The marine environment is complex, and its regulation should adopt a holistic
and integrated perspective. Precisely this vastness and complexity calls for the
specification of the object under scrutiny, if the research is to succeed in conducting
analyses and reaching credible conclusions. In fact, every scientific study is
narrowed down to the analysis of a particular aspect of a broader whole, which
does not mean it denies the need for integrated solutions to problems affecting that
particular universe. Hence, this work does not aim at exhausting the comprehension
of possible conflicts and lacunae concerning the whole of the marine environment.
To the contrary, it aims at offering a detailed examination of the legal environmental
treatment given to one maritime zone within Brazil: the continental shelf.
Secondly, and on an empirical basis, are the Brazilian marine environmental
policies and legislation consistent with general international law and the law of the
sea, namely UNCLOS? The national statutes analyzed within the efforts to answer
that second question include the Federal Constitution, the Ocean Act (Act n
8.716
of 1993) and a plethora of sparse legislation aimed at regulating specific marine
activities which take place on or may affect the quality of the marine environment of
the continental shelf.
44 Incidentally, this work entertained the question whether the
procedure of delineating outer continental shelf limits has triggered specific legalenvironmental obligations for the Brazilian state, in particular the adaptation of
domestic rules to UNCLOS and general international law provisions.
Basically, the arguments embraced in this work are the following. Firstly, that
because of a long-established narrative contrary to coastal states’ jurisdictional
expansion seawards, coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction on the continental
shelf has been said to be significantly more limited than it actually is. This work
maps coastal states’ rights and duties, prescriptive and preventive jurisdiction over
activities which may affect the seabed marine environment to confirm that argument.
To that task, it is paramount to refer to UNCLOS and to international environmental
instruments, so that identified coastal states’ environmental powers do not reinforce
skepticism among the international community concerning the rights of other states
in maritime zones intersecting with the continental shelf.
Brazil has partially implemented its environmental jurisdiction over the continental shelf. Yet, national policies comprise a complex and confusing web of provisions, which not always leads to a good grasp of the country’s powers and
obligations over the Blue Amazon. Besides, some pieces of legislation are either
inconsistent with UNCLOS, or do not incorporate UNCLOS key provisions, such as
those on the revenue-sharing mechanism of Art. 82, into the domestic legal
framework.
44 Some of the domestic statutes examined in this work include the Decree no. 96.000/1988 (Marine
Research Decree); Act no. 9.985/2000, which regulates the designation of environmental protected
areas, including in the ocean; Act no. 9.605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Act); Decree-Law
no. 227/1967 (Mining Code), among others.
12
1 Introduction: Setting the Stage
and integrated perspective. Precisely this vastness and complexity calls for the
specification of the object under scrutiny, if the research is to succeed in conducting
analyses and reaching credible conclusions. In fact, every scientific study is
narrowed down to the analysis of a particular aspect of a broader whole, which
does not mean it denies the need for integrated solutions to problems affecting that
particular universe. Hence, this work does not aim at exhausting the comprehension
of possible conflicts and lacunae concerning the whole of the marine environment.
To the contrary, it aims at offering a detailed examination of the legal environmental
treatment given to one maritime zone within Brazil: the continental shelf.
Secondly, and on an empirical basis, are the Brazilian marine environmental
policies and legislation consistent with general international law and the law of the
sea, namely UNCLOS? The national statutes analyzed within the efforts to answer
that second question include the Federal Constitution, the Ocean Act (Act n
8.716
of 1993) and a plethora of sparse legislation aimed at regulating specific marine
activities which take place on or may affect the quality of the marine environment of
the continental shelf.
44 Incidentally, this work entertained the question whether the
procedure of delineating outer continental shelf limits has triggered specific legalenvironmental obligations for the Brazilian state, in particular the adaptation of
domestic rules to UNCLOS and general international law provisions.
Basically, the arguments embraced in this work are the following. Firstly, that
because of a long-established narrative contrary to coastal states’ jurisdictional
expansion seawards, coastal states’ environmental jurisdiction on the continental
shelf has been said to be significantly more limited than it actually is. This work
maps coastal states’ rights and duties, prescriptive and preventive jurisdiction over
activities which may affect the seabed marine environment to confirm that argument.
To that task, it is paramount to refer to UNCLOS and to international environmental
instruments, so that identified coastal states’ environmental powers do not reinforce
skepticism among the international community concerning the rights of other states
in maritime zones intersecting with the continental shelf.
Brazil has partially implemented its environmental jurisdiction over the continental shelf. Yet, national policies comprise a complex and confusing web of provisions, which not always leads to a good grasp of the country’s powers and
obligations over the Blue Amazon. Besides, some pieces of legislation are either
inconsistent with UNCLOS, or do not incorporate UNCLOS key provisions, such as
those on the revenue-sharing mechanism of Art. 82, into the domestic legal
framework.
44 Some of the domestic statutes examined in this work include the Decree no. 96.000/1988 (Marine
Research Decree); Act no. 9.985/2000, which regulates the designation of environmental protected
areas, including in the ocean; Act no. 9.605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Act); Decree-Law
no. 227/1967 (Mining Code), among others.
12
1 Introduction: Setting the Stage