Geography
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an international treaty that establishes the legal framework for the use of the world's oceans. It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the seas and oceans, and it sets out guidelines for the management and conservation of marine resources. UNCLOS also addresses issues such as maritime boundaries, navigation, and environmental protection.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
12 Key excerpts on "UN Convention on the Law of the Sea"
eBook - PDF- Salvatore Aricò(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
10 The assumption that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the legal framework for all activities taking place in the sea TULLIO SCOVAZZI 10.1 A commonly repeated statement The resolutions that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted in past years on the subject ‘Oceans and the Law of the Sea’ emphasize ‘the universal and unified character’ of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 1982) (UNCLOS) and the need to maintain its integrity. The resolutions also reaffirm ‘that the Convention sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out’ (Res. 68/70, 2013). Such a statement is often repeated by states and experts in international law of the sea. But does it fully correspond with the truth? There is no doubt that the UNCLOS is a cornerstone in the process for the codification of international law. It has been rightly described as a ‘Constitution for Oceans’, ‘a monumental achievement in the international community’, ‘the first comprehensive treaty dealing with practically every aspect of the uses and resources of the seas and the oceans’, as well as an instrument which ‘has successfully accommodated the competing interests of all nations’ (Koh, 1983). The UNCLOS has many merits, which nobody could deny. However, the assump- tion that everything that occurs in the seas must necessarily fall under the scope of the UNCLOS, if this is what the words of the above mentioned resolutions are intended to mean, is far from being satisfactory, as this chapter will try to show. 1 In fact, the UNCLOS, as any legal instrument, is linked to the time when it was negotiated and adopted (from 1973 to 1982 in this case) and to what was possible to achieve during the negotiations for the drafting of its text.
eBook - ePubMarine Policy
An Introduction to Governance and International Law of the Oceans
- Mark Zacharias, Jeff Ardron(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and related agreements Moving from ‘free seas’ to codifying jurisdictionKey topics- The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the primary legal agreement governing the conduct between states in the world ocean. It is one of the most complex international agreements ever drafted and also one of the most fully subscribed (168 parties).
- The Convention defines the rights of states to waters adjacent to their territory; defines the seabed beyond national jurisdictions and its resources as the ‘common heritage of mankind’; and obliges states to protect and preserve the ocean and accommodate the needs of other states.
- The Convention establishes the International Seabed Authority and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
UN conventions on the Law of the Sea
By the 1950s, human uses of the oceans were changing significantly, driven by globalization, technological advances and human population growth. Offshore hydrocarbon development, seabed mining, container-based shipping, high seas fishing and militarization of the oceans highlighted the limitations of the existing rules of the ocean and the vulnerabilities of the relationships between nations that use the ocean.In particular, a number of jurisdictions, led by the United States, had unilaterally increased their jurisdiction beyond the 12nmi territorial seas. This precipitated friction between coastal states and seafaring nations with respect to shipping and other coastal economic activities. In the 1960s–1970s, there was also considerable interest in the potential of seabed mining, yet little agreement on its governance, whether on or off the continental shelves. States at this time were also positioning themselves to their best advantage based on geography, foreign policy and shipping to their markets. Coastal states blessed with significant coastal areas adopted national policies exerting control and exclusive rights over their marine areas. Also termed ‘territorialists’, states such as Canada and Russia considered marine resource development and conservation a national right. Maritime states , including the United States and other geographically smaller seafaring nations (e.g. the United Kingdom), advocated for the freedom of the seas. Also termed ‘internationalists’, maritime states were increasingly concerned that a patchwork of national regulations would complicate shipping and other resource development (McDorman, 2008). States’ positions on marine sovereignty were further articulated by how they viewed uses of their marine territory by other states. Functionalist states believed that states should only regulate their marine areas for certain activities such as vessel-source pollution. Unilateralist states believed that all
eBook - PDFBeyond the Law of the Sea
New Directions for U.S. Oceans Policy
- George V. Galdorisi, Kevin R. Vienna(Authors)
- 1997(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
14 24 Beyond the Law of the Sea The Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II), convened in 1960. It was attended by delegates of eighty-eight States and sought to resolve the principal issue left over from UNCLOS I—establishing a maximum breadth for the territorial sea—and to discuss the question of fishery limits. In contrast to the previous UNCLOS I negotiations, UNCLOS II reached no conventions and did not accomplish anything noteworthy, although it did come within one vote of adopting a compromise formula providing for a six-mile territorial sea plus a six-mile fishery zone. The failure of UNCLOS I and II to achieve full international agreement on the questions of the breadth of the territorial sea and the rights of coastal States to living and nonliving resources beyond the outer limits of their territorial sea set the stage for several confrontations and ultimately necessitatedrenewed international efforts to resolve these problems. A series of major international incidents during the 1960s—perhaps the best known of which was the so-called "cod wars" involving Iceland, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United Kingdom—vividly demonstrated the potentially serious nature of these international disputes. In addition, through diplomatic activities, in which the Soviet Union and the United States were principal actors, attempts to formulate a universal arrangement for the territorial sea and related matters continued with little publicity. 15 Significantly, in the aftermath of UNCLOS I and II, the world community's interest in the oceans increased as the growing need to obtain food and energy resources from the sea and mounting concern over marine pollution began to receive increased international attention. Many States wondered whether the four Conventions adopted at UNCLOS I were up to the task of managing the oceans through the latter half of the century.
