2.5 Conclusions
The international legal framework relating to the protection of the marine environment has developed over the past 50 years through a range of non-binding instruments and international conventions. Historically much of the focus of this legal framework has related to the prevention of marine pollution and customary law has focused attention largely on this aspect of environmental harm. However, more recent developments since UNCED, have focused on the need to address the full range of anthropogenic impacts, including habitat damage and loss of marine biodiversity. The development and entry into force of a number of international conventions, notably the LOSC and the CBD, have been instrumental in changing State practice with regard to the protection of the marine environment and considerable effort has been expended in creating the framework for a global network of marine protected areas. In addition, numerous other conventions provide States with a mechanism for giving effect to their obligations under international environmental law to preserve and protect the marine environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See for example A.C. Kiss and D. Shelton, International Environmental Law (New York: Transnational Publishers Inc, 1991), pp. 162–163, who provide a concise history of the evolution of pollution problems from as far back as 1919, when concerns arose about discharges of oil from ships in harbour; Also on this subject see A.D. McIntyre, “Control of pollution of the sea,” Marine Policy 17 (1995), pp. 394–398; Birnie observes that attempts at international control of marine pollution commenced as early as 1926 in a proposal to limit oil pollution in the sea by a convention (which failed to be ratified): P. Birnie, “Law of the sea and ocean resources: Implications for marine scientific research,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 10 (1995), p. 232.
M. Gavouneli, Pollution from Offshore Installations (London: Graham & Trotman, 1995), pp. 3–4.
G. Timagenis, International Control of Marine Pollution (New York: Oceana Publications, 1980), p. 3.
Ibid, pp. 9–14.
Acomprehensive assessment of the state of the marine environment was undertaken by UN Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection (GESAMP) in 2001. The assessment concluded that the following issues were of most significance to the health of the oceans: destruction and alteration of habitats; the effect of fishing; effects of sewage and chemicals on human health and the environment; increasing eutrophication; and changes to hydrology and the flow of sediments. See GESAMP, A Sea of Troubles, GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 70 (The Hague: UNEP, 2001), p. 35; See also The Report of the Independent World Commission on the Oceans, The Ocean... Our Future (Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 248.
For a discussion on the meaning of’ soft law’ 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 — Focus on Ship Safety and Pollution Prevention (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1997), pp. 37–42.
These principles include the principle that no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause damage to the territory of another State, best described by the Latin maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; the principle of good neighbourliness; the principle of abuse of rights; and the concept of custodianship. For an overview of these and other principles of customary law see for example J.B. Mc-Loughlin and E.G. Bellinger, Environmental Pollution Control: An Introduction to Principles and Practice of Administration (London: Graham and Trotman Ltd, 1993), p. 163; E. J. Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998), p. 42; P. Birnie and A.E. Boyle, International Law and The Environment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 94; Gavounelli, p. 83 (note 2 above).
See for example A.E. Boyle, “Marine pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention,” American Journal of International Law 79 (1995), p. 348; R. M’Gonigle and M. Zacher, Pollution, Politics, and International Law: Tankers at Sea (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979), pp. 81–142.
Timagenis, p. 26 (note 3 above).
The Conference led to the codification of four treaties that dealt with some areas of the law of the sea, namely: the Convention on the High Seas, 29 April 1958. In force 30 September 1962. 450 U.N.T.S 11; the Convention on the Continental Shelf, 29 April 1958. In force 10 June 1964. 499 U.N.T.S 311; the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 29 April 1958. In force 10 September 1964. 516 U.N.T.S 205; and, the Convention on the Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, 29 April 1958. In force 20 March 1966. 559 U.N.T.S 285. Gold argues that, while this latter convention did not involve a direct implication for shipping, the convention did, for the first time, indicate the international community’s interest in the protection and utilisation of marine resources. As a result, shipping as an ocean use, and resource development and the conservation of marine resources were soon viewed as competing uses. See E. Gold, Gard Handbook on Marine Pollution (Arendal, Norway: Assuranceforeningen Gard, 1997), p. 56.
