Chapter 7
Legal Basis of Coastal States’
Environmental Jurisdiction
on the Continental Shelf
I have always had difficulties in accepting the Convention in mere legal terms. As an
incurable romantic, I see it as a statement of human aspiration, as a carefully-negotiated
compromise among unequals, as a series of commandments for the rational use of man’s last
frontier.
1
—Edgar Gold
The resource potential of the continental shelf, particularly in areas beyond
200 nm, triggers concerns as to the ecological impact of activities is such remote
areas. Wherever there is commercial exploitation, there is to a smaller or greater
degree environmental damage, the challenge being to limit risks of concrete harm, so
as to simultaneously enable economic prosperity and minimize the destructive
footprint of offshore activities. To that end, UNCLOS offers a comprehensive and
pioneering legal framework regarding marine environmental regulation, having
contributed to the awakening of an environmental consciousness sea-wise, but
having also exhibited the limitations of a treaty negotiated in the 1970s, when little
was known about current deep-sea activities and their corresponding ecological
threats. Despite having been praised as “the strongest comprehensive environmental
treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time”,
2 it is undeniable that
UNCLOS is a product of its epoch and has daunting challenges ahead of it. For
instance, the Convention is silent on the precise extent of coastal states’ environmental regulatory powers on the continental shelf, particularly beyond 200 nm.
Whether on bioprospection for marine genetic resources or conservation of species
1 Gold (1987), p. 449.
2 Stevenson and Oxman (1994), p. 496. In fact, UNCLOS incorporates environmental concerns at a
moment prior to the dissemination of the idea of “sustainable development”, formulated in 1986
within the Report “Our Common Future”, UN World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as Brundtland Report, A/42/427, 1986.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura, Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_7
189
Legal Basis of Coastal States’
Environmental Jurisdiction
on the Continental Shelf
I have always had difficulties in accepting the Convention in mere legal terms. As an
incurable romantic, I see it as a statement of human aspiration, as a carefully-negotiated
compromise among unequals, as a series of commandments for the rational use of man’s last
frontier.
1
—Edgar Gold
The resource potential of the continental shelf, particularly in areas beyond
200 nm, triggers concerns as to the ecological impact of activities is such remote
areas. Wherever there is commercial exploitation, there is to a smaller or greater
degree environmental damage, the challenge being to limit risks of concrete harm, so
as to simultaneously enable economic prosperity and minimize the destructive
footprint of offshore activities. To that end, UNCLOS offers a comprehensive and
pioneering legal framework regarding marine environmental regulation, having
contributed to the awakening of an environmental consciousness sea-wise, but
having also exhibited the limitations of a treaty negotiated in the 1970s, when little
was known about current deep-sea activities and their corresponding ecological
threats. Despite having been praised as “the strongest comprehensive environmental
treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time”,
2 it is undeniable that
UNCLOS is a product of its epoch and has daunting challenges ahead of it. For
instance, the Convention is silent on the precise extent of coastal states’ environmental regulatory powers on the continental shelf, particularly beyond 200 nm.
Whether on bioprospection for marine genetic resources or conservation of species
1 Gold (1987), p. 449.
2 Stevenson and Oxman (1994), p. 496. In fact, UNCLOS incorporates environmental concerns at a
moment prior to the dissemination of the idea of “sustainable development”, formulated in 1986
within the Report “Our Common Future”, UN World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as Brundtland Report, A/42/427, 1986.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura, Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_7
189