eBook - PDFMaking the Law of the Sea
A Study in the Development of International Law
- James Harrison(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
First and foremost, the Convention sets out the jurisdictional regime for the seas and oceans. It empowers coastal states to establish a num- ber of zones of maritime jurisdiction in which they may claim certain rights. Beyond these areas of national jurisdiction lie the high seas, and the Convention confirms the principle of the freedom of the high seas for peaceful purposes. 109 UNCLOS III was able to solve some of the controversies that had plagued earlier attempts at codifying the law of the sea. Part II of the Convention defines the legal status of the territorial sea and the con- tiguous zone. Coastal states are able to claim a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles from baselines drawn in accordance with the 106 See statement of the United States, 192nd meeting, Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Vol. 17, at 116–17. See also the statement of the United Kingdom, 189th meeting, ibid., at 79–80. 107 T. B. Koh, “A Constitution for the Oceans,” available at www.un.org/depts/los/ convention_agreements/texts/koh_english.pdf . See also S. V. Scott, “The LOS Convention as a constitutional regime for the oceans,” in A. G. Oude Elferink (ed.), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (2006, Martinus Nijhoff Publications). 108 Ibid. 109 Law of the Sea Convention, Part VII. the law of the sea convention 49 Convention. 110 While coastal states have sovereignty over the territor- ial sea, ships in this zone retain a right of innocent passage. 111 In straits used for international navigation, coastal states have fewer powers of regulation and ships and aircraft have a right of unimpeded transit passage as defined in Part III of the Convention. A coastal state may also designate a contiguous zone up to 24 nautical miles from their baselines.
eBook - PDF- Jost Delbrück, Thomas Giegerich, Andreas Zimmermann, Jost Delbrück, Thomas Giegerich, Andreas Zimmermann(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Duncker & Humblot(Publisher)
This achievement is undoubtedly largely due to the use of consensus decision-making at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea as well as the ‘package deal’ approach and the decision to embody the results of the Conference in a single treaty (unlike at Geneva), all of which mean that the Convention reflects a broad con-sensus among those States represented at the Conference. For non-parties the Convention is still highly relevant since many of its provisions also represent customary international law 41 and as such are binding on non-parties. Further-more, politically it is now increasingly difficult for a non-party to assert or maintain a maritime claim or engage in a maritime activity in a way that is clearly contrary to the Convention. Thus, the nature of the Convention as a constitution for the oceans is not exclusively confined to its parties. 92 Robin R. Churchill 42 See Art. 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. 43 See Art. 1 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. D. Coastal State Maritime Zones – Ending Creeping Jurisdiction One of the main reasons for convening the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea was to try to bring some order and uniformity to the many and diverse claims to zones of maritime jurisdiction by coastal States. It is difficult now to remember quite how chaotic and unregulated this matter was in the early 1970s when preparations for the Conference were being made. The first two UN Con-ferences on the Law of the Sea in 1958 and 1960 had managed to agree only that States could claim a contiguous zone no more than twelve miles in breadth 42 and a continental shelf up to 200 meters or beyond if exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed was possible 43 – an obviously highly flexible and open-ended limit.
No longer available |Learn more- United Nations Office of Legal Affairs(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- United Nations Publications(Publisher)
1 I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 1 1. Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 31 July 2015 This consolidated table, prepared by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of the Legal Affairs, provides unofficial, quick reference information related to the participation in UNCLOS and the two implementing Agreements. For official information on the status of these treaties, please refer to the publication entitled “ Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General” (http://untreaty.un.org). The symbol “ ” indicates (i) that a declaration or statement was made at the time of signature; at the time of ratification/accession or anytime thereafter, or (ii) declarations confirmed upon succession. A double icon ( Ī ŪůťŪŤŢŵŦŴ ŵũŢŵ ŵŸ Ű ťŦŤŭŢųŢŵŪŰůŴ Ÿ ŦųŦ Ů ŢťŦ ţź the State. The abbreviation (fc) indicates a formal confirmation; (a) an accession; (s) a succession; (ds) a definitive signature; (p) the consent to be bound; (sp) a simplified procedure. Names of States in italics indicate non-members of the United Nations; shaded rows indicate landlocked States.
