areas farther and farther away offshore is not usually well-seen by maritime powers,
as coastal states have, on occasions, allegedly cloaked territorialist intents under the
premise of advancing regulatory mechanisms for marine ecological conservation.
42
The augment of domestic jurisdiction seawards is, thus, often regarded as coastal
states’ sheer “territorial temptation”.
Another critique to the very concept of an outer continental shelf has been
formulated on the theoretical level, based on the perception that the symbolism of
coastal states’ increasing powers seaward reinforces a traditional logic of appropriation or enclosure of common goods, such as the high seas.
43 The present work
entertains that argument and also discusses whether a renewed balance between the
principles of environmental protection and sovereign rights over marine natural
resources is possible, or whether the extension of continental shelves necessarily
represents a detrimental move to marine environmental protection efforts around the
globe.
The problems referred to above affect several coastal states worldwide. Yet, one
particular country holds great ambitions towards the oceans, seeks regional
oceanopolitical influence in the South Atlantic Ocean and holds a contested record
of territorialist stances when interpreting the law of the sea. That country is Brazil,
whose aims to exploit mineral resources farther away offshore, technologically
backed by the worldwide renowned expertise of its state-owned oil company,
Petrobras, raises questions as to the adequacy of the country’s domestic legal
framework to sustainably manage the entirety of the “Brazilian Blue Amazon”, in
particular the continental shelf. Thus, this work departed from the need to assess the
consistency of Brazil’s national policies and legislation with UNCLOS relevant
provisions, to evaluate the country’s legal and policy adequacy to face the challenges
of managing approximately 4.5 million km
2 of jurisdictional maritime zones. Such a
study has not been thoroughly conducted yet, neither in Brazil, nor abroad, and not
only serves as legal guidelines to Brazilian future regulations in the field, by
highlighting the corresponding international duties, but also identifies domestic
lacunae in terms of marine environmental legislation and policies.
1.4 Research Questions
This contribution is part of a larger scholarly effort to tackle traditional and isolated
approaches within the law of the sea. It joins such efforts and offers no finished
solutions, but reflections and insights into two main questions: firstly, what is the
material extent of coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction—to legislate and to
enforce—on the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nm?
42 It is the case of Kraska’s critique (2011), p. 9.
43 This view can be found in the work of Pahuja (2012), pp. 398–401.
1.4 Research Questions
11
as coastal states have, on occasions, allegedly cloaked territorialist intents under the
premise of advancing regulatory mechanisms for marine ecological conservation.
42
The augment of domestic jurisdiction seawards is, thus, often regarded as coastal
states’ sheer “territorial temptation”.
Another critique to the very concept of an outer continental shelf has been
formulated on the theoretical level, based on the perception that the symbolism of
coastal states’ increasing powers seaward reinforces a traditional logic of appropriation or enclosure of common goods, such as the high seas.
43 The present work
entertains that argument and also discusses whether a renewed balance between the
principles of environmental protection and sovereign rights over marine natural
resources is possible, or whether the extension of continental shelves necessarily
represents a detrimental move to marine environmental protection efforts around the
globe.
The problems referred to above affect several coastal states worldwide. Yet, one
particular country holds great ambitions towards the oceans, seeks regional
oceanopolitical influence in the South Atlantic Ocean and holds a contested record
of territorialist stances when interpreting the law of the sea. That country is Brazil,
whose aims to exploit mineral resources farther away offshore, technologically
backed by the worldwide renowned expertise of its state-owned oil company,
Petrobras, raises questions as to the adequacy of the country’s domestic legal
framework to sustainably manage the entirety of the “Brazilian Blue Amazon”, in
particular the continental shelf. Thus, this work departed from the need to assess the
consistency of Brazil’s national policies and legislation with UNCLOS relevant
provisions, to evaluate the country’s legal and policy adequacy to face the challenges
of managing approximately 4.5 million km
2 of jurisdictional maritime zones. Such a
study has not been thoroughly conducted yet, neither in Brazil, nor abroad, and not
only serves as legal guidelines to Brazilian future regulations in the field, by
highlighting the corresponding international duties, but also identifies domestic
lacunae in terms of marine environmental legislation and policies.
1.4 Research Questions
This contribution is part of a larger scholarly effort to tackle traditional and isolated
approaches within the law of the sea. It joins such efforts and offers no finished
solutions, but reflections and insights into two main questions: firstly, what is the
material extent of coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction—to legislate and to
enforce—on the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nm?
42 It is the case of Kraska’s critique (2011), p. 9.
43 This view can be found in the work of Pahuja (2012), pp. 398–401.
1.4 Research Questions
11