Chapter 8
Material Extent of Coastal States’
Environmental Jurisdiction
on the Continental Shelf
The previous chapter dealt, in general terms, with coastal states’ environmental
jurisdiction to take measures to manage and conserve living resources of the
continental shelf, to tackle seabed marine pollution and, in general, to protect the
seafloor’s environment. Whenever the concept of “environmental marine jurisdiction” appears in this work, it is to be conceived as comprising both rights and duties,
for those rights (powers) and duties (responsibilities) interact with each other in a
Siamese way, as two sides of the same coin. The allocation of these rights and duties
within the framework of UNCLOS and the CBD is just the first step in the “threestep approach” to environmental law implementation, as formulated by Gerhard
Hafner.
1 This chapter deepens the understanding of the two remaining steps, i.e. the
exercise of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction over activities taking place on
the continental shelf which may deteriorate the marine environment.
This work classifies UNCLOS’ ecological provisions in two layers. The first layer
relates to the material content of those provisions, and basically encompasses two
normative groups:
2 conservation of marine biodiversity, including the protection of
species and habitats; and prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution.
3
1 Hafner (2006), pp. 347, 367.
2 One taxonomic possibility would be to include the study of the marine environment, materialized
by environmental regulations on the conduct of marine scientific research, as a distinct dimension of
the protection of the marine environment. For the purposes of this work, however, it has been
considered that the Convention emphasizes the two dimensions analyzed herein.
3 Other studies on UNCLOS’ adequateness to address modern environmental challenges have also
included a separate dimension of climate change. See Churchill (2015), p. 6. Concerning UNCLOS’
contributions to mitigating the threat of climate change, Catherine Redgwell has rightfully reasoned
that the Convention has limited tools to fight the root causes of climate change (such as greenhouse
gases emissions), but that, in compensation, UNCLOS offers legal ground for increased “emphasis
on the restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of certain habitats as (blue) carbon sinks”, such
as mangroves and seagrass beds. See Redgwell (2012), p. 409. For the purposes of this work, little
attention will be given to climate change, as the main mitigation techniques aimed at tackling the
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura, Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_8
221
Material Extent of Coastal States’
Environmental Jurisdiction
on the Continental Shelf
The previous chapter dealt, in general terms, with coastal states’ environmental
jurisdiction to take measures to manage and conserve living resources of the
continental shelf, to tackle seabed marine pollution and, in general, to protect the
seafloor’s environment. Whenever the concept of “environmental marine jurisdiction” appears in this work, it is to be conceived as comprising both rights and duties,
for those rights (powers) and duties (responsibilities) interact with each other in a
Siamese way, as two sides of the same coin. The allocation of these rights and duties
within the framework of UNCLOS and the CBD is just the first step in the “threestep approach” to environmental law implementation, as formulated by Gerhard
Hafner.
1 This chapter deepens the understanding of the two remaining steps, i.e. the
exercise of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction over activities taking place on
the continental shelf which may deteriorate the marine environment.
This work classifies UNCLOS’ ecological provisions in two layers. The first layer
relates to the material content of those provisions, and basically encompasses two
normative groups:
2 conservation of marine biodiversity, including the protection of
species and habitats; and prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution.
3
1 Hafner (2006), pp. 347, 367.
2 One taxonomic possibility would be to include the study of the marine environment, materialized
by environmental regulations on the conduct of marine scientific research, as a distinct dimension of
the protection of the marine environment. For the purposes of this work, however, it has been
considered that the Convention emphasizes the two dimensions analyzed herein.
3 Other studies on UNCLOS’ adequateness to address modern environmental challenges have also
included a separate dimension of climate change. See Churchill (2015), p. 6. Concerning UNCLOS’
contributions to mitigating the threat of climate change, Catherine Redgwell has rightfully reasoned
that the Convention has limited tools to fight the root causes of climate change (such as greenhouse
gases emissions), but that, in compensation, UNCLOS offers legal ground for increased “emphasis
on the restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of certain habitats as (blue) carbon sinks”, such
as mangroves and seagrass beds. See Redgwell (2012), p. 409. For the purposes of this work, little
attention will be given to climate change, as the main mitigation techniques aimed at tackling the
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura, Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_8
221