No longer available |Learn more- United Nations Office of Legal Affairs(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- United Nations Publications(Publisher)
1 I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 1 1. Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 31 March 2015 This consolidated table, prepared by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of the Legal Affairs, provides unofficial, quick reference information related to the participation in UNCLOS and the two implementing Agreements. For official information on the status of these treaties, please refer to the publication entitled “ Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General” (http://untreaty.un.org). The symbol “ ” indicates (i) that a declaration or statement was made at the time of signature; at the time of ratification/accession or anytime thereafter, or (ii) declarations confirmed upon succession. A double icon ( Ī ŪůťŪŤŢŵŦŴ ŵũŢŵ ŵŸ Ű ťŦŤŭŢųŢŵŪŰůŴ Ÿ ŦųŦ Ů ŢťŦ ţź ŵ he State. The abbreviation (fc) indicates a formal confirmation; (a) an accession; (s) a succession; (ds) a definitive signature; (p) the consent to be bound; (sp) a simplified procedure. Names of States in italics indicate non-members of the United Nations; shaded rows indicate landlocked States.
No longer available |Learn more- United Nations Office of Legal Affairs(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- United Nations Publications(Publisher)
1 I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 1 1. Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 31 July 2014 This consolidated table, prepared by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of the Legal Affairs, provides unofficial, quick reference information related to the participation in UNCLOS and the two implementing Agreements. For official information on the status of these treaties, please refer to the publication entitled “ Multilateral Treaties deposited with the Secretary-General” (http://untreaty.un.org). The symbol “ ” indicates (i) that a declaration or statement was made at the time of signature; at the time of ratification/accession or anytime thereafter, or (ii) declarations confirmed upon succession. A double icon ( ) indicates that two declarations were made by the State. The abbreviation (fc) indicates a formal confirmation; (a) an accession; (s) a succession; (ds) a definitive signature; (p) the consent to be bound; (sp) a simplified procedure. Names of States in italics indicate non-members of the United Nations; shaded rows indicate landlocked States.
eBook - ePubInternational Relations as Politics among People
Hermeneutic Encounters and Global Governance
- Hannes Hansen-Magnusson(Author)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
www.un.org/depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm [accessed 1 June 2019].3 The flag was planted on 2 August 2007; see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm [accessed 3 June 2019]. Recent activities follow a century-old discussion between proponents of the concept of mare liberum (published by Hugo Grotius in 1609) and the advocates of the principle of mare clausum (advocated by John Selden in 1635), which contain antagonistic ideas about sovereign rights, possession, and general use of coastal waters and the high seas. It is currently part of the argument advanced in the most recent case of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Compare the Arctic Sunrise case, for which documentation is available online: www.itlos.org/index.php?id=264 [accessed 3 June 2019].4 See also: www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-denmark-greenland-northpole-idUSBRE86Q10O20120727 [accessed 4 June 2019].5 See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139 [accessed 1 June 2019].6 The third conference on the Law of the Sea lasted from 1973–1982. Previous attempts to codify the Law of the Sea had taken place in The Hague in 1930. Two previous conferences in 1958 and 1960 only settled aspects of the law.7 The study is therefore not a discussion of the current perspective of international law, nor of the Law of the Sea in its entirety. Rather, I focus on its trajectory during the latter part of the twentieth century and the performances contributing to codifying the Law of the Sea in the third conference. I also take into account current instantiations whenever they help illustrate my argument.8
eBook - ePubInternational Law and Ocean Use Management
The evolution of ocean governance
- Lawrence Juda(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
.73 Shigeru Oda, The Law of the Sea in Our Time –I: New Developments 1966–1975 (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1977) p. 166.74 A/Conf.62/C.l/L.2 (29 July 1974).75 A/Conf.62/32 (15 July 1974). Reproduced in UNCLOS-III, Official Records, vol. III, pp. 61–63.76 See, for example, UNCTAD, “Implications of the Exploitation of the Mineral Resources of the International Area of the Sea-Bed: Issues of International Commodity Policy,” TD/B/C.1/170 (8 January 1975).77 Writing in the early stages of UNCLOS-III, Aaron Danzig, chairman of the Law of the Sea Committee of the World Peace Through Law Center, stressed how the application of the common heritage principle to areas of the continental margins and their oil supplies could benefit the developing states. He observed, however, that “The developing countries have joined a stampede to divide the best