As previously reported, in April 2024 the EU had submitted a written request for consultations with the UK under the dispute settlement mechanism of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) regarding the UK’s decision to prohibit the fishing of sandeel in UK waters. On 25 October 2024, the EU announced that “consultations concluded without reaching such a mutually agreed solution” and has now requested the establishment of an Arbitration Tribunal under the dispute settlement mechanism of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) concerning the UK’s decision to prohibit the fishing of sandeel.
Author Archives: A. N. Honniball
EU/UK: EU Requests Establishment of Arbitral Tribunal in Sandeel Fisheries Dispute
Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice
China: Announcement of Straight Baselines at Scarborough Shoal
On 10 November 2024, China released a Statement on the Baselines and Base Points of the Territorial Sea Adjacent to Huangyan Dao (machine translation), stating the baselines were established in accordance with UNCLOS. On 12 November 2024, the Philippines filed a diplomatic protest on the grounds of both disputed sovereignty over the maritime feature and the legal basis to establish straight baselines around the maritime feature.
Filed under State Practice
The Philippines: Philippine Maritime Zones Act & Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act
On 7 November 2024, the Philippines’ enactment of the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act was completed following signed into law by President Marcos. In accordance with Section 19 of the Philippine Maritime Zones Act and Section 28 of the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act, each law takes effect 15 days after publication. The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of the Philippines has produced an illustrative map of the possible archipelagic sea lanes through the Philippines, but as noted this is subject to finalisation and fixing through the respective IMO and ICAO processes, followed by proclamation by the President.
On 8 November 2024 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The People’s Republic of China released a statement objecting to both acts, stating its objections to the Philippine Maritime Zones Act while objecting to the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act without further detail. Likewise, on 8 November 2024, the USA expressed its support to the Philippines’ enactment of the Maritime Zones Act. Finally, as indicated in the records of The Parliament of Malaysia (14 November 2024), Malaysia has sent an objection note to the Philippines concerning the passage of said laws and their touching upon sovereignty over Sabah.
Filed under State Practice
ISA: June 2025 Submission of Application for Plan of Work for Exploitation Announced
On 12 November 2024, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI), falling under the responsibilities the Republic of Nauru as the applicable Sponsoring State, has signalled that it expects to submit an application for a plan of work for the commercial exploitation of mineral resources in the Area to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) on 27 June 2025. The submission date appears to have been selected to directly follow Part I of the Council’s scheduled meeting (17 – 28 March 2025) and directly before Part II of the Council’s scheduled meeting (7 – 18 July 2025) during the 30th Session of the International Seabed Authority. Consultation and support of Nauru as the Sponsoring State is evident in the reported actions, whereby “the Republic of Nauru has requested in a formal letter that the ISA clarify the submission and review process during the March session [Part I], with the goal of providing certainty for all stakeholders and allowing for review to begin immediately after NORI’s submission under an agreed-upon process [Part II]”. An accompanying statement suggests the NORI submission strategy is to seek review of its application for a plan of work for exploitation in 2025, regardless of whether the Mining Code has been finalised and adopted i.e. including ISA’s possible review of the application based on the draft regulations.
Conference: Navigating Narratives, Nurturing Norms
The Diplomatic Academy of Viet Nam (DAV) will host the 16th South China Sea International Conference, themed, Navigating Narratives, Nurturing Norms, 23-24 October 2024, in a hybrid format, Online/Ha Long (Viet Nam). Registration for online participation is available here.
Call for Abstracts: Nurturing Ocean Resilience and Chartering Sustainable Futures
The Villa College Faculty of Sharia and Law will host a conference, entitled, Waves of Change: Nurturing Ocean Resilience and Chartering Sustainable Futures, 10 December 2024, in a hybrid format, Online/Villa College (Malé, Republic of Maldives). Abstracts are welcome until 31 October 2024.
Call for Abstracts: Multilateralism & the Making of International Law
Essex Law School will host a seminar funded by the Modern Law Review, Multilateralism and the making of international law: Marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, 4 December 2024, at University of Essex (UK). Abstracts are welcome until 13 October 2024.
USA: Denial of port privileges for lack of corrective action on IUU fishing & bycatch of PLMRs
Following negative certifications in the 2023 Report to Congress (see: 16 USC 1826a; 50 CFR §§ 300.200 – 300.209), effective 10 October 2024, certain fishing vessels from 17 States will be denied U.S. port privileges (port access & port services, subject to strict exceptions):
- Longline fishing vessels operating in International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) fisheries beyond national jurisdictions and flagged to Algeria, Barbados, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Namibia, Senegal, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, and Türkiye (Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources).
- Mexican-flagged vessels operating in gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Ulloa (Bycatch of Protected Living Marine Resources). See further, port restrictions on all Mexican fishing vessels that fish in the Gulf of Mexico effective 7 February 2022, which remain in effect following continued 2023 negative certification (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing).
- Russian-flagged fishing vessels authorised under the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to target toothfish (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing).
- People’s Republic of China-flagged longline fishing vessels authorized under Western & Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and ICCAT (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing).
This represents an expansion in the exercise of such port denials. Previously, the USA has rarely resorted to imposing measures because foreign States or Fishing Entities are generally given a positive certification in the Report to Congress following identification for IUU fishing, PLMRs bycatch or activities that target or incidentally catch sharks (Mexico previously being an exception).
Filed under State Practice
USA/Canada: Joint Task Force on Beaufort Sea Boundary
On 24 September 2024, Canada and the USA established a Joint Task Force to Negotiate Beaufort Sea Boundary, whose function is to “undertake negotiations on the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea including resolving the overlap in the continental shelf in the Central Arctic Ocean”. Bilateral negotiations shall include “meaningful engagement with state, territorial, and Indigenous partners”. The final agreement should seek to resolve the maritime boundary, as well as take into account “the responsible conservation and sustainable use of Arctic resources for the mutual benefit of Americans and Canadians, including Indigenous Peoples”.
Filed under State Practice
Mauritius/UK: Political Agreement on Chagos Archipelago
On 3 October 2024, a Joint Statement between the Governments of the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia was issued confirming a political agreement on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago was reached between the Parties. The “political agreement is subject to the finalisation of a treaty and supporting legal instruments, which both sides have committed to complete as quickly as possible”, but the treaty shall include:
- UK agreement that Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia;
- Commitment to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the UK/USA military base on Diego Garcia, including agreement “for an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century”;
- Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago (other than Diego Garcia);
- UK will capitalise a new trust fund and provide other separate support for the benefit of Chagossians;
The Joint Statement signals further economic, security and environmental partnership between the UK and Mauritius, including on “environmental protection, maritime security, combating illegal fishing, irregular migration and drug and people trafficking within the Chagos Archipelago”. Concrete examples listed include:
- Indexed annual payments by the UK for the duration of the agreement;
- Establishment of an infrastructure partnership underpinned by UK grant funding;
- The establishment of a Mauritian Marine Protected Area.
