Since then, technological advancements and a changing morality from an almost
purely navigation-oriented to an environment-friendly one, have been gradually
unveiling further inconsistencies of the Convention. For instance, as coastal states
strive to protect the environment from marine pollution incidents offshore, national
measures are met with reluctance, skepticism and protests—as was the case of the
domestic measures following the Erika and Prestige oil spills.
In this context, the outer continental shelf seems the perfect stage, and the coastal
state, a perfect contender in the ongoing “battle of ethos” and values in the law of the
sea. The outer continental shelf accentuates the traditional opposition between state
sovereignty and community interests, and reveals the difficulties of adding certainty
to international legal rules.
11 In current legal oceanic literature, there is a clear
confrontation between calls for a “renewed mare liberum ethos”,
12 one in which
environmental considerations are better placed in the relationship between traditional freedoms of the seas and coastal states’ environmental rights and obligations;
and calls for a detachment from the “territorial mentality” that allegedly purports
more losses than gains to a holistic marine environmental ocean governance.
13 If, on
the one hand, by international law’s very nature, unilateral action by coastal states
“remains a potent yet unwieldy weapon at the hands of the coastal State” in the strive
for a balance of interests between users of the sea; on the other, coastal states’ actions
ought to be me within international legal parameters and in line with valid rules, so
as not to lead to systemic instability in oceanic relations.
14 This part takes a side and
attempts at assessing the environmental regulatory power of coastal states on the
continental shelf within and beyond 200 nm, while attributing increased focus on
environmental rules and principles which are inscribed not only in UNCLOS, but
also in other international law provisions pertinent to the oceans.
11 For more on the opposition between state sovereignty and community interests, see Klabbers
(2009), p. 4.
12 Ground for such a call is the realization that coastal states have enjoyed over the centuries an
unlimited right to exploit marine resources of the high seas. See Burke (1994), p. 83.
13 See generally Oxman (2006) and Tassin (2013).
14 Gavouneli (2014) chap. 1.
192
7 Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction on the...
purely navigation-oriented to an environment-friendly one, have been gradually
unveiling further inconsistencies of the Convention. For instance, as coastal states
strive to protect the environment from marine pollution incidents offshore, national
measures are met with reluctance, skepticism and protests—as was the case of the
domestic measures following the Erika and Prestige oil spills.
In this context, the outer continental shelf seems the perfect stage, and the coastal
state, a perfect contender in the ongoing “battle of ethos” and values in the law of the
sea. The outer continental shelf accentuates the traditional opposition between state
sovereignty and community interests, and reveals the difficulties of adding certainty
to international legal rules.
11 In current legal oceanic literature, there is a clear
confrontation between calls for a “renewed mare liberum ethos”,
12 one in which
environmental considerations are better placed in the relationship between traditional freedoms of the seas and coastal states’ environmental rights and obligations;
and calls for a detachment from the “territorial mentality” that allegedly purports
more losses than gains to a holistic marine environmental ocean governance.
13 If, on
the one hand, by international law’s very nature, unilateral action by coastal states
“remains a potent yet unwieldy weapon at the hands of the coastal State” in the strive
for a balance of interests between users of the sea; on the other, coastal states’ actions
ought to be me within international legal parameters and in line with valid rules, so
as not to lead to systemic instability in oceanic relations.
14 This part takes a side and
attempts at assessing the environmental regulatory power of coastal states on the
continental shelf within and beyond 200 nm, while attributing increased focus on
environmental rules and principles which are inscribed not only in UNCLOS, but
also in other international law provisions pertinent to the oceans.
11 For more on the opposition between state sovereignty and community interests, see Klabbers
(2009), p. 4.
12 Ground for such a call is the realization that coastal states have enjoyed over the centuries an
unlimited right to exploit marine resources of the high seas. See Burke (1994), p. 83.
13 See generally Oxman (2006) and Tassin (2013).
14 Gavouneli (2014) chap. 1.
192
7 Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction on the...