Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three Structural Pillars of the Future International Legally Binding Instrument on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Conference on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction has started its work on the development of an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on the conservation and sustainable use of such biodiversity. The negotiations on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) will therefore further evolve within this new stage of the process. Based on a role-playing game conducted with students of the master’s in public international law at Utrecht University, this chapter looks at how the regulation for marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction could unfold by analysing three structural aspects of the development of the ILBI. First, as the ILBI is to be developed as an agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the first substantive section focuses on the relationship between the two treaties (Sect. 2). The next section looks at biodiversity itself, through the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the ILBI, notably on how the instruments could complement one another in areas beyond national jurisdiction (Sect. 3). Finally, the last substantive section assesses the character of the ILBI, to see whether institutional arrangements should be rooted in a global, region/sectoral and/or hybrid approach (Sect. 4). These three issues form, in our view, the three pillars of the structural development and practical significance of the ILBI.

While the authors share collective responsibility for this chapter, Otto Spijkers was the lead author of Sect. 2, Catherine Blanchard of Sect. 3, and Wen Duan of Sect. 4.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    IISD (2006), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    E.g., Barnes (2016), Tladi (2017), Scanlon (2018), Warner (2017), Young and Friedman (2018) and Millicay (2018).

  3. 3.

    Tladi (2017), p. 259.

  4. 4.

    IISD (2018), pp. 1–2.

  5. 5.

    IISD (2011), p. 2; WSSD (2002); UNGA Res 57/14 (2002), UNGA Res 58/240 (2003).

  6. 6.

    UNGA Res 59/24 (2004), para 73.

  7. 7.

    CBD COP Dec VII/28 (2004), para 25.

  8. 8.

    UNGA Res 59/24 (2004), para 71.

  9. 9.

    DOALOS (2017b), p. 9; Scanlon (2018), p. 2; Jeff Ardron (2013), p. 2.

  10. 10.

    UNGA Res 69/292 (2015), para 1(a).

  11. 11.

    PrepCom (2017), para 38. It is to be noted that these elements were divided in two categories: elements that generated convergence among most delegations, and main issues on which there is divergence of views.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    UNGA Res 72/249 (2017), para 1.

  14. 14.

    IGC (2018b).

  15. 15.

    IISD (2018), p. 15.

  16. 16.

    IGC (2019).

  17. 17.

    The IGC has since met on two additional occasions, in March-April and August 2019, and a fourth session is pending. A draft text (June 2019) and revised draft text (November 2019) have also been published by the President of the IGC. However, the content of the present chapter was last updated in April 2019, and the authors relied on the state of the negotiations and information available at that time.

  18. 18.

    PrepCom (2017), para 4. See also DOALOS (2017b), para 18, IGC (2018b), para 3, and IGC (2018c).

  19. 19.

    IGC (2018b), para 3.4.2.

  20. 20.

    States not party to the UNCLOS include Colombia, Libya, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela.

  21. 21.

    Fish Stocks Agreement (1995), Art. 4.

  22. 22.

    See e.g. UNGA Res 69/292 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Id., para 19.

  24. 24.

    Most notably, the UNCLOS does not define “marine environment”; and the term “(marine) biodiversity” is entirely absent from the Convention.

  25. 25.

    UNCLOS, Art. 87(1).

  26. 26.

    See also Oude Elferink (2018), pp. 446–455.

  27. 27.

    Tiller et al. (2019). See also Kraabel (2019), pp. 152–154.

  28. 28.

    Warner (2018a).

  29. 29.

    See also Wright et al. (2018), p. 53. The United States maintain this position especially with regard to marine genetic resources in ABNJ.

  30. 30.

    Id., pp. 47–49.

  31. 31.

    China argues in particular that marine genetic resources in the Area should be exploited on the basis of this principle. See Id., pp. 34–35 and 49–51.

  32. 32.

    See UNCLOS, Art. 87.

  33. 33.

    See also IUCN (2018).

  34. 34.

    See also Oude Elferink (2018), p. 445. Here, the author discusses the legal basis for the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ but does not expressly indicate that there is an obligation for States to participate in the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ.

  35. 35.

    Wright et al. (2018), pp. 32–34. See also Park and Kim (2019).

  36. 36.

    See also Oude Elferink (2018), pp. 447–448. Support for this interpretation can be found in Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (2015), para 475.

  37. 37.

    This interpretation of 206 UNCLOS finds support in ITLOS Advisory Opinion (2011), para 146–148.

  38. 38.

    See also Wright et al. (2018), p. 35.

