Current ‘Light’ and ‘Heavy’ Options for Benefit-sharing in the Context of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 683-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaute Voigt-Hanssen
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

Abstract An international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) will need to address “Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs), including questions on the sharing of benefits” from areas outside national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Existing international models of benefit-sharing have all evolved in the context of national jurisdiction and cannot readily be put to use in ABNJ. Current use of MGRs from ABNJ is practically non-existent, although any instrument or model would have to both cater for this situation and provide for any potential technological development and increase in use. The aim of this paper is to provide a simplified overview of options for access and benefit-sharing, drawing on existing models from international and national instruments. Existing options could be analysed through separating access from benefit-sharing and assessing them factually in terms of how ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ they are.

scholarly journals Marine Genetic Resources, the Nagoya Protocol and the Law of the Sea

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Zajderman
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Industrial Applications ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law

The access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of marine genetic resources (MGRs) within national jurisdiction have received very little interest among scholars and in international discussions. This may seem somewhat surprising given the fact that the vast majority of MGRs with potential for scientific discovery and industrial applications, including deep-sea organisms, are currently predominantly sourced within national jurisdiction. Such neglect is regrettable. Many countries could undoubtedly benefit from better guidance on how to implement effective national ABS regulatory frameworks that address the governance of MRGs and marine bioprospecting activities in sea areas under their jurisdiction. Familiarising the scientific community with the evolving international framework governing the access and utilisation of those resources would be just as relevant. With this in mind, this contribution will examine the interplay between the Law of the Sea and the Nagoya Protocol, the two primary international instruments setting out the conditions for the ABS of MGRs within national jurisdiction and provide an overview of the core provisions on the various rights and obligations of coastal States (providers of MGRs) and researching States (users of MGRs) under both instruments. Finally, the importance of the involvement of the scientific community in the international ABS process will be highlighted.

scholarly journals Marine Genetic Resources, the Nagoya Protocol and the Law of the Sea

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Zajderman
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Industrial Applications ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law

The access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of marine genetic resources (MGRs) within national jurisdiction have received very little interest among scholars and in international discussions. This may seem somewhat surprising given the fact that the vast majority of MGRs with potential for scientific discovery and industrial applications, including deep-sea organisms, are currently predominantly sourced within national jurisdiction. Such neglect is regrettable. Many countries could undoubtedly benefit from better guidance on how to implement effective national ABS regulatory frameworks that address the governance of MRGs and marine bioprospecting activities in sea areas under their jurisdiction. Familiarising the scientific community with the evolving international framework governing the access and utilisation of those resources would be just as relevant. With this in mind, this contribution will examine the interplay between the Law of the Sea and the Nagoya Protocol, the two primary international instruments setting out the conditions for the ABS of MGRs within national jurisdiction and provide an overview of the core provisions on the various rights and obligations of coastal States (providers of MGRs) and researching States (users of MGRs) under both instruments. Finally, the importance of the involvement of the scientific community in the international ABS process will be highlighted.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.

How to Amend UNCLOS and Why It Has Never Been Done

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-83
Author(s):  
Chris Whomersley
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
International Maritime Organisation ◽  
Consensus Procedure ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Labour Organisation

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) contains detailed provisions concerning its amendment, but these have never been used and this article explores why this is so. States have instead maintained the Convention as a “living instrument” by adopting updated rules in other organisations, especially the International Maritime Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. States have also used the consensus procedure at Meetings of the States Parties to modify procedural provisions in UNCLOS, and have adopted two Implementation Agreements relating to UNCLOS. In addition, port State jurisdiction has developed considerably since the adoption of UNCLOS, and of course other international organisations have been active in related fields.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document