An Evaluation of Proposals for a Regime for the Deep Sea-Bed in the Light of National Experience

Author(s):  
Michael Crommelin

Committee I of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is charged with responsibility for devising treaty provisions to govern the sea-bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and in particular, for devising a regime for the management of the resources of this area. In addition, the committee has the task of preparing articles to provide for the equitable sharing by all states in the benefits derived from the international area, bearing in mind the special interests and needs of developing countries and having due regard to the rights and legitimate interests of states which may be affected by activities in the area. The committee is to be concerned, therefore, with the possible adverse effects on the economies of those developing countries which are land-based producers of the minerals likely to be derived from the international sea-bed area.

1975 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Mann Borgese

Pacem in Maribus once again stressed that an ocean regime must encompass the oceans as a whole and be considered as a sub-system of the entire global system. Jurisdictional decisions, including those affecting the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), must reflect that paramount concern. It is not a matter of geographical realignment or of partition; marine ecosystem do not correspond to political demarcations. Nor is mankind, for which the concept of the common heritage is prescribed, confined to coastal states or to the present generation.In its discussions and studies, Pacem in Maribus has consistently stressed the significance of rapid scientific and technological developments which have radically changed the nature of many conventional uses of the sea and call for management as the only alternative to conflict and possible disasters. In its commitment to an Ocean Space Authority rather than to an International Sea-bed Authority, Pacem in Maribus contends that activities on the sea-bed cannot be dissociated from activities in the water-column, at the surface, and at the atmospheric interface; that the sea-bed must become part of an integrated management system for ocean space; and that claims to national jurisdiction carry a surrogate responsibility in that management.Pacem in Maribus contends that any Law of the Sea which does not respect and embody these overriding considerations will prove to be ineffective if not inoperable.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
André-Louis Sanguin

Following upon the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea begun in 1973, the principal maritime States of the world assumed exclusive national jurisdiction over a 12- mile zone extending from their coastlines and a 188-mile economic zone beyond territorial waters. Together they constitute the more familiarly referred to « 200-mile zone ». This new practice radically changed the political geography of the oceans, lessened the area within which the freedom of the seas exists, diminished by more than a third the surface area of the high seas and dealt a heavy blow to the fishing xpeditions of foreign trawlers. Canada is one of the principal users and one of the most vigourous defenders of the 200-mile principle for geographical reasons as much as for economic or political ones. The excessive exploitation of the seabed has been felt to be a threat for a portion of the population of the Eastern part of Canada. A firm policy criticized for being somewhat unilateral has enabled Canada to eliminate foreign fleets from its 200-mile zone. Over a period of 30 years the International Commission for North-West Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) attempted to introduce a positive international cooperation in order to eliminate the anarchic excessive exploitation. It was replaced in 1979 by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organization. A major dispute exists between France and Canada with respect to the delimitation of the economic zone of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, French land since 1604. More generally, the question is posed as to how long the 200-mile principle will prevail in this new political geography of the oceans.


1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 57-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Traavik

In discussing the legal and political problems connected with exploitation of the inorganic resources of the continental shelf and deep seabed, the author examines the types and amount of resources available. Placing special emphasis on the interests of the developing countries, he goes on to suggest some of the probable consequences of large-scale extraction of offshore fuels and metals. Against this backdrop, the article concludes that, in the short run, the Third World countries are not likely to benefit greatly from the creation of a UN Sea-Bed Regime. In the final section of the article, some significant lines of division in UN Sea-Bed Committee are discussed.


It is the object of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea to obtain broad international agreement on the limits to the territorial sea, on that area beyond these limits within which the coastal state may exercise rights over living and non-living resources and on the nature and manner of exercise of those rights. The Conference is also required to establish an international regime to deal with the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed beyond the limits of coastal states’ rights. The work done by the Conference in five sessions since 1973 will have its effect on international law and practice but, partly owing to differences between the view-points of less industrialized and the more industrialized states (not confined to marine matters), the global solution essential for the orderly regulation of movement of shipping, scientific research and development of fisheries and sea-bed mineral resources may yet elude the Conference, to the detriment of the participating states and of the international community as a whole.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Egede

AbstractThe Law of the Sea Convention requires that effective participation of developing States Parties in activities in the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (the Area) should be promoted having due regard to their special interests and needs (especially those of landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states). This article examines the difficulties in actual, direct and effective participation by African states in deep seabed mining and possible co-operative endeavours that African states may embark upon to overcome some of these constraints in order to advance the prospects of their actual, direct and effective participation in deep seabed mining.


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.


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