  39. 39.

    Warner (2018b), pp. 41–42.

  40. 40.

    IGC (2018b), 5.3.

  41. 41.

    See also Wright et al. (2018), pp. 35–36.

  42. 42.

    The CBD was opened for signature at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Conference), and it entered into force the next year, see CBD (1992), preamble; CBD, History of the Convention.

  43. 43.

    Yzquierdo (2017), p. 10.

  44. 44.

    E.g. Ramsar Convention (1971); CMS (1979); CITES (1973).

  45. 45.

    CBD (1992), Art. 1.

  46. 46.

    Id., Art. 4.

  47. 47.

    Id., Art. 8–9.

  48. 48.

    Id., Art. 15, see also Art. 8(j).

  49. 49.

    Nagoya Protocol (2010).

  50. 50.

    CBD, About the Nagoya Protocol.

  51. 51.

    Nagoya Protocol (2010), Art. 14.

  52. 52.

    CBD (1992), Art. 18. A clearing-house mechanism works for the collection, centralisation, and distribution of information and materials.

  53. 53.

    Nagoya Protocol (2010), Art. 1.

  54. 54.

    CBD (1992), Arts 16 and 18.

  55. 55.

    CBP COP Dec II/10 (1995).

  56. 56.

    Indeed, biodiversity specifically in the context of the costal and marine environment are not discussed at length in the CBD. The Jakarta mandate completes the CBD in that field, see Wolfrum and Matz (2000), p. 459.

  57. 57.

    CBD, Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.

  58. 58.

    CBD, Aichi Biodiversity targets.

  59. 59.

    196 parties have ratified as of 13 December 2018.

  60. 60.

    Caddell (2016).

  61. 61.

    Millicay (2018), pp. 172–173.

  62. 62.

    Glowka et al. (1994), p. 27.

  63. 63.

    CBD (1992), Arts 3, 5, 7(c) and 8(l). See also Robinson and Kurukulasuriya (2006), pp. 226–227.

  64. 64.

    CBD COP Dec X/29 (2010), para 24; CBD COP Dec XI/17 (2012), preamble; Gjerde and Rulska-Domino (2012), pp. 360–361; Wright et al. (2018), p. 23.

  65. 65.

    COP 13 XIII/12 (2016), preamble; COP 12 XII/22 (2014), preamble.

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., Ardron et al. (2013), Blasiak and Yagi (2016), Houghton (2014) and Takei (2015).

  67. 67.

    PrepCom (2017).

  68. 68.

    DOALOS (2017b), pp. 6–8; IISD (2018), p. 4; IGC (2019), p. 4.

  69. 69.

    IISD (2017), p. 8.

  70. 70.

    PrepCom (2017), pp. 8 and 10.

  71. 71.

    Id., p. 9.

  72. 72.

    CBD, Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.

  73. 73.

    DOALOS (2017a), p. 56.

  74. 74.

    PrepCom (2017), pp. 9–10. We can indeed find these principles in the list of general principles and approaches.

  75. 75.

    DOALOS (2017a), pp. 8–9; IISD (2018), pp. 6–7, 9.

  76. 76.

    DOALOS (2017a), pp. 41, 44, 48, 66, 95; IISD (2018), p. 6.

  77. 77.

    CBD COP Dec XI/17 (2012). See also Ardron et al. (2013), p. 11; Gjerde et al. (2013), p. 546.

  78. 78.

    The criteria are uniqueness or rarity, special importance for life history stages of species, importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitats, vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity or slow recovery, biological productivity, biological diversity, and naturalness.

  79. 79.

    See, e.g., Freestone (2016), pp. 248 and 264.

  80. 80.

    Id., p. 248.

  81. 81.

    IISD (2017), pp. 12–13.

  82. 82.

    IGC (2018b), p. 12; IISD (2018), pp. 11–12.

  83. 83.

    CBD COP Dec VIII/28 (2006). IGC (2019), pp. 33 and 35.

  84. 84.

    IISD (2018), p. 16.

  85. 85.

    CBD COP Dec VII/16 (2004); IISD (2017), p. 8.

  86. 86.

    IGC (2019), p. 17.

  87. 87.

    DOALOS (2017a), pp. 33, 80, 83, 90 and 104; IGC (2019), p. 62.

  88. 88.

    More specifically Articles 16 and 20 CBD, see IGC (2019), p. 46.

  89. 89.

    More specifically Article 16 CBD and Article 22(5)(g) of the Nagoya Protocol, see IGC (2019), p. 47.

