jurisdiction of the flag state—coastal states may board and inspect foreign vessels.
149
Besides, Art. 8 stipulates that coastal states may control particular maritime areas
through management agreements.
Concerning the protection of living resources of the continental shelf beyond
200 nm, it is indispensable to listen to the voices postulating stronger coastal state’s
powers for the protection of marine species directly connected to their continental
shelves. Such voices can be read in a report of the UN Informal Open-ended
Working Group on the Protection of Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, in which some delegations emphasized coastal state’s right to adopt conservation measures that it considers necessary in order to protect sedentary species on
the continental shelf.
150 It is the case of imposing restrictive measures on fisheries
above the continental shelf, both within and beyond 200 nm.
151 In the same report,
some delegations emphasize the complex and sensitive nature of seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold-water reefs, formations that may host valuable ecosystems
while having a seat on the outer continental shelf of any giver coastal state.
To take but one example, the Portuguese declaration upon ratification of
UNCLOS is yet another voice favoring coastal state’s enlarged environmental
jurisdiction over the continental shelf. In that instrument, Portugal reserves itself
the right to exercise, based on international cooperation and the implementation of
the precautionary principle, inspecting activities beyond 200 nm.
152 Actions ought to
be praised, that enlarge the normative powers of coastal states over the water column
149 Arts. 21 and 22 of the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA), 34 ILM 1542 (1995), 2167
UNTS 88.
150 According to the Report, some delegations have stated that “in conformity with the Convention,
the coastal State was fully entitled to adopt any conservation and management measures it deemed
necessary to protect its sedentary species on the continental shelf. Those may include the possibility
of imposing restrictive measures on fishing activities in the high seas over its continental shelf,
including on fishing practices that were deemed to have a negative impact on sedentary species. See
Report 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 (New York: United Nations, 20 March 2006), para 22.
151 Some authors have suggested that coastal states may take measures to enforce their sovereign
rights over sedentary species beyond 200 nm, what may include visiting, inspecting and seizing a
fishing vessel on the high seas above the extended shelf. Restrictions of navigational rights in the
water column above the outer continental shelf are not a priori excluded. However, every measure
ought to be taken after consultation with the IMO and in line with its specific instruments. See Owen
and Chambers (2006), p. 40. Erik Molenaar disagrees with this view. See Molenaar (2007), p. 89.
152 Item 9 of the Portuguese declaration upon ratification of UNCLOS states that “bearing in mind
the available scientific information and with a view to the protection of the environment and the
sustained growth of economic activities based on the sea, Portugal will, preferably through
international cooperation and taking into account the precautionary principle, carry out control
activities beyond the areas under national jurisdiction”. Portuguese Declaration upon Ratification
of UNCLOS, available online, 3 November 1997.
172
6 Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational Freedoms or. . .
149
Besides, Art. 8 stipulates that coastal states may control particular maritime areas
through management agreements.
Concerning the protection of living resources of the continental shelf beyond
200 nm, it is indispensable to listen to the voices postulating stronger coastal state’s
powers for the protection of marine species directly connected to their continental
shelves. Such voices can be read in a report of the UN Informal Open-ended
Working Group on the Protection of Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, in which some delegations emphasized coastal state’s right to adopt conservation measures that it considers necessary in order to protect sedentary species on
the continental shelf.
150 It is the case of imposing restrictive measures on fisheries
above the continental shelf, both within and beyond 200 nm.
151 In the same report,
some delegations emphasize the complex and sensitive nature of seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold-water reefs, formations that may host valuable ecosystems
while having a seat on the outer continental shelf of any giver coastal state.
To take but one example, the Portuguese declaration upon ratification of
UNCLOS is yet another voice favoring coastal state’s enlarged environmental
jurisdiction over the continental shelf. In that instrument, Portugal reserves itself
the right to exercise, based on international cooperation and the implementation of
the precautionary principle, inspecting activities beyond 200 nm.
152 Actions ought to
be praised, that enlarge the normative powers of coastal states over the water column
149 Arts. 21 and 22 of the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA), 34 ILM 1542 (1995), 2167
UNTS 88.
150 According to the Report, some delegations have stated that “in conformity with the Convention,
the coastal State was fully entitled to adopt any conservation and management measures it deemed
necessary to protect its sedentary species on the continental shelf. Those may include the possibility
of imposing restrictive measures on fishing activities in the high seas over its continental shelf,
including on fishing practices that were deemed to have a negative impact on sedentary species. See
Report 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 (New York: United Nations, 20 March 2006), para 22.
151 Some authors have suggested that coastal states may take measures to enforce their sovereign
rights over sedentary species beyond 200 nm, what may include visiting, inspecting and seizing a
fishing vessel on the high seas above the extended shelf. Restrictions of navigational rights in the
water column above the outer continental shelf are not a priori excluded. However, every measure
ought to be taken after consultation with the IMO and in line with its specific instruments. See Owen
and Chambers (2006), p. 40. Erik Molenaar disagrees with this view. See Molenaar (2007), p. 89.
152 Item 9 of the Portuguese declaration upon ratification of UNCLOS states that “bearing in mind
the available scientific information and with a view to the protection of the environment and the
sustained growth of economic activities based on the sea, Portugal will, preferably through
international cooperation and taking into account the precautionary principle, carry out control
activities beyond the areas under national jurisdiction”. Portuguese Declaration upon Ratification
of UNCLOS, available online, 3 November 1997.
172
6 Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational Freedoms or. . .