Advancement of the Duty to Cooperate in Marine Environmental Protection in the Jurisprudence of ITLOS

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-173
Author(s):  
Markiyan Z. Kulyk
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Marine Environmental Protection ◽  
Exchange Information ◽  
Marine Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Marine Environmental

Abstract The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea sets forth an unprecedented regime for marine environmental protection that compels parties to cooperate and includes mandatory dispute settlement procedures with binding decisions. Although the Convention does not contain a specific article stipulating a general duty to cooperate, cooperation permeates the logic of the document. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has recognised the importance of cooperation to marine protection and preservation in several cases. It could be suggested that the States Parties have a positive obligation to cooperate and a need to implement a range of actions to this end. ITLOS has consistently interpreted the duty to cooperate as comprising specific obligations: to consult, to exchange information, to monitor and assess relevant activities, to develop measures to prevent pollution or other environmental harm; which offers both the basis for the implementation of the duty to cooperate and the criteria for determining compliance.

scholarly journals Can we Make the Oceans Greener? The Successes and Failures of UNCLOS as an Environmental Treaty

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Incremental Development ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
Marine Environmental Protection ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Marine Environmental

At the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, there was considerable optimism that the Convention would usher in a new age of marine environmental protection. This article argues that, while UNCLOS did contain important innovations for marine environmental protections, key structural problems prevented the Convention from fulfilling more optimistic predictions of success. Concepts such as freedom of the high seas and exclusive flag state jurisdiction as well as the lack of an effective institution with competence over the law of the sea generally have impeded progress. Instead, states have relied on incremental development to seek improvements in the law. The article evaluates whether two recent developments will progress the goal of marine environmental protection. First, a number of recent international judicial decisions interpreting treaty and customary principles of international law have clarified and extended state environmental obligations. Second, negotiations for a new treaty on the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction offer hope that gaps in UNCLOS might be filled.

Law of the Sea

2019 ◽  
pp. 520-538
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Crucial Issue ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Marine Environmental Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Marine Environmental

The aim of this chapter is to examine the role of the United Nations (UN) in treaty-making in the field of the law of the sea. In particular, this chapter addresses the First and Third United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea, and the treaty-making process of two implementation agreements, that is, the 1994 Implementation Agreement and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. In this regard, it is important to note that the tasks of the conferences in the field of the law of the sea have changed over time. At the First UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, its primary task was to establish a legal framework for coordinating interests of individual states according to multiple jurisdictional zones. In contrast, the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea that adopted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dealt not only with the reconciliation of competing state interests but also with the safeguarding of community interests, such as the establishment of the deep seabed regime on the basis of the principle of common heritage of mankind and marine environmental protection. As demonstrated by this Conference, the task of treaty-making conferences under the auspices of the UN is no longer limited to the reconciliation of state interests but includes the safeguard and promotion of community interests at sea. Thus, the reconciliation between state interests and community interests should be a crucial issue in treaty-making in the law of the sea.

The Chinese Marine Environmental Protection Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 (1) ◽  
pp. 721-723
Author(s):  
Cindy Chen ◽  
Mike Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Construction Projects ◽  
Marine Pollution ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Environmental Laws ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Marine Environmental Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Marine Environmental ◽  
Chinese Marine

ABSTRACT The concept of marine environmental protection and its development was introduced to the People's Republic of China in the 1980s. This followed the enactment of the Environmental Protection Law (1979, 1989), a revision to the Constitution, and the adoption of international environmental laws. The Chinese Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) was promulgated in 1983 after China signed the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Both national environmental laws and various international conventions and agreements influenced the MEPL. For example, the MEPL closely follows provisions outlined by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and other international treaties. China has concerns about marine pollution not only within its own territory but outside its jurisdiction as well. Thus, the MEPL explicitly states that the provisions of the law apply to areas beyond China's territorial sea. As provided by the MEPL, China has the right to assert jurisdiction over foreign vessels beyond its territorial sea when they engage in activities that cause pollution to China's environment. However, questions arise as to China's coastal state jurisdiction. China's view on sovereignty is a controversial issue, and it is unclear whether the MEPL can be invoked to confer liability in waters outside of China's jurisdiction. Despite uncertainty over the jurisdiction issue, the MEPL is a significant and comprehensive law for marine protection. It regulates five major sources of marine pollution: coastal construction projects, off-shore oil exploration and exploitation, land-source pollutants, vessel pollution, and the dumping of wastes at sea. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief comparison of the MEPL and relevant international laws and an understanding of critical issues covered by the MEPL.

Precaution and the Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 773-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Rayfuse
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Marine Biodiversity ◽  
Precautionary Approach ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Marine Environmental Protection ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Marine Environmental

Abstract As a post-LOSC legal development, the precautionary principle is nowhere enunciated in the Law of the Sea Convention. Nevertheless, in the thirty years since the LOSC’s adoption, the significance of the precautionary principle for marine environmental protection in general and marine resource conservation in particular has been recognised. The language of precaution, the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach have entered the lexicon of the law of the sea, permeating the international community’s efforts to manage and conserve marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The challenge remains, however, of crafting and implementing management and governance regimes capable of achieving the objectives of precautionary management and turning the rhetoric of precaution into a reality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document