Boyle, p. 79 (note 8 above).
Note 10 above. The Preamble to the Convention on the High Seas states that: The States Parties to this Convention, Desiring to codify the rules of international law relating to the high seas, Recognising that the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held at Geneva from 24 February to 27 April 1958, adopted the following provisions as generally declaratory of established principles of international law...
Kiss & Shelton, p. 163 (note 1 above).
Note 10 above.
Boyle (note 8 above), at p. 4 observes: States enjoyed a substantial measure of freedom to pollute oceans and the existing law did not provide for the full range of forms and sources of marine pollution.
Note 10 above.
TSCZ, Article 1(1) (note 10 above).
Ibid, Article 15.
Ibid, Article 17.
Ibid.
It was the Geneva regime that gave rise to the concept of Flags of Convenience. The major maritime States sought to ensure the freedom of navigation for both merchant and naval fleets and as such resisted any attempts by coastal States to achieve concessions beyond what was already possessed in respect of the territorial sea. As such, the combined Geneva and IMO regimes entrenched the freedom of the seas. See D.M. Dzidzornu and B.M. Tsamenyi, “Enhancing international control of vessel-source oil pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention, 1982: A reassessment,” University of Tasmania Law Review 19 (1991), p. 272.
Ibid, p. 275.
M.S. El-Sabha, S. Demersa and D. Lafontaine, “Coastal management and sustainable development: From Stockholm to Rimouski,” Ocean and Coastal Management 39 (1998), p. 4.
L.K. Caldwell, International Environmental Policy: Emergence and Dimensions (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 21.
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration), 16 June 1972, 11 I.L.M 1416 (1972). For a comprehensive overview of the outcomes of the conference and a detailed analysis of the Declaration see L.B. Sohn, “The Stockholm Declaration,” Harvard International Law Journal 14 (1973), pp. 423–515.
A/Conf.48/14/Rev.1, Stockholm Action Plan for the Human Environment, 1973.
D. Momtaz, “The United Nations and the protection of the environment: From Stockholm to Rio de Janeiro,” Political Geography 15 (1996), p. 265. The resolutions on institutional and financial arrangements led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
L. Juda, International Law and Ocean Use Management (London/New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 186.
Timagenis, p. 26 (note 3 above).
Gold, p. 60 (note 10 above).
C.C. Joyner, “The international ocean regime at the new millennium: A survey of the contemporary legal order,” Ocean and Coastal Management 43 (2000), p. 189.
Juda, p. 186 (note 30 above).
Momtaz, p. 265 (note 29 above). Recommendations 70–85 address pollution generally while Recommendations 86–94 address marine pollution specifically. In particular, Recommendation 86 urges States inter alia to: Accept and implement available instruments on the control of the maritime sources of marine pollution; Ensure that the provisions of such instruments are complied with by ships flying their flags and by ships operating in areas under their jurisdiction and that adequate provisions are made for reviewing the effectiveness of, and revising existing and proposed international measures for control of marine pollution.
For example, in response to the recommendations of the Stockholm Conference, an Intergovernmental Conference was convened in London which adopted the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter, 29 December 1972. In force 30 August 1975. 11 I.L.M 1294 (1972) (hereafter London Convention). Similarly, the recommendations of the Conference had a profound influence on the subsequent development, by the IMO, of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 2 November 1973. 1340 U.N.T.S 61.
As of 15 June 2006, 149 States are Party to the Convention. See http://www.un.org/ Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm.
At the same time that UNCHE was convened, the United Nations was also considering the reports of its Committee on Peaceful Uses of the Seabed and Ocean Floor which led it to convene the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was required to adopt a single convention on almost every aspect of the law of the sea. See the Declaration of Principles — General Assembly Resolution 2749 (XXV). For a general discussion on this development see P. Birnie, “The law of the sea and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,” in E. M. Borgese, N. Ginsburg and J. R. Morgan (eds) Ocean Yearbook 10 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), p. 17.