For further information see the respective UK (2) and Mauritius press releases. The Joint Statement notes the support and assistance provided by the USA & India, who both welcomed the political agreement.
Filed under State Practice, Treaties
Jessup Moot Court 2025: Case Concerning the Naegea Sea
The Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition has released the Jessup 2025 Problem, Case Concerning The Naegea Sea, which raises a number of international law issues, including “(3) the legal consequences of receding coastlines for the maritime zones of coastal states”. Corrections and Clarifications requests are welcome until 15 October 2024, while the registration of teams is open until 22 November 2024.
Filed under Calls, Competitions
Call for Abstracts: Decarbonization of Shipping and Alternative Fuel
The Centre for International Law (NUS) and the Center for Climate Change Law and Governance (UCPH) are seeking abstracts for a conference, entitled, Decarbonization of Shipping and Alternative Fuels, 12-13 February 2025 in Singapore. Abstracts are welcome until 1 November 2024.
UNGA: Pact for the Future
On 22 September 2024 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 79/1: The Pact for the Future without a vote. The UNGA voted 143-7 (15 abstentions) to take no action on an amendment tabled by Russia (see reporting). The Pact for the Future reaffirms the role of multilateralism and international institutions, including actions to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals therein. Covering a wide range of thematic topics, of interest to law of the sea, among others are:
Action 9. We will strengthen our actions to address climate change.
28. […] (e) Further emphasize the importance of conserving, protecting and restoring nature and ecosystems towards achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal, including through enhanced efforts towards halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and by conserving biodiversity, while ensuring social and environmental safeguards, in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;Action 10. We will accelerate our efforts to restore, protect, conserve and sustainably use the environment.
29. We are deeply concerned about rapid environmental degradation, and we recognize the urgent need for a fundamental shift in our approach in order to achieve a world in which humanity lives in harmony with nature. We must conserve, restore and sustainably use our planet’s ecosystems and natural resources to support the health and well-being of present and future generations. We will address the adverse impacts of climate change, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, pollution, water scarcity, floods, desertification, land degradation, drought, deforestation and sand and dust storms. We decide to:
[…] (b) Take ambitious action to improve the health, productivity, sustainable use and resilience of the ocean and its ecosystems, and conserve and sustainably use and restore seas and freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains, glaciers and drylands, and protect, conserve and restore biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife; […]
(d) Accelerate efforts to address the pollution of air, land and soil, fresh water and the ocean, including the sound management of chemicals, and work towards the conclusion of an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, with the ambition of completing negotiations by the end of 2024;Action 22. We will address the serious impact of threats to maritime security and safety.
UNGA Resolution 79/1: The Pact for the Future
44. We recognize the need to address the serious impact of threats to maritime security and safety. All efforts to address threats to maritime security and safety must be carried out in accordance with international law, including particularly as reflected in the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, taking into account other relevant instruments that are consistent with the Convention. We decide to:
(a) Enhance international cooperation and engagement at the global, regional, subregional and bilateral levels to combat all threats to maritime security and safety, in accordance with international law;
(b) Promote information-sharing among States and capacity-building to detect, prevent and suppress such threats in accordance with international law.
Filed under International Organizations
UNGA: High-Level Meeting on Sea Level Rise
On 25 September 2024, the UN General Assembly hosted a High-Level Meeting on Sea Level Rise, the first time there has been a high-level meeting of the UNGA to address the issue of sea level rise caused by climate change. Other equally important elements were covered, but here we note numerous statements addressed law of the sea aspects, including reaffirmation of support towards the preservation of maritime zones and statehood, notwithstanding impacts arising from climate change-related sea-level rise (e.g., USA, New Zealand and Singapore), as well as the long held awareness, significance and call for action on the issue by small island States (e.g., Maldives referencing the 1989 Male’ Declaration on Global Warming and Sea Level Rise).
Filed under International Organizations
Online Training: Ocean Governance (Asia)
The World Bank will organise an Ocean Governance Capacity Building Training Program tailored to participants working in the Asian region, conducted online with a self-paced e-learning course and live sessions. Applications are welcome until 3 November 2024.
Filed under Courses
BBNJ Agreement: 10 Parties (NiF)
On 24 September 2024, Singapore and the Maldives deposited their instruments of ratification to the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement; not in force), bringing the Parties to a total of 10. The BBNJ Agreement shall enter into force 120 days after the date of deposit of the sixtieth instrument of ratification, approval, acceptance or accession (BBNJ Agreement, Art 68(1)). The addition of Singapore and the Maldives also adds, respectively, the first Southeast Asian and South Asian State to the geographical representation of the existing Parties (which currently also includes: East Africa, Europe, Oceania, the Caribbean, South America and Central America).
Filed under State Practice, Treaties
Conference: The Scope of Litigation under the UNCLOS
Utrecht University School of Law will host the conference, The Scope of Litigation under the UNCLOS – Where are we now and where may we be going?, 21-22 November 2024. To assist with logistical arrangements, a call for expression of interest to participate in the conference has been announced, with registration of participants open until 1 November 2024.
Filed under Events
Symposium: The ‘Constitution for the Oceans’ in Light of Emerging Challenges
The Korea Maritime Institute (KMI) and the International Foundation for the Law of the Sea (IFLOS) will jointly organise a symposium marking the 30th anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, entitled, The ‘Constitution for the Oceans’ in Light of Emerging Challenges, 21-22 September 2024, at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Hamburg, Germany). For more information and registration see here.
Filed under Events
Conference: Ocean Governance in the South Pacific & Latin America
The 47th Annual Conference on Oceans Law & Policy, entitled, Ocean Governance in the South Pacific and Latin America, will be held 17-20 September 2024 at the Peruvian Naval Academy (Lima, Peru), in a hybrid format. For more information and registration see here.
Filed under Events
Dispute Concerning Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels/Servicemen, Ruling and Appointment of Replacement Arbitrators
Following the previously reported Decision on Challenges and resignation of two arbitrators in the Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation), on 8 August 2024 the President of ITLOS, following consultations, appointed Mr James Kateka (United Republic of Tanzania) and Ms Joanna Mossop (New Zealand) to fill the vacancies (UNCLOS, Annex VII, Art 3(e)-(f)), as well as appointing Mr Gudmundur Eiriksson (Iceland) as president of the Arbitral Tribunal (UNCLOS, Annex VII, Art 3(e)-(f)).