  90. 90.

    IGC (2019), p. 54.

  91. 91.

    Id., p. 57. The institutional arrangements are described in further details in Sect. 4.

  92. 92.

    “The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the rights and obligations of any Contracting Party deriving from any existing international agreement, except where the exercise of those rights and obligations would cause a serious damage or threat to biological diversity.” (emphasis added). See also Robinson and Kurukulasuriya (2006), p. 226.

  93. 93.

    Robinson and Kurukulasuriya (2006), p. 226; Wolfrum and Matz (2000), p. 476.

  94. 94.

    Id., p. 476.

  95. 95.

    Id., pp. 464, 473–474, 477.

  96. 96.

    UNGA Res 72/249 (2017), para 7; PrepCom (2017), p. 9.

  97. 97.

    See, generally, Scanlon (2018).

  98. 98.

    Robinson and Kurukulasuriya (2006), pp. 226–227.

  99. 99.

    DOALOS (2017b), paras 94, 121, 241; See also IGC (2019), pp. 23, 57–58.

  100. 100.

    DOALOS (2017b), Ibid.

  101. 101.

    Ibid.

  102. 102.

    Tanaka (2014), pp. 146–147.

  103. 103.

    Ibid.

  104. 104.

    DOALOS (2017b), paras. 96, 123, 241; See also IGC (2019), p. 23.

  105. 105.

    DOALOS (2017b), paras. 95, 122, 241; See also IGC (2019), p. 24.

  106. 106.

    DOALOS (2017b), Ibid.

  107. 107.

    Fletcher et al. (2017), p. 42.

  108. 108.

    See Millicay (2018), p. 175; See also ICG (2018a), p. 5.

  109. 109.

    DOALOS (2017a), p. 49.

  110. 110.

    DOALOS (2017b), para. 138; See also Id., p. 57.

  111. 111.

    See DOALOS (2017a), p. 57.

  112. 112.

    See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 53; See also Millicay (2018), pp. 167–168.

  113. 113.

    IISD (2017), Ibid.

  114. 114.

    DOALOS (2017b), paras. 96, 123, 241.

  115. 115.

    Such a fragmentation is also an embodiment of the fragmented legal landscape related to the conservation of BBNJ, see Fletcher et al. (2017), p. 53.

  116. 116.

    The CCAMLR establishing CCAMLR MPAs has 25 members, the OSPAR Commission establishing OSPAR High Seas MPAs has 16 parties, and the SPAs Protocol by which the Pelagos Sanctuary was established has 17 parties. It should be noted that contracting parties or members of those existing regimes related to the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ are not the only States whose nationals or vessels are conducting activities in the MPAs established by those regimes.

  117. 117.

    See Drankier (2012), p. 341.

  118. 118.

    See Tanaka (2012), pp. 325–326.

  119. 119.

    Fletcher et al. (2017), p. 43.

  120. 120.

    See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 53; See also Millicay (2018), pp. 167–168.

  121. 121.

    See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16.

  122. 122.

    See DOALOS (2017a), p. 53.

  123. 123.

    Millicay (2018), pp. 167–168; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 38.

  124. 124.

    DOALOS (2017b), para. 241.

  125. 125.

    Id., para. 122.

  126. 126.

    Ibid.

  127. 127.

    IISD (2017), p. 15.

  128. 128.

    Illustrative of this point, it should be noted that the global model runs the risk of creating the possibility of a conflict between the measures adopted by the global mechanism of the ILBI and those adopted by the RFMOs and other organizations with sectoral mandates in ABNJ. See Tladi (2015), p. 668.

  129. 129.

    UNGA Res 69/292 (2015), paras. 1,3; UNGA Res 72/249 (2017), para. 7.

  130. 130.

    Scanlon (2018), pp. 405–416.

  131. 131.

    Scanlon (2018), pp. 406–407; See also IISD (2016), pp. 19–20.

  132. 132.

    Scanlon (2018), pp. 406–407.

  133. 133.

    Ibid.; See also IISD (2016), pp. 19–20.

  134. 134.

    See Millicay (2018), p. 175.