J.I. Charney, “The marine environment and the 1982 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,” International Lawyer 28 (1994), p. 884.
Boyle, pp. 25–26 (note 8 above).
Numerous authors have written on the subject of the LOSC and its provisions relating to environmental protection. See for example: R.R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd Edition (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1999): Birnie & Boyle (note 7 above); M.L. McConnell and E. Gold, “The modern law of the sea: Framework for the protection and preservation of the marine environment?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 23 (1991), pp. 83–105; D. Bodansky “Protecting the marine environment from vessel-source pollution: UNCLOS III and beyond,” Ecology Law Quarterly 18 (1991), pp. 719–777. A comprehensive 6 volume analysis of the convention is also provided by M. Nordquist (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985–1995).
See for example Charney, generally (note 40 above) who argues that the LOSC establishes the foundation for international environmental law of the sea.
Joyner, p. 192 (note 34 above).
Charney, p. 888 (note 40 above).
Birnie & Boyle, p. 346 (note 7 above).
Significant provisions are also found in the definition of terms used in the Convention (Article 1.1(4)) as well as in Articles on the exploitation of living resources in the EEZ (Articles 56, 61–73), on the high seas (Articles 116–120) and on exploitation of the resources of the deep sea-bed (Article 145). These provisions establish a comprehensive framework for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the context of the global environment. See Charney, p. 885 (note 40 above).
McConnell & Gold, p. 83 (note 44 above).
For an overview of the manner in which the convention attempts to address the tension between navigational freedoms and environmental protection see for example: Bodansky (note 44 above); B. H. Dubner, “On the interplay of international law of the sea and the prevention of maritime pollution: How far can a State proceed in protecting itself from conflicting norms in international law?” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 11 (1998), pp. 137–150; L.S. Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of International Shipping (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y: Oceana Publications, 2004), pp. 35–133; B. Smith, “Innocent passage as a rule of decision: Navigation versus environmental protection,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 21 (1982), pp. 49–102.
McConnell & Gold (note 44 above) note that Part XII and associated provisions of the Convention are important in the general development of international law since they comprise the first attempt to develop a public international law framework in response to the deterioration of, and threats to, the marine environment.
E. Franckx, “Regional marine environmental protection regimes in the context of UNCLOS,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 13 (1998), pp. 310–311.
P. Birnie, “Law of the sea and ocean resources: Implications for marine scientific research,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 10 (1995), pp. 232–233.
Birnie & Boyle, p. 350 (note 7 above).
Birnie & Boyle p. 347 (note 7 above).
McConnell & Gold, p. 89, confirm this view that the subject matter of Part XII is pollution of the marine environment (note 44 above).
Kiss & Shelton, p. 168 (note 1 above). The Convention addresses all major forms of marine pollution (Article 194(1)). It obliges States to use internationally agreed norms to control land-based sources of pollution, and to harmonise their policies on the regional level. It outlines limits on pollution arising from ships, although with more exceptions. Marine pollution from offshore oil and gas extraction is also addressed. In doing so, the Convention makes a substantial departure from its precursor by creating a general duty to regulate all sources of marine pollution rather than a mere empowerment to do so. See E. Duruigbo, “Reforming the international law and policy on marine oil pollution,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 21 (2000), p.75.
In this context, the recognised zones which address conservation and utilisation of biological resources are, the Territorial Sea, the EEZ and the High Seas.
Molenaar, p. 51 (note 7 above).
McConnell & Gold, p. 86 (note 44 above).
Franckx, p. 311 (note 54 above).
Ibid, p. 218.
Peter Sands even suggests that, in its significance, the Rio meeting is comparable to major multilateral peace conferences such as the 1919 Versailles Conference, given the significance placed on the “security of the planet” and the “risk to humans and other species”. P.H. Sands, “UNCED and the development of international environmental law,” in G. Handl (ed) 3 Yearbook of International Environmental Law (London: Graham & Trotman, 1992), p. 3; The importance of UNCED is also noted by Kimball who observes that: What UNCED did was to take stock of progress in articulating and implementing agreed international environmental and development norms, and to address the conditions under which justice and respect of these norms can be maintained. L.A. Kimball, “Toward global environmental management: The institutional setting,” in G. Handl (ed) 3 Yearbook of International Environmental Law (London: Graham & Trotman, 1992), pp. 19–20; See also Birnie & Boyle, Chap. 3 generally (note 7 above).