The appointments follow previous developments under the Arbitral Tribunal, whereby, among others, the Russian Federation had requested the Arbitral Tribunal “proceed with a ruling in respect of the proper procedure for appointment of replacement arbitrators” (Procedural Order No. 9, para 1). The Arbitral Tribunal noted “that the Parties disagree on the proper interpretation and application of Article 3 of Annex VII to the Convention and the Rules of Procedure [..and..] notes especially its reference to the desirability of agreement between the Parties” (Procedural Order No. 9, paras 45-46). While progress was made, no agreement between the Parties on the appointment of replacement arbitrators was reached (Procedural Order No. 9, paras 17-22). In proceeding with the request, the analysis of the Arbitral Tribunal stated:
39. Professor McRae and Judge Wolfrum were appointed as members of the Arbitral Tribunal, and Professor McRae as its President, by the ITLOS President. Thus, in accordance with Article 3, subparagraph (e), of Annex VII, “the manner prescribed for [their] initial appointment” under subparagraph (f) for filling the vacancies resulting from the successful challenges to Professor McRae and Judge Wolfrum is that outlined in Article 3, subparagraph (e).
Procedural Order No. 9, paras 39-44
[…]
43. In Article 6 of its Rules of Procedure, the Arbitral Tribunal chose to deal with the application of the term in Article 3, subparagraph (e), of Annex VII to the Convention, “the manner prescribed for [their] initial appointment”, in the case of filling a vacancy in the event of withdrawal, incapacity or death of an arbitrator […]
44. Notably, Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure does not refer to the event of disqualification of an arbitrator upon a successful challenge by a Party.
The Arbitral Tribunal ultimately concluded in Procedural Order No. 9 of 18 July 2024:
48. In its request for a ruling, the Russian Federation has not identified any question of procedure which, in the terms of Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the Arbitral Tribunal, “is not expressly governed by these Rules [of Procedure] or by Annex VII to the Convention or other provisions of the Convention”, and the Arbitral Tribunal will not rule, in the abstract, on questions outside this scope.
Procedural Order No. 9, paras 48-50
49. Ukraine has now applied to the ITLOS President to appoint replacements for Professor McRae and Judge Wolfrum. It is not for this Arbitral Tribunal to comment on how the ITLOS President should respond to that request.
50. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Acting President and the other members of the Arbitral Tribunal, by a majority of two to one, reject the request of the Russian Federation that the Arbitral Tribunal rule on the procedure for the appointment of replacement arbitrators.
Professor Vylegzhanin appended a Dissenting Opinion to Procedural Order No. 9 (not yet publicly available).
Filed under Jurisprudence
EU: BBNJ Agreement – Declaration of Competence & Exception on Non-retroactivity
On 19 July 2024, Council Decision (EU) 2024/1830 of 17 June 2024 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, accompanied by Declaration 2024/1832 and Declaration 2024/1833.
Council Decision (EU) 2024/1830 approved, on behalf of the European Union, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), completing the internal process to allow the EU to formally deposit its instrument of approval (not yet occurred). The instrument of approval (BBNJ Agreement, Art 66) will be accompanied by a Declaration of Competence (BBNJ Agreement, Art 67(2)) and an Exception (BBNJ Agreement, Arts 70, 10(1)). Declaration 2024/1832 provides what will be in the Declaration of Competence of the European Union concerning the BBNJ Agreement. Declaration 2024/1833 provides what will be in an authorised exception submitted by the European Union concerning BBNJ Agreement. The declared exception provides:
The European Union declares the exception of the retroactive effects as set out in the second sentence of Article 10(1), therefore the provisions of this Agreement shall apply for the Union only to activities with respect to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information on marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction collected and generated after the entry into force of this Agreement for the Union.
Declaration 2024/1833
Other Parties (all others to-date) without a declared exception upon signature or ratification consent to apply relevant BBNJ Agreement provisions with retroactive effect: “The application of the provisions of this Agreement shall extend to the utilization of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information on marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction collected or generated before entry into force” (BBNJ Agreement, Art 10(1)). Consistent with Articles 67 and 10, the Declaration of Competence and Article 10-based Exception must be submitted in writing when signing, ratifying, approving, accepting or acceding to the BBNJ Agreement. “The conclusion of the Agreement by the Union is without prejudice to the Member States’ competence as regards the ratification, approval or acceptance of the Agreement” (Council Decision (EU) 2024/1830, recital 9) and “The Union and its Member States aim to ratify the Agreement prior to the United Nations Ocean Conference that will take place in 2025” (Council Decision (EU) 2024/1830, recital 4).
Filed under State Practice, Treaties
CLCS: Partial Submission by Viet Nam (Central Area)
On 17 July 2024, in accordance with Article 76(8) of UNCLOS, Viet Nam submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in respect of the Central Area (VNM-C).
This follows the separate May 2009 Joint Partial Submission by Malaysia and Viet Nam in the southern part of the South China Sea and May 2009 Partial Submission by Viet Nam in respect of the North Area (VNM-N), both of which have proceeded as far as the presentation of the submission by coastal State representatives at a session of the Commission (CLCS/64, paras 87-92; 102-106).
Note, on the same date as the VNM-C Partial Submission, Viet Nam submitted a Communication (17 July 2024) on the previously reported June 2024 Partial Submission by the Philippines (West Palawan Region). At the time of writing, communications received and published with regard to the VNM-C Partial Submission include China (29 July 2024).
Filed under International Organizations, State Practice
UNCLOS: 170 Parties
Following the completion of a domestic process on 20 March 2024 resulting in Decreto Consiliare 20/03/2024 n. 61 “Adesione alla Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul Diritto del Mare”, San Marino submitted an instrument acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on 19 July 2024, bringing the total number of UNCLOS Parties to the milestone of 170 Parties. Consistent with Article 308(2) of UNCLOS, the Convention shall enter into force for San Marino on 18 August 2024.
Note, consistent with Article 4(1) of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (1994 Agreement), the instrument of accession to UNCLOS also represents consent to be bound by the 1994 Agreement. San Marino therefore effected its consent to be bound to the 1994 Agreement on 19 July 2024. Consistent with Article 6(2) of the 1994 Agreement, the Agreement shall enter into force for San Marino on 18 August 2024. The 1994 Agreement currently has 153 Parties.
Filed under State Practice, Treaties
ITLOS: The “Zheng He” Case, Order of 27 July 2024
As noted in previous reporting, incidental proceedings arose in The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico) following a request from Luxembourg for provisional measures. On 27 July 2024 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its Order of 27 July 2024 in The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico), Provisional Measures.
