finding in the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases.
82 Yet, environmental jurisdiction on the
continental shelf is not identical to control over natural resources, as coastal states
are granted rights and duties to protect and preserve the marine environment which
extrapolate the sheer conservation of marine resources.
Finally, the rights and duties codified at UNCLOS, in particular Arts. 77, 194 and
208 indicate that coastal states’ sovereign rights over EEZ and continental shelf
resources mean the power to legislate and enforce protective measures upon those
very resources. A considerable share of coastal state’s environmental jurisdiction in
the EEZ and on the continental shelf emerged out of the need for enhanced
conditions to tackle environmental disasters off their coasts—a claim inspired by
tragic maritime casualties, such as the Torrey Canon or the Amoco Cadiz incidents.
So, the rights and duties contained in Art. 77 UNCLOS are not restricted to
legislating but extend to enforcement measures; and not only with regard to the
exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its resources, but the
management of those resources, which also comprises conservation and protection
schemes. Every single one of the issues raised above will now be tackled in detailed,
starting by the traditional opposition between military security interests and environmental concerns in the law of the sea.
7.2.3 The Right-Duty to Manage the Continental Shelf
Based on the increasing environmental awareness of the time, and attentive to calls
for a global answer to ecological stresses to the world oceans, the drafters of the
Convention have arduously negotiated general and specific environmental norms to
states parties. Coastal, port, flag states, and others, postulated different intensities to
rights and duties, depending on the maritime space in question. In 1982, after
striking the necessary compromises, those states were attributed prescriptive and
enforcement powers, in order to tackle marine pollution from a variety of sources:
land (Art. 207), ships (Art. 211), seabed activities (Art. 208), and dumping (Art.
209), to name but a few. For the purposes of this work, focus is laid on coastal states
and with regard to the continental shelf.
The general environmental provision par excellence in UNCLOS is the dualedged right-duty to manage the marine environment under national jurisdiction—a
postulation that ground the analysis of coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction on
the continental shelf. The right-duty is dual-edged in the sense that it comprises
simultaneously rights and duties, endowing coastal states not only the right to
explore and exploit marine resources under their authority in a sustainable fashion,
82 ITLOS Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan, Order of
27 August 1999, para 70.
208
7 Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction on the...
82 Yet, environmental jurisdiction on the
continental shelf is not identical to control over natural resources, as coastal states
are granted rights and duties to protect and preserve the marine environment which
extrapolate the sheer conservation of marine resources.
Finally, the rights and duties codified at UNCLOS, in particular Arts. 77, 194 and
208 indicate that coastal states’ sovereign rights over EEZ and continental shelf
resources mean the power to legislate and enforce protective measures upon those
very resources. A considerable share of coastal state’s environmental jurisdiction in
the EEZ and on the continental shelf emerged out of the need for enhanced
conditions to tackle environmental disasters off their coasts—a claim inspired by
tragic maritime casualties, such as the Torrey Canon or the Amoco Cadiz incidents.
So, the rights and duties contained in Art. 77 UNCLOS are not restricted to
legislating but extend to enforcement measures; and not only with regard to the
exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its resources, but the
management of those resources, which also comprises conservation and protection
schemes. Every single one of the issues raised above will now be tackled in detailed,
starting by the traditional opposition between military security interests and environmental concerns in the law of the sea.
7.2.3 The Right-Duty to Manage the Continental Shelf
Based on the increasing environmental awareness of the time, and attentive to calls
for a global answer to ecological stresses to the world oceans, the drafters of the
Convention have arduously negotiated general and specific environmental norms to
states parties. Coastal, port, flag states, and others, postulated different intensities to
rights and duties, depending on the maritime space in question. In 1982, after
striking the necessary compromises, those states were attributed prescriptive and
enforcement powers, in order to tackle marine pollution from a variety of sources:
land (Art. 207), ships (Art. 211), seabed activities (Art. 208), and dumping (Art.
209), to name but a few. For the purposes of this work, focus is laid on coastal states
and with regard to the continental shelf.
The general environmental provision par excellence in UNCLOS is the dualedged right-duty to manage the marine environment under national jurisdiction—a
postulation that ground the analysis of coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction on
the continental shelf. The right-duty is dual-edged in the sense that it comprises
simultaneously rights and duties, endowing coastal states not only the right to
explore and exploit marine resources under their authority in a sustainable fashion,
82 ITLOS Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan, Order of
27 August 1999, para 70.
208
7 Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction on the...