Seabed Issues at the Law of the Sea Conference: The Caracas Session

Author(s):  
Barry Buzan

The caracas meeting was only the first of three, or possibly four, sessions of the Third Law of the Sea Conference that will try to bridge the gap between the rambling six volume result of the Seabed Committee’s work and the concise articles of a new Law of the Sea Convention. The work at Caracas did not reach a stage at which it became possible to submit draft articles for the approval of the Conference. As a result, the final documents of the session made no commitment on any matters of substance. Such movement towards agreement as was achieved is therefore not binding, and is extremely vulnerable to changes of position by states in the six months preceding the next session in Geneva. Because of this, the emphasis of the present report will be more on the political process at Caracas than on the development of international law. My purpose is, first, to examine the new proposals on seabed issues and relate them to previously existing positions; second, to analyse the alignments behind the key positions; and third, to look at the other factors emerging as influences on the seabed negotiations.

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. M. Nelson

The question of reservations was one of the ‘controversial issues’ facing the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in drawing up the final clauses of the Convention. On the one hand it was argued that the integrity of the Convention must be safeguarded and that the ‘package deal’ must be protected from possible disintegration by the making of reservations. On the other hand the view was held that ‘allowance for the possibility of reservations is aimed at accommodating the views of the delegations who have maintained that they cannot become parties to the Convention unless the Convention permits them to exercise a right to enter reservations, in accordance with customary international law and as envisaged under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.’ In short the need to preserve the integrity of the Convention was pitted against the need to secure universal participation in the Convention.


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.


1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman

The law of the sea has changed, for good or for ill. The Revised Single Negotiating Text (hereinafter RSNT) issued in the spring of 1976 may prove to be the single most important document regarding the law of the sea since the 1958 Geneva Conventions in terms of its influence on state practice, whether by way of an ultimate treaty or otherwise. Important differences will exist regarding the extent to which portions of the text are declaratory of emerging customary international law and regarding the extent to which the text must be changed to be acceptable as a universal treaty or as customary law. Indeed, difficult questions of implementation of its principles in bilateral and other arrangements are already arising. Positions taken at multilateral conferences may differ from the positions taken in other contexts. But the text will not be ignored.


Author(s):  
Treves Tullio

This chapter highlights, in the historic development of the law of the sea, the roots of the law as it currently stands and the questions still open today. It considers the early phases of the evolution of the law of the sea up to the end of the nineteenth century followed by, in more detail, developments that took place in the twentieth century up until the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. This fundamental event in the history of the law of the sea in the twentieth century is the basis of the international law of the sea of today, and is dealt with in subsequent chapters of this Handbook.


1976 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne

This article is divided into four parts. The first aims to place the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in its historical context. The second describes some aspects of the first three sessions of that Conference (1973–1975). In the third an account of major specific interests and conflicts which have appeared in this Conference is given. Finally, some tentative conclusions are drawn—tentative, because the Conference has not yet completed its labours.During its first session (1949) the newly established International Law Commission, set up by the General Assembly in accordance with the provision of Article 13 of the Charter relating to the codification and progressive development of international law, included the topics of the régime of the high seas and the régime of territorial waters in its provisional list of fourteen topics selected for codification. It placed the régime of the high seas on its priority list, and appointed Professor J.P.A. François (The Netherlands) as special rapporteur. At the recommendation of the General Assembly in resolution 374 (IV) of 6 December 1949 the Commission in 1950 included the régime of territorial waters on its priority list, and in 1951 it initiated work on that topic, for which Professor François was also designated special rapporteur. The Commission was heavily occupied with both these topics until 1956.


2016 ◽  
pp. 67-98
Author(s):  
Przemysław Saganek

The text of Przemysław Saganek is a part of a wider discussion on the Mediterranean migration crisis. The author underlines the multi-aspect character of the crisis and the fact that several branches of international law which are at stake in it. They cover: the law on refugees, human rights, the law of the sea, the maritime law, the rules on territorial sovereignty and on the crossing of borders. What is of importance are customary norms, treaties and norms of the EU law. The idea of the author is to look at the instruments of international law which may act as incentive for hundreds of thousands of newcomers or as main obstacles for the states to put an end to uncontrolled inflow of people through their borders. His idea is to identify such instruments and start discussion on their possible suspension or termination if the crisis persists. The author comes to the conclusion that the definition of a refugee from the 1951 Geneva Conventionis not by itself a source of problems. The same concerns the subsidiary protection as introduced by the EU qualification directive. The same can be said about the scope of rights of persons covered by the international protection. The only element which requires discussion is the possible redefinition of the right to national treatment as regards the social aid. On the other hand, the scope of powers of states to defend their borders depends on the interpretation of the EU instruments on the protection of borders and the rights of applicants for international protection. The author comes to the conclusion that neither the procedural directive, nor the 2016 Schengen Border Code can be interpreted as a source of the right of an applicant to enter the territory of a Member State. On the other hand, the geographical conditions and the law of the sea make Greece and Italy the most vulnerable for the inflow of persons. The necessity of important changes to the law and its interpretation are referred to in a general way.


Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

This chapter assesses applications for provisional measures of protection under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). At the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, the need for courts or tribunals having jurisdiction under UNCLOS to have the power to prescribe provisional measures was beyond dispute although there was considerable debate concerning the details of the regime associated with such measures. The finally adopted Article 290 of UNCLOS, under the heading ‘Provisional measures’, represents the best possible compromise. Provisional measures are divided into provisional measures prescribed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under Article 290(1) pending ITLOS’ judgment on the merits of the dispute, on the one hand, and provisional measures prescribed by ITLOS under Article 290(5) pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to which a dispute is being submitted, on the other hand. The request for the prescription of provisional measures shall be in writing and specify the measures requested, the reasons therefor, and the possible consequences, if the request is not granted, for the preservation of the respective rights of the parties or for the prevention of serious harm to the marine environment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document