As the dispute on the merits is before ITLOS, and consistent with Article 290(1) of UNCLOS, the Tribunal first considered that prima facie it does have jurisdiction over the dispute regarding the “Zheng He” vessel (paras. 52-106). Concerning the applicability and/or fulfilment of Article 295 of UNCLOS, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal decided “the issue of exhaustion of local remedies should be examined at a future stage of the proceedings” (para. 105).
Following previous precedents, the ‘preservation’ of rights (UNCLOS, Article 290(1)) was interpreted by the Tribunal to include a requirement that the rights claimed must be plausible. On the plausibility of the rights the applicant seeks to protect –and given the prima facie jurisdiction finding concerning Article 131 of UNCLOS– the Tribunal found that the rights claimed by Luxembourg on the basis of Article 131 are plausible (paras. 107-125).
Likewise, while ‘urgency’ is not explicitly mentioned as a requirement under Article 290(1) of UNCLOS (in contrast to Article 290(5)-based proceedings), previous interpretations and application of Article 290 have suggested urgency as an important element in considering all requests for provisional measures. The Order of 27 July 2024 adopts this approach whereby “The Tribunal may prescribe provisional measures if the urgency of the situation so requires. Urgency implies that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights of the parties to the dispute, pending the final decision” (para. 126). However, “[o]n the basis of the factual information and legal arguments presented by the Parties, the Tribunal considers that there is at present no urgency, in the sense that there is no real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by Luxembourg” (para. 143). This finding was made in the context of assurances given by Mexico during the oral hearings to which the Tribunal “takes note” (paras. 144-145). Thus, the operative paragraph provides:
The Tribunal
Order of 27 July 2024, para. 149
By 22 votes to 1 ,
Finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the Tribunal, are not such as to require the exercise of its powers to prescribe provisional measures under article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Appended to the Order of 27 July 2024, one will find a Declaration of Judge Kittichaisaree; Joint declaration of Judges Infante Caffi and Kamga; Separate opinion of Judge Kulyk; and Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Kohen.
Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice
IMO: Prohibition on heavy fuel oil (HFO) in Arctic waters enters into effect
On 17 June 2021, Resolution MEPC.329(76) was adopted and included amendments to Annex I of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as modified by the 1978 Protocol (MARPOL). The amendments concerned a prohibition on the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil by ships in Arctic waters. The prohibition came into effect on 1 July 2024, subject to certain functional exemptions (MARPOL Annex I, Regulation 43A(1)), construction standard-based extensions (Regulation 43A(2); 1 July 2029) and an optional temporary waiver right for Arctic coastal States limited to ships flying their flag while operating in their maritime zones (Regulation 43A(4)-(5); 1 July 2029).
Filed under Treaties
HRC: Resolution on Human Rights of Seafarers
On 11 July 2024, the UN Human Rights Council adopted without a vote: Resolution 56/18: Promoting and protecting the enjoyment of human rights by seafarers (currently available as UN. Doc A/HRC/56/L.4 with oral revision). The Philippines was the main sponsor. As highlighted by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines, the Philippine initiative “co-sponsored by 28 countries, as of this date, is the first-ever resolution on seafarers to be introduced and adopted in the UN HRC”. Among the contents of the Resolution –to be read in full–, Resolution 56/18 provides:
The Human Rights Council,
HRC Resolution 56/18
[…]
Recognizing the human rights, as well as labour rights, of seafarers, including the right to freedom of association and the effective recognition of collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, as well as a safe and secure workplace, fair terms of employment, decent working and living conditions on-board ships, health protection, medical care, welfare measures and other forms of social protection,
[…]
2. Calls upon States parties, shipowners’ representatives and seafarers’ representatives to enhance the enforcement of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended, to ensure safe and decent living and working conditions for all seafarers;
3. Calls upon States and other relevant shipping industry stakeholders to promote and protect effectively the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by seafarers, including their right to life, right to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work, including safe and healthy working conditions, and right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;
4. Urges shipping industry stakeholders to respect the right of seafarers to the opportunity to gain their living by work that they freely choose or accept, including decisions on whether to sail or continue sailing in high-risk areas, and that the realization of this right should not negatively affect a seafarer’s employment competitiveness or future deployment;
5. Urges States to continue efforts to eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labour in the shipping industry;
Filed under International Organizations, State Practice
Vacancy: Postdoctoral Researcher at Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg is currently advertising for a Postdoctoral Researcher, Integrative Mapping and Prioritization of Atlantic Protected Areas (fixed-term/full time). Applications are welcome until 15 July 2024. For more information see here.
Filed under Vacancies
Call for Papers: Challenges and Opportunities for the Law of the Sea at a Time of Crisis
Volume 28 of the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law will be themed, Challenges and Opportunities for the Law of the Sea at a Time of Crisis, with abstract proposals welcome until 1 August 2024. For more information, see the call for papers.
Filed under Calls
BBNJA PrepCom: Organizational Meeting
From 24-26 June 2024, the Preparatory Commission for the Entry into Force of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and the Convening of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement (PrepCom) convened its first organizational session at UNHQ (New York, USA) to, among others, elect Co-Chairs and Bureau Members, adopt a programme of work, and schedule PrepCom’s future meetings. Information on the establishment and participation in the PrepCom was previously reported.
Janine Coye-Felson (Belize) and Adam McCarthy (Australia) were elected Co-Chairs of the PrepCom. 15 Vice-Chairs to the Bureau of the PrepCom were elected, including: Mauritius, Sierra Leone and South Africa (African); Japan, Philippines, and Singapore (Asia-Pacific); Latvia, Poland, and Romania (Eastern Europe); Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, and Chile (Latin America and the Caribbean); Canada, Belgium, and Germany (Western European and Others). Note, the three members of the Bureau of the Asia-Pacific Group will rotate among nine States: Singapore, Japan and the Philippines (PrepCom organizational meeting); Tonga, China and Indonesia (PrepCom first substantive meeting); and Fiji, the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam (PrepCom second substantive meeting).
Discussion on the programme of work were based on a Note produced by the Secretariat (UN Doc A/AC.296/2024/3), which highlighted matters to be addressed by the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to BBNJA, as according to the BBNJA (Section II), as well as matters requiring ‘early’ addressing to enable “the timely and effective implementation of the Agreement” (Section III). A final list of three clusters reportedly address: Governance Issues; Issues pertaining to the operation of the CHM; and Financial rules, and financial resources and mechanism (see IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2024) p. 5, for an overview of cluster items).
Scheduling future PrepCom meetings, 14-25 April 2025 and 18-29 August 2025 were agreed, pending the approval of the UN General Assembly and reserving additional meetings to be determined at a later stage. Intersessional work is foreseen, with discussions ongoing.
