above the extended continental shelf, for the purposes of conserving sedentary
species inhabiting that shelf.
Vessel-source pollution in the EEZ and continental shelf is yet another dimension
where coastal states have reasons to bargain for expanded environmental jurisdiction, particularly hydrocarbon pollution and oil slicks. The incidents of Erika and
Prestige, as seen supra, have prompted inflamed reactions by the affected coastal
states and the proliferation of arguments to increase their inspecting powers to the
detriment of freedom of navigation.
153 Here, coastal states are faced with complex
matters of (i) implementing CDEM standards (construction, design, equipment and
manning) of oil tankers and (ii) deficient inspection and monitoring of vessel by
several flag states—and the discussions on the so-called “open registries”. In the
EEZ, the Convention permits coastal states solely to take reactive measures, once the
harm has already occurred.
154 Marta Ribeiro sees with little surprise the reaction of
Portugal, Spain and France to the Prestige disaster, which the author considers a
valid objection to the “(un)balance of interests” sanctioned by UNCLOS.
155
Indignation was also shown by Myron Nordquist, to whom international law had
to do better in the aftermath of a major oil spill, with stronger emphasis on the need
to reform the current liability regime following a maritime catastrophe. That regime
is flawed shelters “flags of convenience, single hull tankers, sham corporations,
marginal operators, shadowy owners and totally inadequate caps on liability for the
actual damages”.
156 In light of these flaws, it should come with little awe that coastal
states adopt stricter environmental regulations in relation to vessels carrying pollutants and noxious substances. Erika and Prestige were not isolated cases. Several
countries focus on their environmental protective powers and disregard UNCLOS
provisions, openly or in a camouflaged manner, in order to achieve internally agreed
goals. Maritime powers and coastal states alike.
157 Canada, Spain, US, France,
Poland, Indonesia claim the right to exercise preventive control prior to the entrance
of a foreign vessel in their EEZ. Regarding environmental regulation and protection,
maritime powers are the ones to creep on jurisdiction, what makes the traditional
dichotomy developing vs developed states a pitfall. The European Union (EU) is
equally an influential international actor that has adopted largely restrictive regimes
in favor of the marine environment.
In the decades to come, the affirmation of environmental security jurisdiction is
due to increase, as the size of vessels grow, the world gets further interdependent,
and knowledge of marine ecosystems functioning surge.
158 A case in point are
153 Frank (2005), p. 7.
154 Art. 221 UNCLOS, on measures to avoid pollution arising from maritime casualties.
155 Frank (2005), p. 63.
156 Nordquist (2007), p. 503.
157 Losa et al. (2003), p. 52.
158 In the case overlapping jurisdiction, in which more than one state make claims to regulate the
conduct in question (grounded on valid legal bases for jurisdiction), there is a matter of priority.
States are encouraged to act in accordance to UNCLOS and to solve their disputes in a peaceful and
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental Perspective:. . .
173
species inhabiting that shelf.
Vessel-source pollution in the EEZ and continental shelf is yet another dimension
where coastal states have reasons to bargain for expanded environmental jurisdiction, particularly hydrocarbon pollution and oil slicks. The incidents of Erika and
Prestige, as seen supra, have prompted inflamed reactions by the affected coastal
states and the proliferation of arguments to increase their inspecting powers to the
detriment of freedom of navigation.
153 Here, coastal states are faced with complex
matters of (i) implementing CDEM standards (construction, design, equipment and
manning) of oil tankers and (ii) deficient inspection and monitoring of vessel by
several flag states—and the discussions on the so-called “open registries”. In the
EEZ, the Convention permits coastal states solely to take reactive measures, once the
harm has already occurred.
154 Marta Ribeiro sees with little surprise the reaction of
Portugal, Spain and France to the Prestige disaster, which the author considers a
valid objection to the “(un)balance of interests” sanctioned by UNCLOS.
155
Indignation was also shown by Myron Nordquist, to whom international law had
to do better in the aftermath of a major oil spill, with stronger emphasis on the need
to reform the current liability regime following a maritime catastrophe. That regime
is flawed shelters “flags of convenience, single hull tankers, sham corporations,
marginal operators, shadowy owners and totally inadequate caps on liability for the
actual damages”.
156 In light of these flaws, it should come with little awe that coastal
states adopt stricter environmental regulations in relation to vessels carrying pollutants and noxious substances. Erika and Prestige were not isolated cases. Several
countries focus on their environmental protective powers and disregard UNCLOS
provisions, openly or in a camouflaged manner, in order to achieve internally agreed
goals. Maritime powers and coastal states alike.
157 Canada, Spain, US, France,
Poland, Indonesia claim the right to exercise preventive control prior to the entrance
of a foreign vessel in their EEZ. Regarding environmental regulation and protection,
maritime powers are the ones to creep on jurisdiction, what makes the traditional
dichotomy developing vs developed states a pitfall. The European Union (EU) is
equally an influential international actor that has adopted largely restrictive regimes
in favor of the marine environment.
In the decades to come, the affirmation of environmental security jurisdiction is
due to increase, as the size of vessels grow, the world gets further interdependent,
and knowledge of marine ecosystems functioning surge.
158 A case in point are
153 Frank (2005), p. 7.
154 Art. 221 UNCLOS, on measures to avoid pollution arising from maritime casualties.
155 Frank (2005), p. 63.
156 Nordquist (2007), p. 503.
157 Losa et al. (2003), p. 52.
158 In the case overlapping jurisdiction, in which more than one state make claims to regulate the
conduct in question (grounded on valid legal bases for jurisdiction), there is a matter of priority.
States are encouraged to act in accordance to UNCLOS and to solve their disputes in a peaceful and
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental Perspective:. . .
173