A Study on Whether BBNJ Negotiation on Access to MGR is Still under the UNCLOS

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-70
Author(s):  
Youngdawng MOH
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Emilio Sessa
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  

The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v. Italy), Case No. 25, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 4 November 2016Contents**I.PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUNDII.JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE OF ITLOSIII.POWER FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO ACT “ON BEHALF” OF A STATEIV.DISPUTE CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF THE UNCLOS CONVENTION...


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-203
Author(s):  
Dong Yan ◽  
Paolo Davide Farah ◽  
Tivadar Ötvös ◽  
Ivana Gaskova

Abstract Considering the fact that its existence is abundant while maintaining the ability to generate freshwater while burning, methane hydrates have been classified as sources of sustainable energy. China currently maintains an international role in developing technology meant to explore offshore methane hydrates buried under the mud of the seabed, their primary laboratory being the South China Sea. However, such a process does not come without its hazards and fatal consequences, ranging from the destruction of the flora and fauna, the general environment, and—the greatest hazard of all—the cost of human life. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’), being an important international legal regime and instrument, has assigned damage control during the exploration of methane hydrates, as being the responsibilities and liability of individual sovereign states and corporations. China adopted the Deep Seabed Mining Law (hereinafter the DSM Law) on 26 February 2016, which came into force on the 1 of May 2016; a regulation providing the legal framework also for the Chinese government’s role in methane hydrate exploratory activities. This article examines the role of the DSM Law and its provisions, as well as several international documents intended to prevent transboundary environmental harm from arising, as a result of offshore methane hydrate extraction. Despite the obvious risk of harm to the environment, the DSM Law has made great strides in regulating exploratory activities so as to meet the criteria of the UNCLOS. However, this article argues that neither the UNCLOS nor the DSM Law are adequately prepared to address transboundary harm triggered by the exploitation of offshore methane hydrates. In particular, the technology of such extraction is still at an experimental stage, and potential risks remain uncertain—and even untraceable—for cross-jurisdictional claims. The article intends to seek available legal instruments or models, to overhaul the incapacity within the current governing framework, and offers suggestions supporting national and international legislative efforts towards protecting the environment during methane hydrate extraction.


Author(s):  
Michael Sheng-ti Gau ◽  
Si-han Zhao

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