References

  • Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) P.C.A. Case No 2011-03, Award (18 March 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardron J et al (2013) Advancing governance on the high seas. IDDRI Policy Brief 06/13:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes R (2016) The proposed LOSC implementation agreement on areas beyond national jurisdiction and its impact on international fisheries law. Int J Mar Coast Law 31(4):583–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasiak R, Yagi N (2016) Shaping an international agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction: lessons from high seas fisheries. Mar Policy 71:210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caddell R (2016) ‘Only connect’? Regime interaction and global biodiversity conservation. In: Bowman M et al (eds) Research handbook on biodiversity and law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 437–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Drankier P (2012) Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Int J Mar Coast Law 27:291–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher R et al (2017) Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction: legal options for a new international agreement. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Freestone D (2016) Governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction: an unfinished agenda? In: Barret J, Barnes R (eds) Law of the sea: UNCLOS as a living treaty. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 231–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjerde K et al (2013) Ocean in peril: reforming the management of global ocean living resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Pollut Bull 74(2):540–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjerde K, Rulska-Domino A (2012) Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: some practical perspectives for moving ahead. Int J Mar Coast Law 27(2):351–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glowka L et al (1994) A guide to the convention on biological diversity. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 30:1–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton K (2014) Identifying new pathways for ocean governance: the role of legal principles in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Policy 49:118–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Case No. 17, Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraabel KD (2019) The BBNJ PrepCom and institutional arrangements: the hype about the hybrid approach. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN, Long R (eds) The marine environment and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14: life below water. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Millicay F (2018) Marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction: securing a sound law of the sea instrument. In: Attard DJ et al (eds) The IMLI Treatise on Global Ocean Governance – Volume I: UN and Global Ocean Governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 167–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Oude Elferink AG (2018) Coastal states and MPAs in ABNJ: ensuring consistency with the LOSC. Int J Mar Coast Law 33(3):437–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park SJ, Kim KH (2019) The legal framework and relevant issues on the marine protected areas in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN, Long R (eds) The marine environment and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14: life below water. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 173–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson N, Kurukulasuriya L (2006) Training manual on international environmental law. Available via Digital Commons. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/791/

  • Scanlon Z (2018) The art of ‘not undermining’: possibilities within existing architecture to improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction. ICES J Mar Sci 75(1):405–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takei Y (2015) A sketch of the concept of ocean governance and its relationship with the law of the sea. In: Ryngaert C et al (eds) What’s wrong with international law? Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 48–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2012) Reflections on high seas marine protected areas: a comparative analysis of the Mediterranean and the North-East Atlantic Models. Nord J Int Law 81:295–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2014) The institutional application of the law of Dédoublement Fonctionnel in marine environmental protection: a critical assessment of regional regimes. German Yearb Int Law 57:143–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiller R, De Santo E, Mendenhall E, Nyman E (2019) The once and future treaty: towards a new regime for biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Policy 99:239–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tladi D (2015) The proposed implementing agreement: options for coherence and consistency in the establishment of protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Int J Mar Coast Law 30:654–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tladi D (2017) Conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: towards an implementing agreement. In: Rayfuse R (ed) Research handbook on international marine environmental law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 258–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner R (2017) Strengthening governance frameworks for conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction: southern hemisphere perspectives. Int J Mar Coast Law 32:607–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner R (2018a) Conservation and management of marine living resources beyond national jurisdiction: filling the gaps. In: Beckman RC, McCreath M, Roach JA, Sun Z (eds) High seas governance: gaps and challenges. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 179–194

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Warner R (2018b) Oceans in transition: incorporating climate-change impacts into environmental impact assessment for marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Ecol Law Q 45:31–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R, Matz N (2000) The interplay between UNCLOS and CBD. Max Planck U N Yearb 4:445–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright G et al (2018) The long and winding road: negotiating a treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. IDDRI Policy Brief 08/18:1–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Young M, Friedman A (2018) Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction: regimes and their interaction. AJIL Unbound 112:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzquierdo M (2017) The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. In: Malgosia Fitzmaurice M et al (eds) Multilateral environmental treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 9–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Documents

  • Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (4 December 1995, entered into force 11 December 2001), 2167 UNTS 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (1995). Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity. CBD COP Dec II/10

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2004a). Akwé: Kon Voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural, environmental and social impact assessments regarding developments proposed to take place on, or which are likely to impact on, sacred sites and on lands and waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities. In: Article 8(j) and related provisions. CBD COP Dec VII/16

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2004b). Protected areas. CBD COP Dec VII/28

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2006). Impact assessment: voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. CBD COP Dec VIII/28

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2010). Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. CBD COP Dec X/29

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2012). Marine and coastal biodiversity: ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. CBD COP Dec XI/17

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2014). Marine and coastal biodiversity: ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAS). CBD COP Dec XII/22

    Google Scholar 

  • Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (2016). Marine and coastal biodiversity: ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. CBD COP Dec XIII/12

