these archipelagic waters as internal waters, following the swift development of the concept of coastal archipelagos after the 1951 judgement of the International Court of Justice through the creation, and codification a few years afterward, of the notion of straight baselines. The concept of an archipelagic state was only incorporated in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 LOSC), after nine years of negotiations on this issue during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, 1973–1982), of which the first session was totally devoted to procedural matters. At the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, 1958) and during its preparatory work undertaken by the International Law Commission (ILC, 1949–1956), the Special Rapporteur J. P. A. François already developed the concept of a group of islands or archipelagic states in 1953. States were, however, unable to find common ground because the concept at that time. Especially the legal nature of the waters on the inside of the archipelago proved to be elusive. It was consequently deleted from the ILC draft and even though specific proposals were introduced during UNCLOS I and II (1960) on this issue, neither conference reached any conclusion on the matter. The issue was picked up again during the work of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction (Sea-bed Committee) in 1971, which prepared the agenda for UNCLOS III. At UNCLOS III, the debate after a while (1976) totally narrowed down to mid-ocean archipelagic states, dashing the hopes of continental states, sometimes referred to as mixed states, to see their mid-ocean “archipelagos” included in the system being elaborated at that time. In the early 21st century, the provisions of Part IV of the 1982 LOSC determine the regime of archipelagic states in international law of the sea and can be considered as progressive development of international law. Never before had such a concept been written down in an international treaty. Due to the package-deal approach, a balance of interests can clearly be found in these provisions. New concepts are created such as archipelagic states, archipelagic baselines, and archipelagic sea-lanes passage, all of which are being carefully defined in the 1982 LOSC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document