Molenaar, p. 56 (note 7 above).
Principle 4, Rio Declaration: Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/Conf.151/5/REV.1, 31 I.L.M 874 (1992).
This linkage is most clearly expressed in Principle 4, but also in Principles 2–7 of the Rio Declaration.
That the basis of the link was laid by the Stockholm Conference is recognised in the Preamble to the Rio Declaration.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992. In force 21 March 1994. 1771 U.N.T.S 107.
See note 70 above. One of achievements of UNCED was the establishment of common, but differentiated, responsibilities. Rio Declaration, Principle 7. Also see L.A. Kimball, “UNCED and the oceans agenda: The process forward,” Marine Policy 17 (1993), p.492.
Agenda 21, 14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/Conf.151/26 (1992).
D. M. Johnston and D. L. VanderZwaag, “The ocean and international environmental law: Swimming, sinking and treading water at the millennium,” Ocean and Coastal Management 43 (2000), pp. 153–154.
The precautionary principle has been adopted in numerous global and regional convention for the protection of the marine environment. Notable examples include: The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, 7 November 1996. Not yet in force. 36 I.L.M 1 (1997); The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (hereafter OSPAR Convention), 22 September 1992. In force 25 March 1998. 32 I.L.M 1069 (1993); The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Area, 9 April 1992. In force 17 January 2000. 1507 U.N.T.S 167 (hereafter Helsinki Convention).
The polluter pays principle is best exemplified in those international conventions that deal with compensation for damage arising as a result of oil pollution: The 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969 Civil Liability Convention) as amended by the 1992 Protocol, 27 November 1992. In force 30 May 1996. 1956 U.N.T.S 255; and the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (1971 Fund Convention) as amended by the 1992 Protocol, 27 November 1992. In force 30 May 1996. 1996 U.K.T.S 87. (See http://www.imo.org/InfoResource/mainframe.asp?topic_id=831).
For a detailed analysis of the range of principles promoted by the Rio instruments see for example Birnie & Boyle, Chap. 3 (note 7 above).
The principle is clearly articulated in Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, the Preamble to the UNFCCC and Article 3 of the CBD.
The Rio Declaration is not limited to the marine environment. Its Principles cover a wide range of issues including the role of women, indigenous people, and armed conflict.
B. Cicin-Sain, “Earth Summit implementation: Progress since Rio,” Marine Policy 29 (1996), p. 126. Chapter 17 is the longest and one of the most complex chapters in Agenda 21, which reflects the complicated nature of international oceans governance and the importance of the protection of the marine environment.
Charney, p. 883 (note 40 above).
The seven programme areas are set out in the introduction to Agenda 21 (paras. 17.1(a)-(g)) and include (a) integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas; (b) marine environmental protection; (c) sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the high seas; (d) sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources under national jurisdiction; (e) addressing critical uncertainties for the management of the marine environment and climate change; (f) strengthening international, including regional cooperation and coordination; and (g) sustainable development of small islands.
G. Kullenberg, “Approaches to addressing the problems of pollution of the marine environment: An overview,” Ocean and Coastal Management 42 (1999), p. 1000.
See for example the reference at para. 17.19 of Agenda 21.
This work programme has a number of specific references to the degradation of the marine environment arising from shipping. See Agenda 21, paras 17.30–17.34.
Sea-based activities are separated into various sources of pollution: shipping; dumping; offshore oil and gas platforms; and ports.
See Agenda 21, para. 17.21.
A. Nollkaemper, “Agenda 21 and prevention of sea-based marine pollution: A spurious relationship?” Marine Policy 17 (1993), p. 538. Agenda 21 recognised the need for more effective implementation of relevant shipping conventions and enforcement of international standards. Agenda 21, para. 17.30.
