for the oceans, statements of a “new international law of the sea” were common in
literature.
11 Such pluridimensionality may be looked at from the perspective of a
“functional specialization”, which prompted the need for renegotiations on the
fundamental rules and principles grounding the law of the sea.
Thus, the law of the sea is a special regime of international law, one of the oldest
ones. As such, it is also susceptible to suffering from some of the threats that affect
special regimes as a whole in international law. One of them is the essentialization or
reification of certain lex specialis, in which the notion itself of regimes blurs the
generality of international law and jeopardizes a correct understanding of the
international legal system. The use of metaphors and allegories in referring to
legal regimes, such as “islands”, “ships”, “platforms” etc., as if to show that they
stand alone, mirrors that essentialization and results in an imprudent and counterproductive effort of describing how international law functions. As rightfully
pointed out by Koskenniemi, an extreme functional differentiation between special
regimes may even lead to path dependency, higher transaction costs, “tunnel vision”,
and “solipsistic and imperial tendencies” from stronger and more consolidated sets
of rules.
12
In this context, the conduct expected from international lawyers is to perceive
international law as a general system of rules and principles, without limiting one’s
understanding to a specific set of functional rules. On a broader picture, the only way
international law can reflect the interests and needs of the international society is
through the regime interaction, which may lead to a more responsive and effective
international legal system than merely the sum of individual regimes. Such a mindset
is extremely valid for the law of the sea, a regime that heavily relies on
interdependence with other regimes, in a complex relation dictated by the multifaceted nature of oceans.
On that regime interaction, especially law of the sea and environmental law, lies
one of the main pillars of this work: the analysis of the environmental jurisdiction of
coastal states over the continental shelf before and after the delineation of the outer
limits of that shelf. To this quest, it is not sufficient to restrict the research to legal
provisions pertaining to the law of the sea. One must read beyond UNCLOS—the
“bible”, and employ provisions, principles and rules of international environmental
law instruments. In light of the evolution of environmental values and standards
worldwide, it would be unwise to envisage the law of the sea as a static and selfcontained system. To the contrary, the law of the sea, as a special regime, cannot be
11 The theory of pluridimentionality (or multidimentionality) of the oceans was originally formulated by Marotta Rangel, with the difference he labeled the newer dimension as “depth”, whereas to
our understanding the dimension of depth had already been exploited via the setting of submarine
cables since mid-nineteenth century. The appended dimensions were the subsoil of submarine areas
and the air column above the sea. See Rangel (1981), p. 41.
12 Koskenniemi (2012), p. 305.
22
2 The General International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf
literature.
11 Such pluridimensionality may be looked at from the perspective of a
“functional specialization”, which prompted the need for renegotiations on the
fundamental rules and principles grounding the law of the sea.
Thus, the law of the sea is a special regime of international law, one of the oldest
ones. As such, it is also susceptible to suffering from some of the threats that affect
special regimes as a whole in international law. One of them is the essentialization or
reification of certain lex specialis, in which the notion itself of regimes blurs the
generality of international law and jeopardizes a correct understanding of the
international legal system. The use of metaphors and allegories in referring to
legal regimes, such as “islands”, “ships”, “platforms” etc., as if to show that they
stand alone, mirrors that essentialization and results in an imprudent and counterproductive effort of describing how international law functions. As rightfully
pointed out by Koskenniemi, an extreme functional differentiation between special
regimes may even lead to path dependency, higher transaction costs, “tunnel vision”,
and “solipsistic and imperial tendencies” from stronger and more consolidated sets
of rules.
12
In this context, the conduct expected from international lawyers is to perceive
international law as a general system of rules and principles, without limiting one’s
understanding to a specific set of functional rules. On a broader picture, the only way
international law can reflect the interests and needs of the international society is
through the regime interaction, which may lead to a more responsive and effective
international legal system than merely the sum of individual regimes. Such a mindset
is extremely valid for the law of the sea, a regime that heavily relies on
interdependence with other regimes, in a complex relation dictated by the multifaceted nature of oceans.
On that regime interaction, especially law of the sea and environmental law, lies
one of the main pillars of this work: the analysis of the environmental jurisdiction of
coastal states over the continental shelf before and after the delineation of the outer
limits of that shelf. To this quest, it is not sufficient to restrict the research to legal
provisions pertaining to the law of the sea. One must read beyond UNCLOS—the
“bible”, and employ provisions, principles and rules of international environmental
law instruments. In light of the evolution of environmental values and standards
worldwide, it would be unwise to envisage the law of the sea as a static and selfcontained system. To the contrary, the law of the sea, as a special regime, cannot be
11 The theory of pluridimentionality (or multidimentionality) of the oceans was originally formulated by Marotta Rangel, with the difference he labeled the newer dimension as “depth”, whereas to
our understanding the dimension of depth had already been exploited via the setting of submarine
cables since mid-nineteenth century. The appended dimensions were the subsoil of submarine areas
and the air column above the sea. See Rangel (1981), p. 41.
12 Koskenniemi (2012), p. 305.
22
2 The General International Legal Regime of the Continental Shelf