part of the ocean treasure colonial style. Under the plan which the have-nots are wholeheartedly endorsing, each coastal State would have exclusive economic jurisdiction over the exploitation of the resources of the seabed for a distance of 200 miles from shore.” Danzig, “A Funny Thing Happened to the Common Heritage on the Way to the Sea,” 12 San Diego Law Review 655–664 (1975) at 656 (emphasis in the original).78 References to the Stockholm Conference at UNCLOS-III were plentiful; see, for example, the comments by the representatives of Ireland, UNCLOS-III, Official Records, vol. I, p. 160 (11 July 1974), Denmark, vol. II, p. 312, Australia, p. 313 (15 July 1974), Canada, vol. II, pp. 316–317, and Brazil, vol. II, p. 331 (17July 1974).79 In this context note the observation of the representative of Sudan that “The Stockholm Conference had shattered the myth, prevalent prior to the Conference, that the developing countries would take a lukewarm attitude toward environmental issues.” UNCLOS-III, Official Records
No longer available |Learn more- United Nations Office of Legal Affairs(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- United Nations Publications(Publisher)
Interpretation. 2. - (1) In this Law, unless the context otherwise requires - 3(g) of 97(I)/2014.* “Continental Shelf” means the sea-bed and the subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond the territorial sea of the Republic, the outer limit of which is defined in section 5A; 3(e) of 97(I)/2014.* 203 of 1988. “Convention” means the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which was ratified by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Ratification) Law, 1988; “Court” means the Court as defined in section 10; 3(b) of 97(I)/2014.* “Director” Deleted ; 3(a) of 97(I)/2014.* “Exclusive Economic Zone” means the zone adjacent to the territorial sea of the Republic, the limits of which are defined in section 3; 3(c) of 97(I)/2014.* “living Resources” include fish and any other living organisms; 3(f) of 97(I)/2014. * “Minister” Deleted; 3(g) of 97(I)/2014.* “natural resourses” means the living and non-living resourses; “nautical mile” means the distance of one thousand eight hundred and fifty two meters; 3(d) of 97(I)/2014.* “non-living resources” means the various mineral and other non-living resources which generally lie on the sea-bed or its subsoil; 7 Ibid. 27 “Republic” means the Republic of Cyprus; 3(g) of 97(I)/2014.* “safety zone” means the area around installations, structures, or artificial islands which are intended to be placed in or already existing in and/or above the Exclusive Economic Zone and/or the Continental Shelf, the breadth and status of which shall be designated by Order of the Minister of Communications and Works; 3(g) of 97(I)/2014.* “ship” means a vessel of any type not permanently attached to the sea-bed, including dynamically supported craft, submersibles or any other floating craft; 3(g) of 97(I)/2014.* 45 of 1964 95(I) of 2014. “territorial Sea” means the maritime zone as defined in section 2 of the Territorial Sea Laws, 1964 and 2014.
eBook - PDF- Karen Hulme(Author)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Hart Publishing(Publisher)
research conducted in accordance with this Convention beyond their territorial sea and, as appropriate, to facilitate, subject to the provisions of their laws and regulations, access to their harbours and promote assistance for marine scientific research vessels which comply with the relevant provisions of this Part . United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 215 Article 256 Marine scientific research in the Area All States, irrespective of their geographical location, and competent international organizations have the right, in conformity with the provisions of Part XI, to conduct marine scientific research in the Area .Article 257 Marine scientific research in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone All States, irrespective of their geographical location, and competent international organizations have the right, in conformity with this Convention, to conduct marine scientific research in the water column beyond the limits of the exclusive economic zone .SECTION 4 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTALLATIONS OR EQUIPMENT IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT Article 258 Deployment and use The deployment and use of any type of scientific research installations or equipment in any area of the marine environment shall be subject to the same conditions as are prescribed in this Convention for the conduct of marine scientific research in any such area .Article 259 Legal status The installations or equipment referred to in this section do not possess the status of islands .They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf .Article 260 Safety zones Safety zones of a reasonable breadth not exceeding a distance of 500 metres may be created around scientific research installations in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Convention .All States shall ensure that such safety zones are respected by their vessels .Article 261 Non-interference with shipping routes The deployment and use of any type of scientific research installations or equipment shall not constitute an obstacle to established international shipping routes .Article 262 Identification markings and
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
