scholarly journals Ocean Acidification: A Due Diligence Obligation under the LOSC

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 382-408
Author(s):  
Karen N Scott

Abstract This article explores the extent to which ocean acidification is adequately addressed by the law of the sea. It will assess the various obligations under Part XII of the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (LOSC) to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment, and analyse the extent to which these obligations appropriately address ocean acidification. This article argues that LOSC Parties are subject to a due diligence obligation under Part XII of the Convention to prevent, reduce and control ocean acidification, and that this obligation is not satisfied by simply complying with their obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, unless those actions also deliberately address ocean acidification. This article goes on to examine whether and to what extent ocean acidification should be factored into decision-making associated with marine planning, fisheries management and area-based protection under the law of the sea.

Author(s):  
Rayfuse Rosemary

This chapter assesses the contribution of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) to the achievement of the principles of conservation and cooperation articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It begins with a brief historical introduction to the institutionalisation of cooperation through RFMOs and an examination of their structural limitations. It then considers the role and contribution of RFMOs in developing the specific content of the obligation to conserve, including the implications for RFMOs of the increasing recognition of the need to protect, conserve, and manage marine biodiversity in general. Finally, it examines the challenges to RFMOs posed by climate change.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (0) ◽  
pp. 190
Author(s):  
Elise Johansen ◽  
Irene Vanja Dahl ◽  
Alexander Lott ◽  
Philipp Peter Nickels ◽  
Ingrid Solstad Andreassen

The inter-connectedness of marine ecosystems has been repeatedly acknowledged in the relevant literature as well as in policy briefs. Against this backdrop, this article aims at further reflecting on the question of to what extent the law of the sea takes account of or disregards ocean connectivity. In order to address this question, this article starts by providing a brief overview of the notion of ocean connectivity from a marine science perspective, before taking a closer look at the extent to which the law of the sea incorporates the scientific imperative of ocean connectivity in the context of four examples: (i) straits, (ii) climate change and ocean acidification, (iii) salmon and (iv) the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Tying the findings of the different examples together, this study concludes by stressing the need of accommodating ocean connectivity not only in the interpretation and implementation of the existing law (of the sea) but also in its further development.


Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu

This chapter analyses due diligence obligations in law of the sea instruments, particularly in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It demonstrates the linkage between general principles, their application to non-state actors via the due diligence obligations of states, and their eventual transformation into binding detailed technical standards, such as the ones incorporated in maritime safety conventions. The chapter advances an integrated reading of due diligence rules in the law of the sea and argues that increased reference to technical standards would facilitate their application in practice. Following a review of two advisory opinions—one of the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea and one of its Seabed Disputes Chamber—the chapter finally contextualises its core findings within the broader debate on the legal nature of due diligence and its primary or secondary character.


2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
pp. 851-858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Becker

On April 2, 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS or Tribunal) rendered an advisory opinion on the rights and obligations of flag states and coastal states regarding illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). ITLOS confirmed that the full Tribunal—not just its Seabed Disputes Chamber—has jurisdiction to render advisory opinions, a matter of controversy that had previously been untested. The Tribunal also held that under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or Convention), flag states have a “due diligence” obligation to ensure that vessels flying their flag do not engage in IUU fishing activities, and that the flag state may be held liable if that obligation of due diligence is breached. In addition, the Tribunal clarified that where fisheries competence has been transferred from a state to an international organization, it is the organization, not the flag state, that may face liability for a failure to have taken adequate measures to prevent IUU fishing. Finally, the Tribunal confirmed that coastal states have a duty to consult and cooperate with each other in the sustainable management of shared stocks and highly migratory species.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 681-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Zhang

Abstract At the request of the International Seabed Authority, in 2011 the Seabed Dispute Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rendered its first Advisory Opinion: to clarify the ambiguous rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the obligations and liabilities of a sponsoring State in the development of the international seabed area. According to the Opinion, the sponsoring State’s ‘obligation to ensure’ is an obligation of conduct and due diligence; the sponsoring State should take necessary and appropriate measures to fulfill the obligation under its domestic legal system; obligations and liabilities shall apply equally to the developed and developing States; the sponsoring State could avoid strict liability and compensation when fulfilling its ‘obligation to ensure’ due to the due diligence nature of the obligation. In light of this new development in the law concerning the international seabed area, East Asian States should take measures to improve their legislation and administration accordingly.


Author(s):  
Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen ◽  
Elise Johansen ◽  
Philipp Peter Nickels

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document