management of straddling stocks and highly migrant fisheries. Based on these
provisions and in line with the theory of UNCLOS as a “living treaty”,
104 a treaty
that constantly adapts to current cries from the seas, it is reasonable to envisage
within the Convention a duty to develop marine resources in a sustainable fashion.
Beyond the law of the sea, efforts to strike a balance between economic growth
and environmental conservation have also been undertaken by other special subsystems of international law, particularly international environmental law. Such a
balance is the backbone of the concept of sustainable development, as enshrined into
the CBD, according to which states shall use finite natural resources “in a way and at
a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity”, so as to
“meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations”.
105 In other
words, economic prosperity is relevant, but it only makes sense if ecological
conservation and societal development are simultaneously met during the prosperity
pathway. The idea of sustainable development implies likewise that the right to
exploit natural resources under national jurisdiction is not absolute and must be in
tune with the duty to use natural resources in a rational fashion.
In sum, the relevance of emphasizing the existence of such a right-duty to manage
within UNCLOS’ edifice lies on the fact that a literary reading of Art. 77 (1) of the
Convention could eventually lead to the understanding that coastal states exercise
sovereign rights over continental shelf resources for the exclusive purpose of
exploring and exploiting those resources, nothing else. The deliberate absence of
expressions such as “management” or “protect and preserve”, or “marine environment” in Part VI of the Convention could, thus, lead to stricter interpretations on the
extent of jurisdictional powers enjoyed by coastal states in that specific maritime
space. Such a literal interpretation would not survive a thorough legal analysis, based
also on the evolutive and purpose-oriented hermeneutics suggested at the Art.
31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
106 In this sense, the idea
of that right-duty to manage permits ampliative interpretations upon assessing
coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction on the continental shelf.
This is not to say, however, that this work believes so blindly on the capacity of
individual nation-states to solve trans-individual issues, that it neglects contemporary calls for collective action, for a global and concerted strategy, or for enhanced
cooperation to tackle the deterioration of the world’s oceans. The idea of a right-duty
to manage the continental shelf, falling upon coastal states, aims exclusively at
clarifying the regulatory maneuver room left to those states, so that municipal
measures which announce increased protection of the marine environment within
national jurisdiction not be dismissed as abusive based on a dogmatic and
104 Barrett and Barnes (2016), p. 2.
105 Art. 2, CBD, on the definition of sustainable use: “use of components of biological diversity in a
way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby
maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations”.
106 Art. 31, paragraph 1, VCLT: A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object
and purpose.
214
7 Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction on the...
provisions and in line with the theory of UNCLOS as a “living treaty”,
104 a treaty
that constantly adapts to current cries from the seas, it is reasonable to envisage
within the Convention a duty to develop marine resources in a sustainable fashion.
Beyond the law of the sea, efforts to strike a balance between economic growth
and environmental conservation have also been undertaken by other special subsystems of international law, particularly international environmental law. Such a
balance is the backbone of the concept of sustainable development, as enshrined into
the CBD, according to which states shall use finite natural resources “in a way and at
a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity”, so as to
“meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations”.
105 In other
words, economic prosperity is relevant, but it only makes sense if ecological
conservation and societal development are simultaneously met during the prosperity
pathway. The idea of sustainable development implies likewise that the right to
exploit natural resources under national jurisdiction is not absolute and must be in
tune with the duty to use natural resources in a rational fashion.
In sum, the relevance of emphasizing the existence of such a right-duty to manage
within UNCLOS’ edifice lies on the fact that a literary reading of Art. 77 (1) of the
Convention could eventually lead to the understanding that coastal states exercise
sovereign rights over continental shelf resources for the exclusive purpose of
exploring and exploiting those resources, nothing else. The deliberate absence of
expressions such as “management” or “protect and preserve”, or “marine environment” in Part VI of the Convention could, thus, lead to stricter interpretations on the
extent of jurisdictional powers enjoyed by coastal states in that specific maritime
space. Such a literal interpretation would not survive a thorough legal analysis, based
also on the evolutive and purpose-oriented hermeneutics suggested at the Art.
31 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
106 In this sense, the idea
of that right-duty to manage permits ampliative interpretations upon assessing
coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction on the continental shelf.
This is not to say, however, that this work believes so blindly on the capacity of
individual nation-states to solve trans-individual issues, that it neglects contemporary calls for collective action, for a global and concerted strategy, or for enhanced
cooperation to tackle the deterioration of the world’s oceans. The idea of a right-duty
to manage the continental shelf, falling upon coastal states, aims exclusively at
clarifying the regulatory maneuver room left to those states, so that municipal
measures which announce increased protection of the marine environment within
national jurisdiction not be dismissed as abusive based on a dogmatic and
104 Barrett and Barnes (2016), p. 2.
105 Art. 2, CBD, on the definition of sustainable use: “use of components of biological diversity in a
way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby
maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations”.
106 Art. 31, paragraph 1, VCLT: A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object
and purpose.
214
7 Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction on the...