traditionalist reading of UNCLOS. The purpose of that suggested legal construct is
to offer collective action and cooperation a powerful complement, that of coastal
states’ domestic action, given those states’ immediate susceptibility to marine
environmental harms and, thus, their direct interest in the overall quality of the
seas washing their shores.
7.3 Partial Conclusions
This section has shown that UNCLOS represented a giant leap towards the regulation of the marine environment, albeit in a fragmented and incomplete way. The
Convention was drafted at a time of profound “prise de conscience environmentale”,
in which the value of environmental conservation gains the hearts and minds of
populations across the globe, thus prompting organized pressure from social (environmentalist) movements towards enhanced legal protection of species, habitats and
ecosystems. In this context, the Convention has pioneeringly codified two dimensions of environmental concerns that caught the attention of the international
community by the time of negotiations: the conservation of living resources and
prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from different sources. The
way in which the Convention has codified the obligation to preserve and protect the
marine environment, by indissociably coupling it with the sovereign rights to
conserve and manage marine living resources, allows for the drawing of a general,
overriding right-duty to manage the marine environment within national jurisdiction.
However, the Convention is a product of its time and, as such, has met its limits
throughout the last decades. For one, it only vaguely contains provision on the
prescriptive and enforcement powers of coastal states on the continental shelf within
and beyond 200 nm. This work has dealt with the most complex issues of managing
biodiversity (including genetic resources) on the outer continental shelf, and the
conflicts that could potentially arise from coastal states’ conservation measures on
that maritime space. It was concluded that coastal states’ sovereign rights and
jurisdiction over the continental shelf are far from absolute, but so are the traditional
freedoms of the seas enshrined in Art. 87 UNCLOS. That is the so-called “mutual
due regard”, which falls upon both coastal state other states. In current days, the
balance between rights and obligations of coastal states and other states over the
continental shelf necessarily involves taking environmental considerations seriously.
Currently, there is a “battle of ethos” for UNCLOS, which is amidst calls for
detachment from a logic of appropriation of the oceans (via territorial claims, which
are allegedly cloaked by hyper-protective environmental measures), and calls for an
increased sensitivity to ocean ecological issues, such as species’ depletion and
habitat destruction. The latter would, thus, insist on an environment-oriented interpretation of UNCLOS provisions, and the combined application of the Convention
and the CBD in areas within national jurisdiction. This work identifies itself with the
latter call and has attempted to draft possible legal tools and concepts, so that
7.3 Partial Conclusions
215
to offer collective action and cooperation a powerful complement, that of coastal
states’ domestic action, given those states’ immediate susceptibility to marine
environmental harms and, thus, their direct interest in the overall quality of the
seas washing their shores.
7.3 Partial Conclusions
This section has shown that UNCLOS represented a giant leap towards the regulation of the marine environment, albeit in a fragmented and incomplete way. The
Convention was drafted at a time of profound “prise de conscience environmentale”,
in which the value of environmental conservation gains the hearts and minds of
populations across the globe, thus prompting organized pressure from social (environmentalist) movements towards enhanced legal protection of species, habitats and
ecosystems. In this context, the Convention has pioneeringly codified two dimensions of environmental concerns that caught the attention of the international
community by the time of negotiations: the conservation of living resources and
prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from different sources. The
way in which the Convention has codified the obligation to preserve and protect the
marine environment, by indissociably coupling it with the sovereign rights to
conserve and manage marine living resources, allows for the drawing of a general,
overriding right-duty to manage the marine environment within national jurisdiction.
However, the Convention is a product of its time and, as such, has met its limits
throughout the last decades. For one, it only vaguely contains provision on the
prescriptive and enforcement powers of coastal states on the continental shelf within
and beyond 200 nm. This work has dealt with the most complex issues of managing
biodiversity (including genetic resources) on the outer continental shelf, and the
conflicts that could potentially arise from coastal states’ conservation measures on
that maritime space. It was concluded that coastal states’ sovereign rights and
jurisdiction over the continental shelf are far from absolute, but so are the traditional
freedoms of the seas enshrined in Art. 87 UNCLOS. That is the so-called “mutual
due regard”, which falls upon both coastal state other states. In current days, the
balance between rights and obligations of coastal states and other states over the
continental shelf necessarily involves taking environmental considerations seriously.
Currently, there is a “battle of ethos” for UNCLOS, which is amidst calls for
detachment from a logic of appropriation of the oceans (via territorial claims, which
are allegedly cloaked by hyper-protective environmental measures), and calls for an
increased sensitivity to ocean ecological issues, such as species’ depletion and
habitat destruction. The latter would, thus, insist on an environment-oriented interpretation of UNCLOS provisions, and the combined application of the Convention
and the CBD in areas within national jurisdiction. This work identifies itself with the
latter call and has attempted to draft possible legal tools and concepts, so that
7.3 Partial Conclusions
215