intra-conventional framework applicable to the marine environment. In the Preamble, whose normativity has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the international legal
literature, the signatories recognize the “desirability of establishing a legal order for
the seas and oceans which will [. . .] promote the conservation of their living
resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment”.
In addition to that, Art. 56 (1) (a) and (b) grant coastal states not just sovereign rights
to manage and conserve the marine environment of the EEZ, but jurisdiction with
regard to the “protection and preservation of the marine environment”. When it
comes to Part XII, Arts. 192 to 194 codify states’ general obligation to protect the
marine environment, alongside the duty to exploit natural resources taking into
account their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. Furthermore,
the Convention has several provisions on special duties to prevent, reduce and
control marine pollution, including from seabed activities.
27
In addition to that, the legal environmental regime applicable to the continental
shelf is also to be found in other international environmental agreements, such as the
1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
28 which states in Art. 3 the general
principle according to which states have “the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
Complementing such general principle, states parties are equally obliged to, as far as
possible and as appropriate, identify and monitor components of biological diversity,
as well as to take measures to promote the in-situ and ex-situ conservation of that
biological diversity.
29
With that in mind, this work has attempted at all costs to avoid a solipsistic view
of the international law of the sea, thus fostering a porous relationship between the
international law of the sea and international environmental law. It was at no time
intended to stimulate the bracing of an excluding view, one that praises the “epistemic domination” of one special legal regime by another, as it is also not about
asserting the superior epistemic validity of the continental shelf regime over the
regimes applicable to other maritime zones; nor the superiority of the law of the sea
rules against environmental rules.
30 It is rather an exercise of mapping out and
asserting the valid rules for continental shelf activities, be them in law of the sea
instruments or environmental ones.
Results obtained in the initial phase of the investigation are, then, complemented
by a case study research on the state practice of a particular state: Brazil. Why Brazil
and its Blue Amazon? For one, because the country has undoubtedly been a major
27 Arts. 192, 193, 194, as well as Arts. 208 to 222, UNCLOS, on the international rules and national
legislation to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.
28 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 UNTS 69, 5 June 1992.
29 Arts. 8 and 9, CBD.
30 A critique to the so-called “superior epistemic validity” of certain subsystems of international law
can be found generally in Crawford and Koskenniemi (2012) Introduction.
1.2 Subject Matter
7
literature, the signatories recognize the “desirability of establishing a legal order for
the seas and oceans which will [. . .] promote the conservation of their living
resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment”.
In addition to that, Art. 56 (1) (a) and (b) grant coastal states not just sovereign rights
to manage and conserve the marine environment of the EEZ, but jurisdiction with
regard to the “protection and preservation of the marine environment”. When it
comes to Part XII, Arts. 192 to 194 codify states’ general obligation to protect the
marine environment, alongside the duty to exploit natural resources taking into
account their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. Furthermore,
the Convention has several provisions on special duties to prevent, reduce and
control marine pollution, including from seabed activities.
27
In addition to that, the legal environmental regime applicable to the continental
shelf is also to be found in other international environmental agreements, such as the
1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
28 which states in Art. 3 the general
principle according to which states have “the sovereign right to exploit their own
resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
Complementing such general principle, states parties are equally obliged to, as far as
possible and as appropriate, identify and monitor components of biological diversity,
as well as to take measures to promote the in-situ and ex-situ conservation of that
biological diversity.
29
With that in mind, this work has attempted at all costs to avoid a solipsistic view
of the international law of the sea, thus fostering a porous relationship between the
international law of the sea and international environmental law. It was at no time
intended to stimulate the bracing of an excluding view, one that praises the “epistemic domination” of one special legal regime by another, as it is also not about
asserting the superior epistemic validity of the continental shelf regime over the
regimes applicable to other maritime zones; nor the superiority of the law of the sea
rules against environmental rules.
30 It is rather an exercise of mapping out and
asserting the valid rules for continental shelf activities, be them in law of the sea
instruments or environmental ones.
Results obtained in the initial phase of the investigation are, then, complemented
by a case study research on the state practice of a particular state: Brazil. Why Brazil
and its Blue Amazon? For one, because the country has undoubtedly been a major
27 Arts. 192, 193, 194, as well as Arts. 208 to 222, UNCLOS, on the international rules and national
legislation to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.
28 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 UNTS 69, 5 June 1992.
29 Arts. 8 and 9, CBD.
30 A critique to the so-called “superior epistemic validity” of certain subsystems of international law
can be found generally in Crawford and Koskenniemi (2012) Introduction.
1.2 Subject Matter
7