A Statement by the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority (24 June 2024) highlighted the benefits a PrepCom could bring to the functioning of the treaty regime, as well as the previous experiences of the Preparatory Commission for UNCLOS.
Filed under International Organizations, Treaties
Call for Abstracts: Humanity Across the Waves
Associazione di Consulenza in Diritto Internazionale del Mare (ASCOMARE) have issued a call for abstracts seeking publication in volume 4 of the ASCOMARE Yearbook on the Law of the Sea, entitled, Humanity across the waves: Exploring the interplay between the law of the sea and human rights law. Submissions are welcome until 31 August 2024, in English or Italian.
Filed under Calls
11th Yeosu Academy of the Law of the Sea
The Korea Maritime Institute is hosting the 11th Yeosu Academy of the Law of the Sea, 21 October – 1 November 2024, in Yeosu (Republic of Korea). Applications are welcome until 11 August 2024. Applicants should be from developing countries and be engaged in maritime related work. For more information see here.
Filed under Courses
CLCS: Partial Submission by the Philippines (West Palawan Region)
On 14 June 2024, in accordance with Article 76(8) of UNCLOS, the Philippines submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured in the West Palawan Region. Consistent with UNCLOS, “[t]his Submission is made without prejudice to the right of the Philippines to make other Submissions on other areas at a future time” (Executive Summary (2024) p. 1).
This follows the seperate April 2009 submission of the Philippines in the Benham Rise region, for which recommendations (April 2012) and subsequent final and binding outer limits of the continental shelf were established based on said recommendations (UNCLOS, Article 76(8); ‘Benham Rise’ since renamed ‘Philippine Rise’ in May 2017).
At the time of writing, communications received and published with regard to this partial submission in the West Palawan Region include China (18 June 2024). Further communications may be foreseen given that the Executive Summary (2024) provides:
The Philippines notes that the 2009 joint submission of Malaysia and Viet Nam, the 2009 submission of Viet Nam in the northern area and the 2019 submission of Malaysia that were submitted to the CLCS cover areas that may overlap with the area of this Submission.
Executive Summary (2024) p. 4
These earlier submissions were based on Article 76 of UNCLOS and are generally consistent with the principles affirmed in the 2016 Award on the Merits in the South China Sea Arbitration. The Philippines manifests its willingness to discuss with the relevant States the delimitation of the maritime boundaries.
The delineation of the continental shelf beyond 200 M is without prejudice to future delimitation with the limits of the territorial sea areas of individual high tide features in the South China Sea.
For more information see the statement of the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs.
Filed under International Organizations, State Practice
ITLOS: The “Zheng He” Case, Provisional Measures Request
As previously suggested, on 7 June 2024 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) received a request from Luxembourg for the prescription of provisional measures in The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico) (UNCLOS, Article 290(1)). According to the Request for Provisional Measures of Luxembourg:
79. In accordance with article 17, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, Luxembourg appoints Professor Marcelo Gustavo Kohen to sit as a member of the Tribunal.
80. For the reasons set out above, Luxembourg respectfully requests the Tribunal to prescribe the following provisional measures:
1. In order to safeguard the basic rights and freedoms of the crew:Request for Provisional Measures of Luxembourg, paras 79-80 (80 as translated in ITLOS/Press 352)
- Order Mexico to continue to ensure the freedom of circulation of the crew members off board the vessel and their access to health-care establishments, places of worship and recreational facilities;
- Order Mexico to continue to ensure that there will be no impediments to the renewal of the crew and the necessary rotations;
- Order Mexico to continue to ensure that the crew will not be compelled by law enforcement agencies to disembark from the vessel nor be prevented from reembarking the vessel;
2. In order to safeguard the rights of Luxembourg as the flag State:- Order Mexico to allow Luxembourg to effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over the vessel, and to enable any measures necessary for the preventive and corrective maintenance of the Zheng He in order to ensure its compliance with the national, European and international standards applicable to vessels flying the flag of Luxembourg;
- Prohibit Mexico from directly or indirectly exploiting the vessel Zheng He;
- Prohibit Mexico from taking any measures to create or transfer real rights to the vessel and from changing the flag of the vessel Zheng He;
3. In order to avoid aggravating or extending the dispute:- Prohibit Mexico from collecting the customs fine of 1,616,462,343.52 Mexican pesos imposed on European Dredging Company SA;
- Prohibit Mexico from immobilizing, confiscating and expropriating, in any proceeding whatsoever, vessels related to the vessel Zheng He flying the flag of Luxembourg, whether they be the property of European Dredging Company SA, its parent company SOFIDRA or any other subsidiary of SOFIDRA;
- Prohibit Mexico from initiating new national proceedings or new actions against the Zheng He, European Dredging Company SA, its parent company SOFIDRA or any other subsidiary of SOFIDRA;
4. In order to ensure equality of the parties in the proceedings before the Tribunal:- Authorize the agents of Luxembourg to conduct on the territory of Mexico, without restriction, any investigations in connection with the present proceedings, in particular to ascertain the condition of the vessel Zheng He and to collect any relevant evidence;
- Transmit to Luxembourg, at its request and after verification by the Tribunal, the information and documents to which Luxembourg was unable to gain access relating to the non-contentious and contentious proceedings under Mexican law concerning the Zheng He, including forthwith:
- The identification of the different quays in the Port of Tampico, with their official and/or common names, and the GPS coordinates of the endpoints of each quay;
- The regulatory texts of Mexico in force on 21 October 2023 that were officially published relating to the tax and customs regime of each quay in the Port of Tampico.
One may note that the Request for Provisional Measures by Luxembourg refers to a request being made, “pending settlement of the merits of the dispute, whether resulting from a judgment of the Tribunal or an amicable agreement reached during the proceedings” (para 8).
Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice
Call for papers: Future Trajectories for the Law of the Sea
The Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS) will host the NCLOS Annual Conference 2024, themed, Future Trajectories for the Law of the Sea, 5-7 November 2024 in Tromsø, Norway. Abstracts are welcome until 30 June 2024. For more information see here.
Netherlands: 2024 Amendments of the Ocean Cleanup Agreement
On 8 June 2018, The Netherlands and Ocean Cleanup signed an Agreement between the State of the Netherlands and The Ocean Cleanup concerning the deployment of systems designed to clean up plastic floating in the upper surface layer of the high seas to facilitate and support the activities of ‘The Ocean Cleanup’ on the high seas, whilst also fulfilling the duty of care of the Netherlands under UNCLOS at the State of nationality of ‘The Ocean Cleanup’ (a dutch entity) concerning its activities on the high seas. Consistent with Article 7, this Agreement was extended in 2023 following an evaluation, with the intention of the Parties to seek amending and updating the Agreement. This update sought to address developments in how the activities of the Ocean Cleanup occur, as well as developments in the international regulatory field, notably the adoption of the BBNJ Agreement and updated safety standards (Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management Decision Note (2024)).
