This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982. In force 16 November 1983. 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (hereafter LOSC).
Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992. In force 29 December 1993. 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 (hereafter CBD). The Convention requires Parties to identify activities which have or are likely to have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity (Article 7), and to regulate and manage those activities within a system of protected areas which must be established for the purpose of biodiversity conservation (Article 8). on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. 13 April 2002.
See F. Spadi, “Navigation in marine protected areas: National and international law,” Ocean Development and International Law 31 (2000), p. 285.
C. De Klemm, Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1993), p. 260.
See K.N. Scott, “International regulation of undersea noise,” International Comparative Law Quarterly 53 (2004), p. 291.
De Klemm, p. 260 (note 8 above).
D. Bodansky, “Protecting the marine environment from vessel-source pollution: UNCLOS III and beyond,” Ecology Law Quarterly 18 (1991), p. 720.
Ibid.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, 1 June 1978. In force 2 October 1983. 1340 U.N.T.S 61 (hereafter MARPOL 73/78).
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1 November 1974. In force 25 May 1980. 1184 U.N.T.S 2 (hereafter SOLAS).
G. French, “Legal mechanisms for protection and preservation of the marine environment: Their relationship to particularly sensitive areas,” in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Protection of Sensitive Sea Areas (Malmo, Sweden: International Maritime Organization, 1990), p. 374.
See for example: P. Birnie, “The status of environmental’ soft law’: Trends and examples with special focus on IMO norms,” in H. Ringbom (ed), Competing Norms in the Law of Marine Environmental Protection (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1997), p. 35; A. Blanco-Bazán, “The environmental UNCLOS and the work of the IMO in the field of prevention of pollution from vessels,” in A. Kirchner (ed) International Marine Environmental Law: Institutions, Implementation and Innovations (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2003), p. 34; LEG/MISC/3/Rev.1, Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization, IMO Secretariat, 6 January 2003, p. 3.
See Birnie generally (note 16 above).
For a general discussion on the application of development and application of IMO measures see generally E. J. Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998).
For a discussion of the concept of’ soft law’ in the context of the IMO, see Birnie, pp. 31–57 (note 16 above).
S. Raaymakers, “Maritime transport & high seas governance: Regulation, risks and the IMO regime,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Governance of High Seas Biodiversity Conservation (Cairns, 17–20 June 2003), p. 20.
IMO Assembly Resolution A.982(24), Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas. Adopted 1 December 2005. Para. 1.2.
K. M. Gjerde and D. Ong, “Protection of particularly sensitive sea areas under international environmental law: Report of the international meeting of legal experts on particularly sensitive sea areas,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 26 (1993), p. 10.
Evidence of such can be seen by the submissions made by certain environmental NGOs in support of proposals for PSSAs including the Western European water, Baltic Sea and Torres Straight. Furthermore, the NGOs have been supportive of revisions to the PSSA concept (note 21 above) that would allow for a broader range of protective measures to be adopted by the IMO. It seems only a matter of time before a high seas PSSA proposal is put before the IMO — largely due to increasing pressure for such from some NGOs. Observation by the author at sessions of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee.
WWF Briefing Paper, Particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs) and marine environmentally high risk areas (MEHRAS), September 2003; L. de La Fayette, “The Marine Environment Protection Committee: The conjunction of the law of the sea and international environmental law,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 16 (2001), p. 186.
According to Frank, this view was expressed during an European Union Coordination Meeting in preparation for a session of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee in 2003. See V. Frank, “Consequences of the Prestige sinking,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 20 (2005), p. 30.
See: MEPC 36/21/4, Report of the third international meeting of legal experts on particularly sensitive sea areas, submitted by the IMO Secretariat, 4 August 1994, paras. 10–17; K. M. Gjerde and J. S. H. Pullen, “Cuba’s Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago: The second internationally recognised particularly sensitive sea area,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 13 (1998), p. 249; and Anon, “Particularly sensitive sea areas: Using a comprehensive planning tool to protect habitats from shipping,” MPA News 3 (2002), p. 2.
K. M. Gjerde, “Protecting particularly sensitive sea areas from shipping: A review of IMO’s new PSSA guidelines,” in H. Thiel & J. A. Koslow (eds) Managing Risks to Biodiversity and the Environment on the High Sea, Including Tools Such as Marine Protected Areas-Scientific Requirements and Legal Aspects, BfN-Skripten 43 (Bonn: German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, 2001), pp. 125–126; Gjerde and Pullen, p. 252 (note 26 above); See also: MEPC 36/21/4, para. 33 (note 26 above).
For an overview of these measures see generally: J. Roberts, “Protecting sensitive marine environments: The role and application of ships’ routeing measures,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 20 (2005), pp. 97–121; G. Peet, “Particularly sensitive sea areas-an overview of relevant IMO documents,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 9 (1994), pp. 556–576.
See for example generally J. Roberts, T. Workman, M. Tsamenyi, L. Johnson, “The Western European PSSA: A ‘politically sensitive sea area’,” Marine Policy 29 (2005), pp. 431–440.
Examples of revisions to the process include the establishment of a full Working Group of the MEPC, and third party scientific review of every application and the establishment of a multidisciplinary review team following the model of the UNESCO World Heritage Site assessment teams. Evidence of these concerns can be seen in various reports of IMO Committees. See for example MEPC 51/22 para.8.41 (note 28 above); MEPC 52/24, Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fiftysecond session, 18 October 2004, para.8.31.
Evidence of such can be seen in IMO paper LEG 87/16/1, Designation of a Western European Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, submitted by Liberia, Panama, the Russian Federation, BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and IPTA, 15 September 2003.
Note 21 above. The review was initiated as a response to concerns over the application of the PSSA concept. This issue is discussed in detail in Chaps. 6 and 7 below.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Introduction. In: Marine Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37699-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37699-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-37697-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37699-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)