United States policy on international straits

Abstract

United States policy on international straits is dictated by the vital importance to U.S. national security interests of unimpeded commercial and military transit through, over, and under sea lines of communication. Although perceived flaws in the deep seabed mining regime of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention precluded U.S. signature or ratification of that document, the United States considers that the navigational articles of the convention reflect customary international law. Accordingly, U.S. policy on international straits is premised on recognition of and respect for the balance of interests set forth in the navigational articles of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.     

Turning points in the future of deep seabed mining

Abstract

The paper analyzes the prospects for deep seabed mining largely from the legal and political perspectives. It identifies the major players, the forums where the struggles occur, the early assumptions, and then four turning points in the evolution of the current system. The first turning point came when the UN. Convention was adopted, and the United States voted against it. The second turning point came with the deadline for signing the U.N. Convention and qualifying to sponsor a pioneer investor. The third turning point will come when the pioneer investors resolve their overlapping mine site claims and are registered by Prepcom. The fourth turning point will come when Prepcom is able to resolve some of the important outstanding issues. The paper concludes with some recommendations for bringing the institutional machinery and legal framework into such order that deep seabed mining might take place.     

The United States and the revision of the 1982 convention on the law of the sea

Abstract

It may now be possible to breach the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention impasse. The UN Secretary‐General's informal consultations have opened realistic discussions on the deep seabed regime. Many important changes have occurred since the Convention was signed. Dramatic developments have taken place in the international community. Nations now appreciate the limited potential of deep seabed mining. While United States reliance on customary law provides some benefits, other more important U.S. interests cannot be protected absent entry into force of the Convention with widespread participation. Many alternative procedures are available to forge an accommodation. The approach taken in the Secretary‐General's consultations is to make specific changes in deficient articles. Alternatively, the present regime might be jettisoned in favor of a framework regime. Such a regime would preserve only the essential basic policies of the Convention's seabed regime. It would contain a system for constructing a viable mining system if a deep seabed regime is needed.     

Transfer of seabed mining technology: A stumbling block to U.S. ratification of the law of the sea convention?

Abstract

The Law of the Sea Convention's provisionson the transfer of seabed technology are designed to translate into specific terms the general notions (adopted in the U. N.’s Declaration of Principles of 1970) that the resources of the seabed are the “common heritage”; of humankind and that the developing nations are to gain special benefits from the exploitation of these resources. Some developed nations—in particular, the United States—have argued that these provisions are unfair, because they deprive the multinational enterprises of the developed world of the competitive advantage they have gained from their substantial investment in research and development and their innovative capabilities.

The transfer of technology is not a new concept. It is a mechanism that has been used systematically by many developing countries to ensure that foreign investments will produce a lasting infrastructure for continued national development. Multinational enterprises have learned to accommodate national needs in this area, and technology‐transfer requirements for land‐based investments have not deterred investments in the developing world.

The technology‐transfer provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention are ambiguous in certain respects, but the Preparatory Conference should provide ample opportunity to clarify these ambiguities and thus to accommodate the needs of both the investors and the developing nations. If this issue is examined from a common‐sense perspective, it should not continue to be a stumbling block that would prevent the United States from ratifying this important Convention.     

Deep‐sea mining between convention and national legislation

Abstract

A Draft Convention, informal rather than formal, emerged in September 1980, from the Ninth Session of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. At about the same time the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States passed interim legislation to create a legal framework for deep‐sea mining activities. If seabed mining is to be undertaken, a legal framework or “Rechtsordnung”; must be established which secures the right of access to the resources under commercially viable conditions during the operational time‐span of an industry, namely twenty to thirty years. At issue is the long‐term problem of securing strategic raw materials rather than the realization of short‐term profit. The American decision in March 1981, immediately prior to the Tenth Session, to review the Draft Treaty, has served to focus attention on the system of access, the decision‐making processes of the International Seabed Authority, the transfer of technology and the payment of fees, and the capability of the Enterprise as a seabed miner.     

The U.N. convention on the law of the sea and military interests in the indian ocean

Abstract

The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, ambiguous on military uses of the ocean space, weakens the legal basis for the maritime powers to pursue freely their military objectives in the oceans. Repudiation of the Convention by the United States will accelerate the creeping jurisdiction of the littoral states. The Convention enhances the security of the littoral states of the Indian Ocean, all of whom have only limited blue‐water capabilities and have sought to contain the military intrusions of the superpowers into the Indian Ocean.     