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993), 1760 UNTS 79

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. About the Nagoya Protocol: https://www.cbd.int/abs/about/default.shtml/

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. Aichi Biodiversity targets: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. History of the Convention: https://www.cbd.int/history/

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available via https://www.cbd.int/sp/

  • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975), 993 UNTS 243

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (23 June 1979, entered into force 1 November 1983), 1651 UNTS 333

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (2 February 1971, entered into force 21 December 1975), 996 UNTS 245

    Google Scholar 

  • Division of Oceans Affairs and the Law of the Sea (2017a). Chair’s non-paper on elements of a draft text of an international legally-binding instrument 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. In: Preparatory Committee established by General Assembly resolution 69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument 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. Available via DOALOS. Available via http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/Chair_non_paper.pdf

  • Division of Oceans Affairs and the Law of the Sea (2017b). Chair’s streamlined non-paper on elements of a draft text of an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. In: Preparatory Committee established by General Assembly resolution 69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument 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. Available via DOALOS. http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/Chairs_streamlined_non-paper_to_delegations.pdf

  • Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument 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 (2018a). Informal working group on measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas: Oral report of the Facilitator to the plenary. Available via https://www.un.org/bbnj/sites/www.un.org.bbnj/files/final_oral_report_facilitator_abmts_mpas_final.pdf

  • Intergovernmental conference on an international legally binding instrument 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 (2018b). President’s aid to discussions. UN Doc A/CONF.232/2018/3

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental conference on an international legally binding instrument 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 (2018c). President of the Conference at the Closing of the First Session, Statement, A/CONF.232/2018/7, 20 September 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental conference on an international legally binding instrument 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 (2019). President’s aid to negotiations. UN Doc A/CONF.232/2019/1

    Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD (2006). Summary of the working group on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. In: Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Available via Earth Negotiation Bulletin. Available via http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb2525e.pdf

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD (2011). Summary of the fourth meeting of the working group on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. In: Fourth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to Study Issues Relating to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction. In: Fourth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to Study Issues Relating to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction. Available via Earth Negotiation Bulletin. http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb2570e.pdf

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD (2016) Summary of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction. In: 2nd Session of the Preparatory Committee Established by the UN General Assembly Resolution 69/292: Development of an International Legally Binding Instrument 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. Available via Earth Negotiation Bulletin. Available via http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb25118e.pdf

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD (2017). Summary of the fourth session of the preparatory committee on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. In: 4th Session of the Preparatory Committee Established by the UN General Assembly Resolution 69/292: Development of an International Legally Binding Instrument 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. Available via Earth Negotiation Bulletin. Available via http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb25141e.pdf

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD (2018). Summary of the First Session of the Intergovernmental Conference on an International Legally Binding Instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. In: 1st Session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on an International Legally Binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). Available via Earth Negotiation Bulletin. Available via http://enb.iisd.org/download/pdf/enb25179e.pdf

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Recommendations for the Intergovernmental Conference. Position Paper, 2018. Available via https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/iucn_bbnj_recommendation_paper_draft_21_aug_2018_3.pdf

  • Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (29 October 2010, entered into force 12 October 2014), 1760 UNTS I-30619

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee established by General Assembly resolution 69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument 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 (2017). Report of the Preparatory Committee established by General Assembly resolution 69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument 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. UN Doc A/AC.287/2017/PC.4/2

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994), 1833 UNTS 3

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2002). Oceans and the law of the sea. UNGA Res 57/141

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2003). Oceans and the law of the sea. UNGA Res 58/240

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2004). Oceans and the law of the sea. UNGA Res 59/24

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2015). Development of an international legally binding instrument 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. UNGA Res 69/292

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2017). International legally binding instrument 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. UNGA Res 72/249

    Google Scholar 

  • World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002). Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. UN Doc A/CONF.199/L.7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Catherine Blanchard & Wen Duan

  2. Wuhan University, China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies (CIBOS), Wuhan, Hubei, China

    Otto Spijkers

Authors
  1. Catherine Blanchard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Otto Spijkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wen Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Blanchard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Marta Chantal Ribeiro

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fernando Loureiro Bastos

  3. Faculty of Law, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsoe, Norway

    Tore Henriksen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Blanchard, C., Spijkers, O., Duan, W. (2020). Three Structural Pillars of the Future International Legally Binding Instrument on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. In: Ribeiro, M., Loureiro Bastos, F., Henriksen, T. (eds) Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42671-2_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42670-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42671-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation