environment within that zone.
92 Such a position flows from taking the obligations
enshrined in Arts. 192, 194, and 208 UNCLOS seriously.
Thus, referring to a right-duty to manage the marine environment, in this context,
should offer legal ground for basically two purposes, two broad sets of state actions:
firstly, the regulation of activities which may interfere with the exploration and
exploitation of marine resources subject to national jurisdiction; and the regulation
of activities which may pose a serious risk to the marine environment (fauna, flora,
ecosystems’ functioning etc.) of the continental shelf, such as marine pollution or
other forms of direct, physical interference with those ecosystems. In this sense, the
right-duty does not apply exclusively to natural resources, for it is not identical to the
sovereign rights prescribed in Art. 77 (1) UNCLOS. It also governs activities which
do not directly interfere with natural resources, but which may pose harm to the
marine environment. In other words, the right-duty to manage goes a step further
than sovereign rights in providing international legal contours for coastal states’
domestic environmental powers.
Moreover, note that regulating uses of the ocean which may degrade the marine
environment is not just a right of coastal states, but essentially a duty. Based on that
general right-duty to manage claimed here, coastal states are entitled with the right to
regulate activities potentially interfering with marine resources and the marine
environment under national jurisdiction, thereby limiting rights and freedoms of
other states. Yet, at the same time, coastal states are bound to a general environmental duty to take domestic action in consistency with the remainder of UNCLOS
provisions. No paraphrasing can ever replace the wording of Art. 194:
1. States shall take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this
Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means at their
disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they shall endeavour to harmonize
their policies in this connection.
2. States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or
control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their
environment, and that pollution arising from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise sovereign rights in
accordance with this Convention.
According to the provisions supra, states are explicitly bound. They “shall take all
measures” necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment, as well as not to cause damage by pollution to other states and their environment. The significance and extent of such wording was accurately grasped by Alan
Boyle, to whom it provides “the foundation for a much more complex and wideranging structure of powers and duties covering the control of pollution, the
adoption and enforcement of laws and regulations, global and regional cooperation
92 In the EEZ, the Convention dedicates simultaneously an item to the allocation of sovereign rights
to coastal states, Art. 56 (1) (a), and another item for the allocation of jurisdiction with regard to the
protection and preservation of the marine environment, Art. 56 (1) (b) (iii) UNCLOS.
7.2 Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Seeing Beyond. . .
211
92 Such a position flows from taking the obligations
enshrined in Arts. 192, 194, and 208 UNCLOS seriously.
Thus, referring to a right-duty to manage the marine environment, in this context,
should offer legal ground for basically two purposes, two broad sets of state actions:
firstly, the regulation of activities which may interfere with the exploration and
exploitation of marine resources subject to national jurisdiction; and the regulation
of activities which may pose a serious risk to the marine environment (fauna, flora,
ecosystems’ functioning etc.) of the continental shelf, such as marine pollution or
other forms of direct, physical interference with those ecosystems. In this sense, the
right-duty does not apply exclusively to natural resources, for it is not identical to the
sovereign rights prescribed in Art. 77 (1) UNCLOS. It also governs activities which
do not directly interfere with natural resources, but which may pose harm to the
marine environment. In other words, the right-duty to manage goes a step further
than sovereign rights in providing international legal contours for coastal states’
domestic environmental powers.
Moreover, note that regulating uses of the ocean which may degrade the marine
environment is not just a right of coastal states, but essentially a duty. Based on that
general right-duty to manage claimed here, coastal states are entitled with the right to
regulate activities potentially interfering with marine resources and the marine
environment under national jurisdiction, thereby limiting rights and freedoms of
other states. Yet, at the same time, coastal states are bound to a general environmental duty to take domestic action in consistency with the remainder of UNCLOS
provisions. No paraphrasing can ever replace the wording of Art. 194:
1. States shall take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this
Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means at their
disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they shall endeavour to harmonize
their policies in this connection.
2. States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or
control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their
environment, and that pollution arising from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or control does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise sovereign rights in
accordance with this Convention.
According to the provisions supra, states are explicitly bound. They “shall take all
measures” necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment, as well as not to cause damage by pollution to other states and their environment. The significance and extent of such wording was accurately grasped by Alan
Boyle, to whom it provides “the foundation for a much more complex and wideranging structure of powers and duties covering the control of pollution, the
adoption and enforcement of laws and regulations, global and regional cooperation
92 In the EEZ, the Convention dedicates simultaneously an item to the allocation of sovereign rights
to coastal states, Art. 56 (1) (a), and another item for the allocation of jurisdiction with regard to the
protection and preservation of the marine environment, Art. 56 (1) (b) (iii) UNCLOS.
7.2 Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Seeing Beyond. . .
211