Canadian perspectives on seabed mining: The case of the production limitation formula

Abstract

This paper will analyze the position Canada took on seabed mining in the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III). Canada is a major land‐based producer of nickel, an industrialized country with private interests in seabed mining, a NATO member, a major ally of the United States, and a country with extensive ties to less‐developed countries. At UNCLOS III Canada was concerned primarily about the management and control of its coastal resources and the protection of the marine environment. After having secured these interests, Canada emerged as the leader of the land‐based mineral‐producer group advocating production controls on seabed mining. The production limitation formula was one of the major reasons for the United States’ decision not to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty. In so forcefully advocating a production limitation formula, the Canadian delegation relinquished Canada's potential as a middle power to bridge the gap between the Group of 77 and the Western industrialized countries in order to formulate a widely acceptable regime to govern the seabed. A production limitation formula was not in Canada's best interests, given her potential role in seabed mining, and was rejected by officials in the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, as well as the Canadian private sector.     

Deep seabed mining: Can an acceptable regime ever be found?

Abstract

Fourteen years of effort by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and its predecessors have so far failed to produce a generally acceptable regime for deep seabed mining. The present Draft Convention does contain ingenious solutions to the problems created by the unique characteristics of seabed resources, the lack of existing international law governing their exploitation, the influence of the navigation provisions, and the need to reconcile the financial requirements of miners with the expectations of developing countries. It is a remarkable achievement in view of the negotiating obstacles that had to be overcome, but the regime is cumbersome and expensive. Further improvements in the interest of simplification will have to be made if it is to be workable.     

Effective Protection of the Marine Environment and Equitable Benefit Sharing in the Area: Empty Promises or Feasible Goals?

abstract

The international legal framework with regard to “the Area,” comprising the deep seabed and the subsoil beyond the boundaries of national jurisdiction, has been modified significantly through the years. It was first established by part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the 1994 Implementation Agreement introduced several changes. These general rules and principles are further developed in the “Mining Code,” referring to the comprehensive set of regulations and procedures issued by the International Seabed Authority. The Authority has already produced rules for the first phases of mining activities (prospecting and exploration) in the Area, but has yet to adopt exploitation regulations. Nevertheless, the most recent draft of the exploitation regulations provides a good indication of the current state of play. This article analyzes the current draft of the exploitation regulations, which will shape the future deep seabed mining regime, in order to evaluate whether the relevant provisions are sufficient and effective to attain two prominent goals with regard to the Area: the protection of the marine environment and the equitable sharing of financial and economic benefits. The Law of the Sea Convention indeed states that the resources of the deep seabed are considered common heritage of mankind and prioritizes these objectives. Therefore, the exploitation regulations should strike an appropriate balance between commercial exploitation, environmental protection, and the interests of developing countries. The strengths and weaknesses of this document and the overarching international legal framework are identified and possible corrections are suggested.     

A note on the role of african states in committee I of UNCLOS III

Abstract

This study assesses the role the African states played in the formulation of Part XI of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. It demonstrates that the clauses dealing with the seabed issues largely incorporated their interests. It is also argued that it was because of the African states’ efforts (among other members of the G‐77) that the industrialized countries acquiesced in the negotiation of a comprehensive LOS Treaty.     

Antarctica and the law of the sea: An introductory overview

Abstract

This article examines the potential for conflict between the Antarctic Treaty regime and the Convention recently produced by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Should the UNCLOS III Convention enter into force, at least six issue‐areas seem susceptible to future controversy in Antarctic waters, namely (1) seaward territorial limits; (2) resource management and conservation; (3) local environment protection; (4) marine scientific research; (5) deep seabed mining; and (6) archipelagic‐island regimes. Accordingly, each issue‐area is assessed as to its relevance for the Southern Ocean vis‐a‐vis the Antarctic Treaty parties, with a particular view towards signaling possible problems which involve conflict of interest and overlapping jurisdiction.     

Adjacent state issues for the UNITED STATES in establishing an exclusive economic zone: The cases of Canada and Mexico

Abstract

This paper will analyze and evaluate the issues that might emerge between the United States and both Canada and Mexico in the establishment of adjacent exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Given the ambiguity of the U.N. Convention language and historic differences in approach to law of the sea issues, it is likely that there will be differences in how each of these countries will manage and regulate activities within their respective zones. Since many of the resources and activities are transboundary in nature, the potential for conflict between states exists. The paper will serve to highlight existing areas of conflict and will evaluate the potential for future disagreements.     

UNCLOS III and the new international economic order

Abstract

The New International Economic Order has become an all pervasive issue in contemporary international relations and is being discussed, debated, and considered in a number of international organizations and negotiations. Representatives of the Third World have demanded under its banner significant changes in the world's political and economic structure. It is in this context that the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has been meeting.

This study focuses upon the protracted negotiations on seabed mining and seeks to relate continuing North‐South differences to broader trends in international relations. It examines, in light of pressures for a New International Economic Order, disagreements relative to: a) access to seabed resources, b) the resource and commodity policy of the proposed International Sea‐Bed Authority, c) financial arrangements for deep seabed mining, d) transfer of technology, and e) the organizational structure of the International Sea‐Bed Authority.     

