scholarly journals Benefitting from the Common Heritage of Humankind: From Expectation to Reality

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 660-681
Author(s):  
Aline Jaeckel
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
Mineral Supply ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Heritage Of Humankind ◽  
Seabed Mining ◽  
Wealth Generation

Abstract The international seabed ‘Area’ and its mineral resources are the common heritage of mankind and must be administered for the benefit of humankind as a whole. Yet the vision of the benefits to be reaped from the Area has changed over the years. The common heritage concept encapsulates seemingly conflicting developmental, commercial, and ecological imperatives. With seabed mining edging closer to becoming a reality, there is a need to analyse these imperatives and the range of benefits that humankind can (and in some cases already does) derive from the Area. This article critically discusses six categories of benefits that are relevant to seabed mining and assesses them against historical expectations. These are wealth generation and redistribution, advancement of developing States, security of mineral supply, ecosystem services, scientific knowledge, and other uses of the Area.

The Common Heritage of Mankind

2019 ◽  
pp. 35-51
Author(s):  
Surabhi Ranganathan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Common ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
Over Time

In the decolonization era, one of the battles for international law was over the seabed and its mineral resources, with intensive debates about the ownership of these resources and the conditions under which they could be exploited. At its nexus was the principle of common heritage of mankind (CHM). This chapter relates the protracted legal tussle around the CHM principle. It traces how the terms of the battle changed over time and ‘annotates’ the battle by reference to a few key issues—the precise basis for developing states’ interest in seabed resources; the antinomies of the CHM principle; and the Cold War’s effect upon the negotiations. It highlights how economic considerations remained material to the negotiations; the ideological defeat for developing states; and the seabed’s role in the NIEO movement as a whole.

International Law and Corporate Actors in Deep Seabed Mining

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Dingwall
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
The Common ◽  
Deep Seabed Mining ◽  
Seabed Mining

Corporate participation within deep seabed mining raises unique challenges for international law. Commercial investment by private corporate actors in deep seabed mining is increasing. The deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (the Area) comprises almost three-quarters of the entire surface area of the oceans, and it is home to an array of prized commodities including valuable metals and rare earth elements. These resources constitute the common heritage of mankind. Acting under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is responsible for regulating the Area for the benefit of humanity and granting mining contracts. Although mining activities in the Area remain at the exploration stage, in recent years, there has been a marked growth in investment by private corporate actors, and an increasing impetus towards exploitation. This increasing corporate activity presents challenges, including in relation to matters of common management, benefit sharing, marine environmental protection and investment protection. In part, these challenges stem from the often-contentious role of non-state actors, such as corporations, within the international legal system. A product of its history, the UNCLOS deep seabed regime is an unlikely hybrid of capitalist and communist values, embracing the role of private actors while enshrining principles of resource distribution. As technological advances begin to outstrip legal developments, this study advances the discourse by addressing the extent of any tension between corporate commercial activity in the Area and the achievement of the common heritage of mankind.

Common Heritage of Mankind as a Limit to Exploitation of the Global Commons

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 635-663
Author(s):  
Karin Mickelson
Keyword(s):  
Global Commons ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Economic Exploitation ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Common ◽  
Environmental Limits ◽  
Over Time

Abstract This contribution to the symposium on the economic exploitation of the commons focuses on the question of whether and to what extent the principle of the common heritage of mankind (CHM) imposes environmental limits on economic exploitation of the global commons. Focusing on the need to go beyond a unidimensional assessment of the principle, it considers how CHM was originally envisaged, the form it took in the deep seabed regime, in particular, how its role in that regime has developed over time and how it has been utilized as a basis for advocacy. It concludes with an assessment of CHM’s limitations and strategic advantages.

Outer limits of the continental shelf beyond CLCS recommendations and Article 76(8) of UNCLOS: With reference to Japan’s Cabinet Order No. 302

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Michael Sheng-ti Gau ◽  
Si-han Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
The West ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Essential Questions ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Common ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
The Unclos

Abstract In 2014 Japan’s Cabinet Order No. 302 declared the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (OL) to the west and north of Oki-no-Tori Shima (Area 302). Oki-no-Tori Shima consists of two small, barren, and uninhabitable rocks in the West Pacific. The northern part of Area 302 is broader than what the 2012 recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) specify. A question arises whether Order No. 302 violates Article 76(8) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides that the OL established by a coastal state ‘on the basis of’ the CLCS recommendations shall be final and binding. Another question is the role played by the CLCS in ‘assisting’ the coastal states to delimit their national jurisdiction so as to know where the Area (i.e., the Common Heritage of Mankind under UNCLOS Articles 1(1)(1) and 136) begins. The essential questions arising from Area 302 concern how well the UNCLOS mechanism can perform to safeguard the Common Heritage of Mankind through preventing encroachment thereupon by individual coastal states. This article looks at the context and explores the obligations implied by Article 76(8) for coastal states to ‘follow’ the recommendations in establishing the OL, with special reference to the northern part of Area 302. The article also examines legal consequences arising from a breach of these obligations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document