currently undergo, such as eutrophication of coastal waters, marine pollution by
micro-plastic, oil spills and the degradation of coastal habitats, land-based pollution,
over-fishing, among others.
2 On top of those stresses, data of the United States
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) evidence how little is
known about the oceans, as scientists stipulate that less than 20% of the world ocean
has been mapped, observed and explored.
3
In light of the prevailing economic and geopolitical interests in the oceans, it
would not be too radical to see them as a battlefield of multiple (and sometimes
opposing) interests from distinct actors. On the one hand, different ocean uses
include leisure, tourism, commerce, fishing ground, hydrocarbons exploration and
exploitation, mining, scientific research, preservation, communication, among
others. On the other hand, different actors include flag, researching, coastal, port
states, among others, which on occasion may have conflicting interests in the oceans.
Opposition stems from the fact that oceans are both an important economic and
geopolitical variable in every nation’s socioeconomic and security calculations,
respectively. From a realist perspective, those considerations comprise the
so-called core of “high politics” surrounding the ocean uses, while “low politics”
issues can be framed as the scientific and environmental variables—matters that are
not perceived as absolutely vital to the existence of the state.
4 In other words, in the
battlefield of the ocean, states look primarily forward to asserting geopolitical
influence and economic exclusivity rather than advancing pure scientific knowledge
on the oceans or conserving habitats and ecosystems.
Since medieval times, the oceans have lain amidst disputes between sovereign
states, largely due to the conflicting interests and unilateral jurisdictional assertions
seawards. Issues of jurisdiction, i.e. of rights and duties over specific physical
media,
5 have since long occupied a central role in the traditional law of the sea.
Those disputes were focused on navigation and communication, because of the fact
that the oceans were predominantly seen as unidimensional. That scenario changed
after World War II, when the law of the sea incorporated new features: pluridimensionality, situational nature, focus on the coastal states and the evolution
from a law of communication to a law of resources, among others.
6 In fact, since
2 More on each of these environmental challenges in WWF (2016), pp. 6, 39.
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United Sates (NOAA), Ocean Facts,
How much of the ocean have we explored? Available online at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/
exploration.html Accessed 30 March 2020.
4 For more on the distinction between “low” and “high” politics, based on the concept of “complex
interdependence” in international relations, see generally Keohane and Nye (1977).
5 The generic reference to jurisdiction in the law of the sea as the ensemble of rights and duties over
particular maritime spaces or activities is backed by the formulation of the concept sketched in the
work of Alex Mills. Thus, jurisdiction is to be conceived not only as a “ceiling” (limit) to state
powers, but also as a “floor”, containing the minimum requirements for the exercise of regulatory
powers. Such approach is embraced in this work and further detailed in Chap. 4. See Mills
(2014), p. 210.
6 See Marotta Rangel (1985), p. 388.
2
1 Introduction: Setting the Stage
micro-plastic, oil spills and the degradation of coastal habitats, land-based pollution,
over-fishing, among others.
2 On top of those stresses, data of the United States
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) evidence how little is
known about the oceans, as scientists stipulate that less than 20% of the world ocean
has been mapped, observed and explored.
3
In light of the prevailing economic and geopolitical interests in the oceans, it
would not be too radical to see them as a battlefield of multiple (and sometimes
opposing) interests from distinct actors. On the one hand, different ocean uses
include leisure, tourism, commerce, fishing ground, hydrocarbons exploration and
exploitation, mining, scientific research, preservation, communication, among
others. On the other hand, different actors include flag, researching, coastal, port
states, among others, which on occasion may have conflicting interests in the oceans.
Opposition stems from the fact that oceans are both an important economic and
geopolitical variable in every nation’s socioeconomic and security calculations,
respectively. From a realist perspective, those considerations comprise the
so-called core of “high politics” surrounding the ocean uses, while “low politics”
issues can be framed as the scientific and environmental variables—matters that are
not perceived as absolutely vital to the existence of the state.
4 In other words, in the
battlefield of the ocean, states look primarily forward to asserting geopolitical
influence and economic exclusivity rather than advancing pure scientific knowledge
on the oceans or conserving habitats and ecosystems.
Since medieval times, the oceans have lain amidst disputes between sovereign
states, largely due to the conflicting interests and unilateral jurisdictional assertions
seawards. Issues of jurisdiction, i.e. of rights and duties over specific physical
media,
5 have since long occupied a central role in the traditional law of the sea.
Those disputes were focused on navigation and communication, because of the fact
that the oceans were predominantly seen as unidimensional. That scenario changed
after World War II, when the law of the sea incorporated new features: pluridimensionality, situational nature, focus on the coastal states and the evolution
from a law of communication to a law of resources, among others.
6 In fact, since
2 More on each of these environmental challenges in WWF (2016), pp. 6, 39.
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United Sates (NOAA), Ocean Facts,
How much of the ocean have we explored? Available online at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/
exploration.html Accessed 30 March 2020.
4 For more on the distinction between “low” and “high” politics, based on the concept of “complex
interdependence” in international relations, see generally Keohane and Nye (1977).
5 The generic reference to jurisdiction in the law of the sea as the ensemble of rights and duties over
particular maritime spaces or activities is backed by the formulation of the concept sketched in the
work of Alex Mills. Thus, jurisdiction is to be conceived not only as a “ceiling” (limit) to state
powers, but also as a “floor”, containing the minimum requirements for the exercise of regulatory
powers. Such approach is embraced in this work and further detailed in Chap. 4. See Mills
(2014), p. 210.
6 See Marotta Rangel (1985), p. 388.
2
1 Introduction: Setting the Stage