Legal regimes for seabed hard mineral mining: Evolution at the federal and state levels

Abstract

During the last decade U.S. government and industry interest in seabed hard minerals has shifted from areas beyond national jurisdiction to those within national jurisdiction. A variety of factors—technical, economic, political, legal—are behind this trend. This article focuses on the legal aspects of federal and state efforts to encourage and regulate seabed minerals exploration activities, prospective avoidance of conflicts between seabed mining and other ocean uses, federal‐state relations in seabed minerals development, and the special situation of mineral deposits spanning the federal‐state boundary offshore.     

Ocean mineral revenue sharing

Abstract

This article considers the importance of ocean mineral revenue sharing, from both the oil and gas of the continental margin and the manganese nodules of the deep seabed, at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. First the paper examines margin revenue sharing as proposed in Article 82, Informal Composite Negotiating Text. It estimates the amount of oil and gas in offshore areas, the potential value of these resources to the coastal state, the potential revenue to be shared with an international authority, and when these resources will be exploited. The paper concludes that revenue sharing from the margin will yield little if any revenue to an international authority. The article then discusses deep seabed revenue sharing. It estimates several possibilities, including nodule production by the mid‐1980s; the value of operations to the exploiting state(s)—particularly the United States; revenues to be shared with an international authority; the impact of nodule mining on land‐based producers of seabed minerals; and the uses of revenue sharing funds by an international authority. The paper concludes that revenue sharing will not exert much influence on negotiations at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.     

Municipal legislation for exploitation of the deep seabed

Abstract

This study traces the evolution of municipal legislation for the deep seabed in the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany, and considers what the United States seeks to gain and what it may possibly lose through its recent enactment of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. The study concludes that the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral‐Resources Act will ensure for the United States that the minerals of the deep seabed are (if they can be) available when needed, and will strengthen the negotiating position of the United States in UNCLOS III vis‐à‐vis a proposed seabed regime which it perceives as inefficient toward the development of manganese nodules, and unacceptable in the system of governance it promotes. Passage of the Act, it is concluded, will probably not result in a breakdown of the Law of the Sea negotiations. It is thought it will give rise to a legal challenge, the outcome of which is difficult to predict. Finally, it is asserted that political/economic opposition to the Act will be mitigated by the reasonableness of the Act, its provision for delayed implementation, and the desire of many nations to conclude a successful Law of the Sea Treaty.     

Law of the Sea Issues Between the United States and East Asian States

The United States is the sole superpower in the contemporary world and its role in the development of the law of the sea cannot be ignored. Although having not yet acceded to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United States has contributed to the development of the international law of the sea in numerous ways, including responding to the so-called excessive maritime claims in East Asia and creating new rules of maritime enforcement. This article assesses this recent U.S. practice.     

United States interests in the Arctic region

Abstract

The Arctic is a vast, forbidding and relatively unknown region. It covers about 14 million square kilometers of which 5.2 square kilometers is ice covered in summer and 11.7 million square kilometers in winter. It is a highly strategic region, and is the shortest distance between the two superpowers. It also contains vast resources, including oil, gas, and coal. Over 830,000 native peoples inhabit the Arctic Rim and have a culture that goes back 4500 years. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is generally applicable to the Arctic Ocean and has a special provision for ice‐covered areas. However, there are several unresolved jurisdictional and navigational problems between the United States and other Arctic Rim States concerning the Arctic's waters, including the Chukchi Sea, the Beaufort Sea and the Northwest Passage. Although the United States has paid some attention to the Arctic region in recent years, the Arctic still remains a relatively low priority interest for national policy and operational programs.     

Some problems concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the republic of china (Taiwan) and the Philippines

Abstract

This paper analyzes the issue of how the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea can be applied to the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippine island of Luzon and in the South China Sea area. It concludes that the Philippines’ extensive territorial sea claim based on the 1898 U.S.‐Spanish Peace Treaty can hardly find any basis in customary rules of international law and the U.N. Convention and, therefore, should be disregarded in such delimitation. On the other hand, the archipelagic principle provided in the Convention can be applied here. With respect to rules of delimitation, it suggests that the equitable principle of the delimitation of the continental shelf, enunciated in the Anglo‐French Continental Shelf Arbitration (1977) and the Tunisian‐Libyan Continental Shelf Case (1982), can mutatis mutandis be applied to the delimitation of the maritime boundary. As an interim solution, the maritime boundary of certain disputed islands in the South China Sea should be declared neutral zones open to nationals of both countries.     

Management of the ocean's living resources: An essay review

Abstract

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) focused primarily on the peaceful uses of ocean space. Although security issues were and are involved in many peaceful uses of ocean space, they were not explicitly addressed at UNCLOS III nor covered in the U.N. Convention on the Law of Sea. Since security issues are among the major neglected issues of ocean space, it is the purpose of this article to open the discussion of the legal and political aspects of these issues as relating to the law of the sea.