many, is the creation of regional fisheries management organizations (RFMO),
which have restricted the once unregulated freedom to fish, as an attempt to tackle
the depletion of fish stocks and loss of marine biodiversity worldwide.
21
Limitations to freedom of the seas, however, have not been enough to threaten the
principle. Instead, UNCLOS has struck a carefully crafted balance between traditional freedoms and the rather recent sovereignty ambitions of coastal states, thereby,
proving it possible to preserve the core of the mare liberum without jeopardizing
attempts by coastal states to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources off
their coast not ignoring wake-up calls of the international community for better
regulating of the uses of the oceans.
Questions remain as to the managerial maneuver room available for coastal states
over the outer continental shelf, particularly in terms of environmental protection
efforts. Take, for instance, the hypothetical case of national measures taken to
prevent deep-sea bottom trawling above the outer continental shelf; or the stricter
regulation of marine scientific research above that area—issues that will be tackled
later in this work. This is one of the reasons why the interaction between the high
seas regime and the continental shelf is so delicate. In fact, we may stand in the wake
of a shift in mentality, but will it weight heavier towards the high seas regime or the
continental shelf one?
More recently, it became clearer the long road ahead of coastal states and the
international community with regard to the sustainable management of the extended
continental shelf areas. Securing rights over that area farther away offshore is but a
first step, one that ought to be followed by decided environmental action regarding
the management and governance of these remote, subsurface seabed areas under
national jurisdiction.
22 Following such concerns, part of the law of the sea literature
has called for a new ethos for the principle of freedom of the high seas, according to
which “an appreciation of the context and arguments advanced by Grotius should, at
least, soften the views that states hold on the principle of freedom”.
23 Similar wellfounded concerns have been expressed with regard to the intricated intersection
between the outer continental shelf and the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, or
the Area.
21 The RFMOs are present in Art. 118, UNCLOS, on the cooperation of states in the conservation
and management of living resources.
22 Schofield et al. (2010), p. 575.
23 In line with the suggested “new ethos” for the principle of the high seas, Michaela Young claims
that the establishment of a regime to govern biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction be a “next
logical step” in the evolution of the rules governing the high seas. See Young (2016), p. 180.
5.2 The Continental Shelf and the High Seas: The Superjacent Waters of the. . .
115
which have restricted the once unregulated freedom to fish, as an attempt to tackle
the depletion of fish stocks and loss of marine biodiversity worldwide.
21
Limitations to freedom of the seas, however, have not been enough to threaten the
principle. Instead, UNCLOS has struck a carefully crafted balance between traditional freedoms and the rather recent sovereignty ambitions of coastal states, thereby,
proving it possible to preserve the core of the mare liberum without jeopardizing
attempts by coastal states to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources off
their coast not ignoring wake-up calls of the international community for better
regulating of the uses of the oceans.
Questions remain as to the managerial maneuver room available for coastal states
over the outer continental shelf, particularly in terms of environmental protection
efforts. Take, for instance, the hypothetical case of national measures taken to
prevent deep-sea bottom trawling above the outer continental shelf; or the stricter
regulation of marine scientific research above that area—issues that will be tackled
later in this work. This is one of the reasons why the interaction between the high
seas regime and the continental shelf is so delicate. In fact, we may stand in the wake
of a shift in mentality, but will it weight heavier towards the high seas regime or the
continental shelf one?
More recently, it became clearer the long road ahead of coastal states and the
international community with regard to the sustainable management of the extended
continental shelf areas. Securing rights over that area farther away offshore is but a
first step, one that ought to be followed by decided environmental action regarding
the management and governance of these remote, subsurface seabed areas under
national jurisdiction.
22 Following such concerns, part of the law of the sea literature
has called for a new ethos for the principle of freedom of the high seas, according to
which “an appreciation of the context and arguments advanced by Grotius should, at
least, soften the views that states hold on the principle of freedom”.
23 Similar wellfounded concerns have been expressed with regard to the intricated intersection
between the outer continental shelf and the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, or
the Area.
21 The RFMOs are present in Art. 118, UNCLOS, on the cooperation of states in the conservation
and management of living resources.
22 Schofield et al. (2010), p. 575.
23 In line with the suggested “new ethos” for the principle of the high seas, Michaela Young claims
that the establishment of a regime to govern biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction be a “next
logical step” in the evolution of the rules governing the high seas. See Young (2016), p. 180.
5.2 The Continental Shelf and the High Seas: The Superjacent Waters of the. . .
115