See Agenda 2, para. 17.30(a).
Para. 17.30(a)(iv) calls upon States to take action to implement applicable measures in particularly sensitive areas to ensure compliance with generally accepted international regulations although it does not specify what is possible or permitted under existing IMO instruments.
See Agenda 21, para. 17.30(vi).
See note 6 above.
See for example Birnie & Boyle, pp. 82–83 (note 7 above) who note three factors that give the Rio Declaration significant authority in the articulation and development of contemporary international law relating to the environment, namely (i) it is expressed mainly in obligatory terms; (ii) its principles represent a “package-deal” negotiated by consensus, which must be read as a whole; and (iii) the Declaration reflects real consensus of developed and developing States on the need to identify agreed norms of international environmental protection.
Ibid.
Note 77 above.
Washington Declaration on Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, 1 November 1995, 31 L.O.S.B, 76 (1996).
See the arguments put forward in Sect. 2.2.3.1 above relating to Part XII and in particular the application of Article 194(5) LOSC.
See generally GESAMP (note 5 above).
See for example the large number of fisheries protection conventions, the measure adopted by the International Whaling Commission and a number of conventions adopted for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. However, these largely relate to the protection of exploitable species and resources and not to conservation and habitat protection per se. For an overview of the range of measures that have been adopted for the conservation and management of marine living resources see generally D. Freestone, “The conservation of marine ecosystems under international law,” in M. Bowman and C. Redgwell (eds), International Law and Conservation of Biological Diversity (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp. 91–107.
H.B. Nichols “Canadian east coast marine-protected areas: A review,” Ocean and Coastal Management 39 (1998), p. 88.
T. Agardy, Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation (Georgetown, Texas: R.G. Landes Company, 1997), p. 99.
G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley and S. Wells, A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas: Volume 1 Antarctic, Arctic, Mediterranean, Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic and Baltic, (Washington DC: World Bank, 1995), p. vii.
A recent survey documented over 4000 MPAs covering an area of over 1.6 × 106 km2. See UN Atlas of the Oceans 2004 (http://www.oceansatlas.org).
R.S. Pomeroy, J.E. Parks and L.M. Watson, How is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness (Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, UK: IUCN, 2004), p. vii.
Agardy, p. 99 (note 103 above).
G. Kelleher, (ed). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas World Commission on Protected Areas (Gland, Switzerland / Cambridge, UK: IUCN, 1999), p. xvi.
Ibid, p. 32.
Kelleher et al. (note 104 above).
R. Warner, “Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: Existing legal principles and a future international law framework,” in M. Haward (ed) Integrated Oceans Management: Issues in Implementing Australia’s Oceans Policy (Hobart: Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and Southern Ocean, 2001), p. 59.
Freestone, p. 97 C. Redgwell (eds), International Law and Conservation of Biological Diversity (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996) (note 101 above).
T. Agardy, P. Bridgewater, P. Crosby, J. Day, P.K. Dayton, R. Kenchington, D. Laffoley, P. McConney, P.A. Murray, J.E. Parks and L. Peau, “Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas,” Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem 13 (2003), p. 354.
National Research Council, Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. (Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 2001), p. 150. It should however be noted that the development of a broad body of customary international law has also greatly influenced the development of the MPA concept. Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 for example spells out the relevant requirements for protection of marine living resources and the marine environment very clearly. It specifies inter alia the establishment of coordinated mechanisms to further integrated management, conservation and restoration of critical habitats in all marine areas and a precautionary and anticipatory approach to protection from degradation and use of resources. Furthermore, it specifically encourages States to identify marine ecosystems exhibiting high levels of biodiversity and productivity and other critical habitat areas and to establish limitations on use of such areas through inter alia designation of protected areas. See Birnie & Boyle, p. 680 (note 7 above).
Notwithstanding that it was not in force during the early development of the MPA concept it may be argued that the LOSC is reflective of customary law and therefore its provisions were nonetheless important in the development of the concept.
K. Gjerde, “High seas marine protected areas,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 16 (2001), p. 526.
Ibid, p. 524.
For a comprehensive overview of the negotiations, development and implementation of the Convention see for example: A. E. Boyle, “The Rio Convention on Biological Diversity,” in M. Bowman and C. Redgwell (eds) International Law and Conservation of Biological Diversity, (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp. 33–49; Birnie & Boyle, Chap. 11 generally (note 7 above).
A.H. Hoel, “Marine biodiversity and institutional interplay,” Coastal Management 30 (2003), p. 35.
Ibid.
See CBD, Article 3 “Principle”. In the context of the marine environment, this effectively restates and emphasises the rights set forth under Article 193 of the LOSC.
See CBD, Article 22(2).
A.C. De Fontaubert, D.R. Downes and T. Agardy, Biodiversity in the Seas: Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity in Marine and Coastal Habitats, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 32. (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1996), p. 16.
Article 2 of the Convention defines biological diversity as: the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.
See CBD, Article 8.
M. Pimbert, “Issues emerging in implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity,” Journal of International Development 9 (1997), p. 420.
Boyle, pp. 43–44 C. Redgwell (eds) International Law and Conservation of Biological Diversity, (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996) (note 118 above).
S. Arico, “Evolution of the international debate on marine and coastal biodiversity since the Earth Summit,” in Proceedings of the Oceans and Coasts Rio +10 Workshop, (Paris, France: 2001), p. 6.
Birnie & Boyle, p. 646 (note 7 above).
Arico, p. 6 (note 129 above).
“Decision II/10 of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention: Conservation and Sustainable use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity”. See UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19, Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to The Convention on Biological Diversity, 30 November 1995.
Decision II/10, para. 13 (note 132 above).
De Fontaubert et al p. 1 (note 123 above). As Arico notes, at p. 8 (note 129 above): At the end of COP-2, the Convention started to look more promising as a forum for policy decision having a real impact on the conservation and management of marine and coastal biodiversity.
World Summit on Sustainable Development, (Johannesburg, 26 August–4 September 2002), “Plan of Implementation,” para 31(c). In December 2002, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the provisions of WSSD with respect to the need for representative networks of MPAs, highlighting the need for international programmes to halt the loss of marine biodiversity. See the Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly A/RES/57/141, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, 21 February 2003. Further support to this effect is provided by one of the outcomes of the World Parks Congress in 2003, which recommends inter alia that a global system of marine and protected areas be established by 2012, with at least 20–30% of areas strictly protected.
Decision VII/5 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, para 26. See UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21, Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. 13 April 2002.
Decision VII/5, Annex 1. Sect. III Programme Elements, (note 138 above).
See Decision VII/5, para. 19 (note 138 above), which agrees to adopt the approach put forward by WSSD for the work of the Convention on marine and coastal protected areas, and to develop a strategy to meet this goal, including indicators of progress.
Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 16 November 1972. In force 17 December 1975. 1037 U.N.T.S 151 (hereafter World Heritage Convention).
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 2 February 1971. In force 21 December 1975. 996 U.N.T.S 245 (hereafter RAMSAR Convention).
Kelleher et al pp. 9–10 (note 104 above). For a recent overview of the range of international and regional agreements addressing protected area designation see generally S. Chape, M. Spalding and D. Sheppard, The State of the Worlds Protected Areas: Chapter 1-Global Overview, (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2004).
Kelleher et al p. 11 (note 104 above).
Meeting of the Seventeenth Session of the The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, 17 October to 21 November 1972.
E. Green, A Global Overview of Tropical Marine, Coastal and Small Island Ecosystems and the World Heritage List, UNEP-WCMC Discussion Paper (Cambridge, UK: UNEP — WCMC, 2001), p. 4.
M. Spalding, “The World Heritage List — The best of all worlds?” Parks 12 (2002), p. 50.
M. H. Glantz and R.M. Figueroa, “Does the Aral Sea merit heritage status?” Global Environmental Change 7 (1997), p. 357.
Green, p. 4 (note 147 above).
UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. WHC. 05/2 1 February 2005, para. I.C.4.
A. Phillips, “The World Heritage Convention and its application to marine and coastal sites.” Discussion paper to the Workshop on World Heritage Biodiversity: Filling Critical Gaps and Promoting Multi-Site Approaches to New Nominations of Tropical Coastal, Marine and Small Island Ecosystems (Hanoi, Vietnam, February 25–March 1, 2002). p. 4. Available at http://international.nos.noaa.gov/heritage/docs/wrkspdoc/Attach4_Background.doc.
UNESCO, para. 77 (note 152 above).
De Fontaubert et al, p. 63. (note 123 above).
C. Magin and S. Chape, Review of the World Heritage Network: Biogeography, Habitats and Biodiversity, (Cambridge, UK/Gland, Switzerland: UNPE-WCMC and IUCN, 2004), p. iii.
De Fontaubert et al, p. 63. (note 123 above).
Ibid, p. 64.
See for example Koester, who observes that the Convention “has proved a helpful tool in the global effort to conserve biological diversity”. V. Koester, “The five global biodiversity-related conventions,” Environmental Policy and Law 31 (2001), p.153; Birnie & Boyle, p. 470 (note 7 above) argue that for sites listed on the World Heritage List the Convention provides real protection but that limitations on listing prevent it from being the major instrument of habitat protection.
J. Thorsell, R. Ferster and T. Sigaty, A Global Overview of Wetland and Marine Protected Areas on the World Heritage List: A Contribution to the Global Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites. IUCN Natural Heritage Programme, (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1997), p. 61.
UNESCO, World Network of Biosphere Reserves, Ref SC/ECO (Paris: UNESCO MAB Secretariat, November 2004), p.1. Available at http://www.unesco.org/mab/brlist.PDF.
V. Hartje, A. Klaphake and R. Schliep, The International Debate on the Ecosystem Approach, BfN-Skripten 80 (Bonn: German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, 2003), p. 23.
P. Bridgewater, “Biosphere Reserves — A network for conservation and sustainability,” Parks 12 (2002), p. 15.
M. Batisse, “Development and implementation of the Biosphere Reserve concept and its applicability to coastal regions,” Environmental Conservation 17 (1990), p. 111.
Bridgewater, p. 16 (note 164 above).
P. Bridgewater, “Biosphere Reserves: The network beyond the islands,” Parks 11 (2001), p 1.
A UNESCO “Intergovernmental Conference on Biosphere Reserves” was held at Seville, Spain, between 20–25 March, 1995. The Seville conference was an occasion to review the experience from using the Biosphere Reserve concept throughout the world, to develop a strategy statement concerning the further development of Biosphere Reserves, and to finalise a Statutory Framework that set out the conditions for the functioning of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The “Seville Strategy & Statutory Framework of the World Network”, as it is called, was adopted by 28C/Resolution 2.4 of the UNESCO General Conference in November 1995: Records of the Twenty-Eighth Session of the UNESCO General Conference, 25 October–16 November 1995-Volume 1 Resolutions, (Paris: UNESCO, 1996). The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves was formulated with the objective of enhancing the effectiveness of the individual Biosphere Reserves. The framework is intended to contribute to the widespread recognition of Biosphere Reserves and to encourage and promote good working examples. The Statutory Framework sets out 10 Articles which address definitions, criteria and designation procedures for Biosphere Reserves.
Note 170 above.
D. Brunckhorst, P. Bridgewater and P. Parker, “The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve programme comes of age: Learning by doing, landscape models for sustainable conservation and resource,” in Proceedings of Conservation Outside Reserves, (Brisbane: University of Queensland, February 1996), p. 8.
Bridgewater, p. 1 (note 164 above).
J. Sobel, “Conserving biological diversity through marine protected areas: A global challenge,” Oceanus 36 (1993), pp. 19–23.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). International Legal Framework for the Protection of the Marine Environment. In: Marine Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37699-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37699-6_2
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)