On 29 May 2024, The Netherlands and Ocean Cleanup signed an Agreement to amend and update the Agreement between the State of the Netherlands and The Ocean Cleanup concerning the deployment of systems designed to clean up plastic floating in the upper surface layer of the high seas to “extend the Agreement as well as to update it to take into account the latest insights and developments”. The amended agreement contains numerous elements of interest to the law of the sea, including the promotion of “national and international cooperative measures to reduce plastic pollution in the marine environment, including existing plastic pollution” (UNEP Resolution 5/14 (2022), para 3(c); 2024 Amendments – Explanatory notes, p. 2).
To highlight here, one may note the existence of State practice reflecting relevant “best practice” for implementing the environmental impact assessment pillar (Part IV) of the BBNJ Agreement (not formally provisional application under BBNJ Agreement, Article 69). The wording of Article 3.1a of the Agreement “has been based as far as possible on the wording of the recently signed BBNJ Agreement” (2024 Amendments – Explanatory notes, p. 3).
Article 1.2 Interests
2018 Agreement between Netherlands and Ocean Cleanup (as amended, 29 May 2024) [amendments in bold]
The Parties will take appropriate precautionary measures to secure the safety of shipping, the protection of the marine environment and marine biodiversity and other uses of the high seas.
[…]
Article 3.1a Environmental impact assessment
The Minister may carry out an evaluation of the screening or the environmental impact assessment or have it carried out by an independent third party. If the conclusions of the third party differ from the screening or assessment by The Ocean Cleanup, the parties may consult with each other about this.
The Ocean Cleanup shall conduct a screening for any significant change made to the design of the system or to the manner in which the system operates, when it is expected that this significant change may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment or when the effect of this significant change are unknown or poorly understood, to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is required.
If reasonable grounds are found for believing that the significant change referred to in paragraph 1 may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, The Ocean Cleanup shall conduct an environmental impact assessment on the basis of relevant national or international legislation. This involves identifying, as much as reasonably possible, the possible effects on the ecosystem and the costs and benefits of the cleanup activities on the marine environment.
The Ocean Cleanup will inform the Minister in good time that the screening or environmental impact assessment, as the case may be, is being carried out and will submit the results to the Minister as soon as reasonably possible.
Filed under Non-State Actors, State Practice
ITLOS: The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico)
On 3 June 2024, Luxembourg instituted proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) against Mexico in a dispute regarding the detention of the “Zheng He”, a dredger flying the flag of Luxembourg. Both States have exercised their rights in selecting ITLOS in respect of their choice of procedure for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS (UNCLOS, Article 287(1); Mexico (1983): 1. ITLOS, 2. ICJ, 3. Annex VIII Tribunals; Luxembourg (2024) 1. ITLOS).
According to the Application submitted by Luxembourg:
2. The dispute concerns, among other things, the violation by Mexico of the provisions of the Convention relating to the freedom and right of navigation and/or the uses of the sea for other internationally lawful purposes referred to in article 58 of the Convention.
Application submitted by Luxembourg, paras 2 & 16 [See original in French]
[…]
16. For these reasons, Luxembourg asks the Tribunal to rule that:
a. Mexico has violated the provisions of Articles 2, 17, 18, 19, 21, 58, 87, 90, 92, 131 and 300 of the Convention. Consequently, Mexico’s international responsibility is engaged.
[…]
According to the Application submitted by Luxembourg, Luxembourg will also seek to exercise other rights available under UNCLOS:
5. As the Tribunal does not include any members of its nationality, in accordance with the provisions of article 17(3) of the Statute [UNCLOS, Annex VI], Luxembourg intends to designate as soon as possible a person of its choice to sit as a member of the Tribunal and to hear the present case.
Application submitted by Luxembourg, paras 5 & 17 [See original in French]
[…]
17. On or about the date of the filing of this Application instituting proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Luxembourg will institute a request for the prescription of provisional measures in accordance with article 290, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
For more information see The “Zheng He” Case (Luxembourg v. Mexico).
Filed under Jurisprudence, State Practice
Summer School: Kadir Has Law of the Sea
Kadir Has University shall host an International Law of the Sea Summer Academy, 22 July-8 August 2024, Istanbul (Türkiye). For more information see here.
Filed under Courses
Vacancy: Registrar of ITLOS
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is currently advertising a vacancy for the Registrar. Expressions of interest should be sent by e-mail to the President of the Tribunal by 21 August 2024. For more information see the announcement and Rules of the Tribunal.
Filed under Vacancies
Summer School: EULoS 2024
The tenth edition of the EULoS Summer School, European Union and the Law of the Sea, will be held 26 August – 6 September 2024, in Genoa, Italy. Applications are welcome on a rolling basis. For more information see the EULoS website.
Filed under Courses
ITLOS: Advisory Opinion Delivered in Request Submitted by COSIS
On 21 May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its Advisory Opinion on the Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Tribunal). The operative clause provides:
For these reasons,
Advisory Opinion on Request of COSIS, para 441.
THE TRIBUNAL,
(1) Unanimously
Decides that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the Commission.
(2) Unanimously
Decides to respond to the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Commission.
(3) Unanimously
Replies to Question (a) as follows:
(a) Anthropogenic GHG emissions into the atmosphere constitute pollution of the marine environment within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4, of the Convention.
(b) Under article 194, paragraph 1, of the Convention, States Parties to the Convention have the specific obligations to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions and to endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection. Such measures should be determined objectively, taking into account, inter alia, the best available science and relevant international rules and standards contained in climate change treaties such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, in particular the global temperature goal of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and the timeline for emission pathways to achieve that goal. The scope and content of necessary measures may vary in accordance with the means available to States Parties and their capabilities. The necessary measures include, in particular, those to reduce GHG emissions.
(c) The obligation under article 194, paragraph 1, of the Convention to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions is one of due diligence. The standard of due diligence is stringent, given the high risks of serious and irreversible harm to the marine environment from such emissions. However, the implementation of the obligation of due diligence may vary according to States’ capabilities and available resources.
(d) Under article 194, paragraph 2, of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to take all measures necessary to ensure that anthropogenic GHG emissions under their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment, and that pollution from such emissions under their jurisdiction or control does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise sovereign rights. This obligation applies to a transboundary setting and is a particular obligation in addition to the obligation under article 194, paragraph 1. It is also an obligation of due diligence. The standard of due diligence under article 194, paragraph 2, can be even more stringent than that under article 194, paragraph 1, because of the nature of transboundary pollution.
(e) In terms of specific sources of pollution, marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions can be characterized as pollution from land-based sources, pollution from vessels, or pollution from or through the atmosphere.
(f) Under articles 207 and 212 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from GHG emissions from land-based sources and from or through the atmosphere, respectively, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures contained, inter alia, in climate change treaties such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. To this effect, States Parties have the specific obligations to take other necessary measures and, acting especially through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference, to endeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures.
(g) Under article 211 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from GHG emissions from vessels flying their flag or of their registry, which must at least have the same effect as that of generally accepted international rules and standards established through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference.
(h) Under articles 213 and 222 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to enforce their national laws and regulations and to adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from anthropogenic GHG emissions from land-based sources and from or through the atmosphere, respectively.
(i) Under article 217 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to ensure compliance by vessels flying their flag or of their registry with applicable international rules and standards established through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference and with their laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from GHG emissions from vessels. To this end, they shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary for their implementation.
(j) Articles 197, 200 and 201, read together with articles 194 and 192 of the Convention, impose specific obligations on States Parties to cooperate, directly or through competent international organizations, continuously, meaningfully and in good faith, in order to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions. Under article 197, States Parties have the specific obligation to cooperate in formulating and elaborating rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures, consistent with the Convention and based on available scientific knowledge, to counter marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions. Under article 200, States Parties have the specific obligations to cooperate to promote studies, undertake scientific research and encourage the exchange of information and data on marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions, its pathways, risks and remedies, including mitigation and adaptation measures. Under article 201, States Parties have the specific obligation to establish appropriate scientific criteria on the basis of which rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures are to be formulated and elaborated to counter marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions.
(k) Under article 202 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to assist developing States, in particular vulnerable developing States, in their efforts to address marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions. This article provides for the obligation of appropriate assistance, directly or through competent international organizations, in terms of capacity-building, scientific expertise, technology transfer and other matters. Article 203 reinforces the support to developing States, in particular those vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, by granting them preferential treatment in funding, technical assistance and pertinent specialized services from international organizations.
(l) Articles 204, 205 and 206 of the Convention impose on States Parties specific obligations of monitoring, publishing the reports thereof and conducting environmental impact assessments as a means to address marine pollution from anthropogenic GHG emissions. Under article 204, paragraph 1, States Parties have the specific obligation to endeavour to observe, measure, evaluate and analyse the risks or effects of pollution of the marine environment from anthropogenic GHG emissions. Under article 204, paragraph 2, States Parties have the specific obligation to keep under continuing surveillance the effects of activities they have permitted, or in which they are engaged, in order to determine whether such activities are likely to pollute the marine environment through anthropogenic GHG emissions. Under article 205, States Parties have the specific obligation to publish the results obtained from monitoring the risks or effects of pollution from such emissions or to communicate them to the competent international organizations for their dissemination. Under article 206, States Parties have the specific obligation to conduct environmental impact assessments. Any planned activity, either public or private, which may cause substantial pollution to the marine environment or significant and harmful changes thereto through anthropogenic GHG emissions, including cumulative effects, shall be subjected to an environmental impact assessment. Such assessment shall be conducted by the State Party under whose jurisdiction or control the planned activity will be undertaken with a view to mitigating and adapting to the adverse effects of such emissions on the marine environment. The result of such assessment shall be reported in accordance with article 205 of the Convention.
(4) Unanimously
Replies to Question (b) as follows:
(a) The Tribunal’s response to Question (a) is relevant to its response to Question (b). Subparagraphs (j), (k) and (l) of operative paragraph (3) are of particular relevance in this regard.
(b) The obligation under article 192 of the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment has a broad scope, encompassing any type of harm or threat to the marine environment. Under this provision, States Parties have the specific obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment from climate change impacts and ocean acidification. Where the marine environment has been degraded, this obligation may call for measures to restore marine habitats and ecosystems. Article 192 of the Convention requires States Parties to anticipate risks relating to climate change impacts and ocean acidification, depending on the circumstances.
(c) This obligation is one of due diligence. The standard of due diligence is stringent, given the high risks of serious and irreversible harm to the marine environment from climate change impacts and ocean acidification.
(d) Under article 194, paragraph 5, of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life from climate change impacts and ocean acidification.
(e) Under articles 61 and 119 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligations to take measures necessary to conserve the living marine resources threatened by climate change impacts and ocean acidification. In taking such measures, States Parties shall take into account, inter alia, the best available science and relevant environmental and economic factors. This obligation requires the application of the precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach.
(f) The obligation to seek to agree under article 63, paragraph 1, and the obligation to cooperate under article 64, paragraph 1, of the Convention, require States Parties, inter alia, to consult with one another in good faith with a view to adopting effective measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of shared stocks. The necessary measures on which consultations are required must take into account the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on living marine resources. Under article 118 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to cooperate in taking measures necessary for the conservation of living marine resources in the high seas that are threatened by climate change impacts and ocean acidification.
(g) Under article 196 of the Convention, States Parties have the specific obligation to take appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution from the introduction of non-indigenous species due to the effects of climate change and ocean acidification which may cause significant and harmful changes to the marine environment. This obligation requires the application of the precautionary approach.
Judges Jesus, Pawlak, Kulyk, Kittichaisaree and Infante Caffi availed themselves of the right to attach individual Declarations to the Advisory Opinion of the Tribunal.
Filed under Jurisprudence
Seminar: Access to the Sea and an Ethiopia-Somaliland Port Deal
The International Centre of the Horn of Africa (ICHA) and the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, will host a seminar, entitled, Access to the Sea and an Ethiopia-Somaliland Port Deal: Legal, Economic, Political and Security Issues, 21 May 2024, online. See here.
Filed under Events
Further Expanded North Sea MoU on Cooperation Regarding the International Operation of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)
On 10 May 2024, Norway joined the UK, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands in an expanded MoU on Cooperation Regarding the International Operation of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships MASS, which supersedes a previous MoU on Cooperation Regarding the International Operation of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships MASS signed by the UK, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands (i.e. without Norway) on 27 November 2023 – itself superseding a smaller MoU (i.e. without the Netherlands) signed on 13 September 2023. The 2024 edition of the MoU is not currently available, but no reported differences from the 2023 MoUs (beyond the expanded Signatories) are reported in the press release. The MoU provides “[t]he current Signatories of this Memorandum, after due diligence and agreement, would welcome other North Sea countries to join as new Signatories”.
The MoU is “intended to encourage and facilitate collaboration between the Signatories on the international operations of MASS and other autonomous vessels, including non-SOLAS size MASS in the North Sea”. The context explicitly notes that the MoU is to foster opportunities to safely support open-sea operation, tests and trials of MASS in different maritime environments, including the EEZ and on the high seas.
Filed under State Practice
Call for Abstracts: New Maritime Technologies – Challenges & Opportunities
On occasion of the 2024 ESIL Annual Conference (5-6 September 2024), the ESIL Interest Group on the Law of the Sea will convene a workshop, entitled, New Maritime Technologies: Challenges and Opportunities, 4 September 2024 (Vilnius, Lithuania). Abstracts are welcome until 20 May 2024. For more information see the call.
Vacancy: Postdoctoral Fellow at University of Bergen
The Faculty of Law at the University of Bergen (UiB) is currently seeking a Shaping European Research Leaders for Marine Sustainability (SEAS) postdoctoral fellow in regulatory and governance challenges to ocean sustainability (fixed-term 3-years/full time). Applications are welcome until 10 June 2024. For more information see here.
Filed under Vacancies
Vacancy: PhD position at University of Groningen
The Arctic Centre at the University of Groningen is currently advertising a fully-funded PhD position on the Legal Aspects of Indigenous Subsistence Harvesting in the Arctic. Applications are welcome before 9 May 2024. For more information see here.
Filed under Vacancies
Norway: MoUs on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage
Following previous relevant arrangements on the international transport and storage of carbon (e.g. 2022 Belgium-Denmark MoU), on 15 April 2024 Norway signed a series of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with neighbouring States on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage:
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between the Minister for Environment of the Flemish Region and The Federal Minister for the North Sea of Belgium and the Minister for Energy and Climate of the Walloon Region and the Minister of Energy of Norway on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities of Denmark and the Ministry of Energy of Norway on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands and the Ministry of Energy of Norway on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between the Ministry of Climate and the Environment [sic] in Sweden and the Ministry of Energy of Norway on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage.
Denmark and Sweden also signed a similar bilateral arrangement:
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities of Denmark and the Ministry of Climate and the Enterprise in Sweden on Cross-Border Transportation of CO2 with the Purpose of Permanent Geological Storage.
The MoUs represent State practice on arrangements in the sense of London Protocol, Article 6(2), as amended by Resolution LP. 3(4) (2009) (not in force) and provisional application thereof under Resolution LP.5(14) (2019). As required, all states have previously deposited a declaration on provisional application of the 2009 amendment of the London Protocol pending its entry into force. In related news, Norway had announced two areas in the North Sea for applications related to CO2 injection and storage on the Norwegian continental shelf. “The Ministry will now process the applications received and aims to award exploration licenses in the second half of 2024”.
Filed under State Practice
Vacancy: Doctoral Fellow at Ghent University
The Maritime Institute (Department of European, Public and International Law of the Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University (Belgium)) is seeking a doctoral fellow to address, Gentle wave or tsunami? The impact of unmanned and autonomous shipping on the law of the sea. Applications are welcome until 14 June 2024. For more information see here.
Filed under Vacancies
Call for Papers: Law of the Sea in the ASEAN Maritime Domain
The Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law (MPFPR) invites submissions for a special issue on the Law of the Sea in the ASEAN Maritime Domain. The deadline for the submission of abstracts is 20 June 2024. For more information see the announcement and call for papers.
UNGA: Resolution Establishing a Preparatory Commission for the BBNJ Agreement
On 24 April 2024 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 78/272 ‘Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (currently available as UN Doc A/78/L.41) with a vote (164-2-2; Russia and Syria voting against, Togo and Angola abstaining). Singapore led consultations on the text, which establishes a Preparatory Commission to prepare for the entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement and the convening of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the BBNJ Agreement.
3. Decides to establish a preparatory commission, which shall meet at United Nations Headquarters unless otherwise decided, on dates to be determined, to prepare for the entry into force of the Agreement and to prepare for the convening of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement, at the conclusion of which the commission will cease to exist;
UNGA Resolution 78/272
[…]
11. Further decides that the commission shall hold a three-day organizational meeting in the first half of 2024 with full conference services, including documentation, to discuss organizational matters, including the election of the Co-Chairs and a Bureau of the commission consisting of up to 15 members with up to 3 members from each regional group and taking into account gender balance, the dates of the meetings of the commission and the programme of work of the commission;
In a Letter dated 30 June 2023, the President of the Intergovernmental Conference that developed the text of the BBNJ Agreement had previously highlighted “the desire expressed by several delegations that efforts be undertaken with a view to supporting the early entry into force of the Agreement as well as its early implementation, including through a preparatory process such as a preparatory commission” (UN Doc A/77/945, p. 2). The Statement of Singapore on the introduction of the draft resolution provides further useful information on the inspiration and objectives of key elements in the resolution.
The Preparatory Commission is open to all UN Member States, members of the specialized agencies and Parties to UNCLOS (para. 4), with a broad invitation to other qualified entities, organizations and bodies to attend as observers (paras 5-6). The voluntary trust fund for the BBNJ Intergovernmental Conference is extended to the Preparatory Commission to assist developing countries attend meetings.
On decision-making of the Preparatory Commission:
8. Further decides that, after 20 September 2025 or the date of entry into force of the Agreement, whichever comes earlier, the taking of decisions by the commission shall only be by States and regional economic integration organizations that have signed the Agreement or have ratified, approved, accepted or acceded to the Agreement;
UNGA Resolution 78/272
9. Decides that the commission will take decisions on any recommendations to the Conference of Parties to the Agreement at the final meeting of the commission;
A proposed amendment by Russia to remove references to past and future milestones in the BBNJ Agreement, as well as the BBNJ Agreement’s addition as a sub-item to the provisional agenda of the seventy-ninth session of UNGA, was not adopted (UN Doc. A/78/L.43). A proposed amendment by Russia to include a strict sunset clause on the existence of the preparatory commission, as at the latest 20 September 2025, was also not adopted (UN Doc. A/78/L.43; contrast UN Doc. A/78/L.41 para 3 (as adopted)).
Filed under International Organizations, State Practice, Treaties
Vacancy: Research Assistant at University of Gothenburg
The Department of Law at University of Gothenburg is currently advertising for a Research Assistant (temporary 6 months, 80-100% position) who will work on a project, entitled, Smart Port Enforcement: The Prevention of Marine Pollution by Algorithm. Applications are welcome until 9 May 2024. For more information see here.
Filed under Vacancies