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.     

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.     

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.     

Wide limits and “equitable”; distribution of seabed resources

Abstract

This article discusses some drawbacks of a universally applicable 200‐mile limit for seabed resources in terms of the artificial nature of this limit, the jeopardy to the proposed international regime to govern deep seabed resources, and the views of land‐locked and shelf‐locked countries. Given the uncertain political acceptability of a 200‐mile limit, a systems approach is suggested as a means of devising a compromise solution that would maximize the objectives of: respect of existing internationally agreed conventions; promotion of the rational development of deep seabed resources; provision of equitable distribution of seabed resources and provision of acceptable benefits to all major groups of countries. One possible solution would be to have the limit of coastal jurisdiction over seabed resources defined in terms of the continental margin coupled with a system for sharing the “take”; in the area between 12 miles and the limit of the margin. The share payable to the international seabed authority would increase progressively with the distance of exploitation from the coast but would be moderated by the relative income level of the coastal State.     

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.     

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.     

The legal regime governing seafloor polymetallic sulfide deposits

Abstract

Beginning in 1977, oceanographers discovered seafloor vents spewing hot water into the surrounding water and sustaining exotic communities of marine life. They determined that the hydrothermal vent systems also produced deposits containing minerals of economic and strategic interest, thus sparking the interest of legislators and diplomats seeking the successful conclusion of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. This article examines the legal and regulatory regime which may govern development of these deposits off United States coastal waters, then turns to a discussion of how negotiators at the Law of the Sea Conference sought to incorporate the new sulfide discoveries into their efforts at international lawmaking.     

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.     

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.     

Brazil at the third United Nations conference on the law of the sea

Abstract

As Brazil began to emerge as a major power in the years leading up to theThird United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), national ocean policy came to have a quite continuous, distinctive impact on global law of the sea negotiations. Brazil's participation at UNCLOS III offers a particularly good vantage point from which to analyze its more prominent international role as an emerging major power, its related growth as a maritime power, and its significant contribution to international organization.

UNCLOS III, in turn, affects Brazil. The broad implications of the emerging ocean order for both national and international jurisdiction issues, within which Brazilian ocean policy must operate, are analyzed. Brazil's distinctive position as an emerging power between the industrialized countries and the Third World has conditioned its involvement at UNCLOS III. As a developing state, Brazil has favored revision of the traditional order for the purpose of redressing the balance with the developed states. At the same time, as an emerging power, Brazil has an interest in supporting a stable, open international order. In spite of such policy dilemmas, Brazil stands out as one of the few big potential winners in the Third World from both the seabed and non‐seabed portions of the law of the sea negotiations.     

Managing Adjacency: Some Legal Aspects of the Relationship Between the Extended Continental Shelf and the International Seabed Area

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–1982) struck a difficult compromise between the definition of the outer limits of the extended continental shelf (ECS) in relation to the international seabed area (the Area) and the making of payments and contributions by the coastal state in relation to production activities on its ECS in Article 82. The implementation of Article 82 underscores a broader and more far-reaching relationship between the continental shelf, and the ECS in particular, and the Area. In some regions there may be a relationship between the exclusive economic zone and the Area, where there is no ECS. Effectively, the relationship translates into realities and expectations of good neighborliness. This article examines this relationship and the possible approaches for the management of identified challenges.     

国家管辖范围外海域遗传资源获取和惠益分享机制构建建议

随着人类对海洋资源开发利用强度的增加, 海洋生物多样性的养护面临着更大挑战。《联合国海洋法公约》及其执行协定已不能较好地应对这些挑战。为此, 联合国大会决定成立工作组, 拟订新的国际协定, 以解决国家管辖范围外海域生物多样性的养护与可持续利用问题。建立国家管辖范围外海洋遗传资源的获取和惠益分享机制是该议题的焦点问题之一, 但是目前各国对新的国际执行协定应当包含哪些要素还缺乏共同理解。本文通过分析《生物多样性公约》、《名古屋议定书》及《粮食和农业植物遗传资源国际条约》等与遗传资源获取和惠益分享相关的国际条约在遗传资源的定义、管辖范围、获取条件及惠益分享要求等方面的异同, 提出对海洋遗传资源获取和惠益分享机制的构建建议: (1)国家管辖范围外的海洋遗传资源不可自由获取; (2)海洋遗传资源的定义应当涵盖海洋生物代谢生成的海洋天然产物; (3)惠益分享责任适用于在新执行协定生效前获取, 但在其生效后进行开发利用的遗传资源; (4)获取活动都应得到主管当局批准, 并签订材料转让协议或共同商定条件; (5)应为非商业化的获取活动制定简化程序, 在人类健康、粮食安全等受到重大威胁而急需获取海洋遗传资源时, 也应适用简化程序, 但后续商业化活动须分享惠益; (6)针对海洋遗传资源的不同研发环节, 设置惠益分享类型, 并就后续利用进行披露和监测, 确保惠益得到分享。     

Precautionary Coastal States’ Jurisdiction

Throughout the life of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty there has been considerable development in the law of the sea. Negotiated following the 1958 First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, at which the customary international law concepts of the territorial sea and continental shelf were codified into treaty law, the law of the sea has since developed through state practice and most importantly through the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Whatever the merits of examining the interaction between Antarctica and the law of the sea have been in the past, there is much to suggest that the general significance of such issues is growing, especially as states seek to determine the outer limits of their continental shelf claims and in doing so determine Antarctic baselines. This article examines these issues from a general law of the sea perspective, taking into account the impact of the Antarctic Treaty while reviewing Australian practice in particular.     

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.     

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.     

Implications of the UNCLOS Marine Scientific Research Regime for the Current Negotiations on Access and Benefit Sharing of Marine Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

Abstract

Access to marine genetic resources (MGRs) in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and the sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of these resources are among the most contentious at the UN Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. This article examines the applicability of the marine scientific research (MSR) regime of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to the access and benefit-sharing issues. It concludes that the MSR regime of UNCLOS provides the legal basis for setting up nonmonetary-benefit sharing obligations, including the dissemination of information, data, and research results concerning MGRs at the UN negotiations on marine biodiversity in the ABNJ.     

U.S. fishery negotiations with Canada and Mexico

Abstract

In the last decade, the world has witnessed a fundamental reorientation of posture toward marine resources as evidenced by consensus in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) and the near universal move toward fishery jurisdictions of 200 nautical miles (370 km). These and other non‐marine‐specific economic and political pressures impose a new constellation of constraints on North American fishery relations. This has resulted in disharmonies on two borders.

This paper, then, addresses the form of binational fishery negotiations between the United States and her two neighbors. One section presents a general model of the binational negotiation process. The next section introduces the institutional and political context of U.S.‐Canada relations, and then applies the negotiation model to the evolution of West Coast salmon deliberations. In a parallel fashion, the following section focuses on U.S.‐Mexico relations and the tuna, shrimp, and anchovy fisheries. The last section concludes with remarks on future directions for North American binational fishery relations.     

The tax revenue potential of manganese nodules

Abstract

Mounting interest in deep seabed mining has raised high expectations in the tax revenue potential of the future nodule industry. In the absence of any existing commercial nodule mining operation, estimates of the likely “take”; are highly conjectural. This paper develops four alternative estimates for 1985 based on sets of variables on nodule mining, mineral markets and “tax rates”; that range from conservative to overly optimistic. The resulting “take”; from these calculations range from $22 million to $I .2 billion, with the most likely actual figure between 50 and 150 million dollars by 1985.     

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.