applied or pure nature, i.e. may serve commercial ends or the pure expansion of
scientific knowledge on the functioning of marine systems. Ratione loci, both
activities may occur on zones within or beyond national jurisdiction. More’s view
derives, perhaps, from a literal reading of the Convention. Given that Art.
77 UNCLOS grants coastal states’ the sovereign right to explore and exploit their
continental shelves, without mentioning “scientific research”, and given that states
expressly enjoy freedom of scientific research in the high seas—Art.
87 (f) UNCLOS), the Brazilian scholar may have established a strict link between
exploration and areas under national jurisdiction, and scientific research in areas
beyond. Even if that should have been the case, Art. 87 (f) UNCLOS subjects the
exercise of the right to research in the high seas to Parts VI and XIII, thus suggesting
a clear connection between exploration and research on the continental shelf.
Finally, Art. 246 UNCLOS also distinguishes at no point between “exploration”
and “scientific research”.
Regardless of the controversy, CIRM Resolution no. 003/2010 has simultaneously demonstrated Brazil’s respect for Art. 76 UNCLOS and the Convention’s
formal procedure to delineate outer continental shelf limits, while securing national
control over activities happening on or in connection with the claimed portions of the
seafloor beyond 200 nm. It is no evidence of blind nationalism, but a possible and
legal interpretation of the rights codified in Part VI UNCLOS, an interpretation
which does not unjustifiably or irreparably damages the rights and freedoms of other
states over the outer limits.
For the Brazilian public authorities, the relevance of delineating the outer limits of
the continental shelf lies, among others, on the fact that it will “extend” the areas
under national jurisdiction, thus delimiting new “boundary lines” between Brazil and
the international community. Such jurisdictional dilation impacts on four main
dimensions: sovereign/defense, economic, scientific, and environmental,
166 which
correspond to interests that have informed the Brazilian modus operandi in the law
of the sea for decades. More recently, the need to raise awareness amid the national
population as to the role of oceans in fulfilling those state interests has prompted the
Brazilian Navy to coin the catch phrase which stands at the core of this research: The
Blue Amazon. The delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf consolidates that grandiose Brazilian Blue Amazon.
From the discussed above, Brazil does not seem to hamper unjustifiably marine
scientific research, as such a practice is key to enhancing the world’s scientific
understanding of the oceans, a paramount pillar to better protecting the marine
environment.
167 However, it is never enough to emphasize the need to adequate
domestic legislation to UNCLOS Art. 246 (6), regarding the granting of consent for
pure research projects on the outer continental shelf. Besides, it is also the case to
reinforce how much the tide has changed regarding Brazilian ocean policies. The
difficulties encountered in meeting the proposed goals are related to the scarcity of
166 Mattos (1996), p. 65.
167 See Brazilian Statement, DOALOS, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, 2015.
348
10 Brazilian Legal Framework Applicable to the Blue Amazon’s...
scientific knowledge on the functioning of marine systems. Ratione loci, both
activities may occur on zones within or beyond national jurisdiction. More’s view
derives, perhaps, from a literal reading of the Convention. Given that Art.
77 UNCLOS grants coastal states’ the sovereign right to explore and exploit their
continental shelves, without mentioning “scientific research”, and given that states
expressly enjoy freedom of scientific research in the high seas—Art.
87 (f) UNCLOS), the Brazilian scholar may have established a strict link between
exploration and areas under national jurisdiction, and scientific research in areas
beyond. Even if that should have been the case, Art. 87 (f) UNCLOS subjects the
exercise of the right to research in the high seas to Parts VI and XIII, thus suggesting
a clear connection between exploration and research on the continental shelf.
Finally, Art. 246 UNCLOS also distinguishes at no point between “exploration”
and “scientific research”.
Regardless of the controversy, CIRM Resolution no. 003/2010 has simultaneously demonstrated Brazil’s respect for Art. 76 UNCLOS and the Convention’s
formal procedure to delineate outer continental shelf limits, while securing national
control over activities happening on or in connection with the claimed portions of the
seafloor beyond 200 nm. It is no evidence of blind nationalism, but a possible and
legal interpretation of the rights codified in Part VI UNCLOS, an interpretation
which does not unjustifiably or irreparably damages the rights and freedoms of other
states over the outer limits.
For the Brazilian public authorities, the relevance of delineating the outer limits of
the continental shelf lies, among others, on the fact that it will “extend” the areas
under national jurisdiction, thus delimiting new “boundary lines” between Brazil and
the international community. Such jurisdictional dilation impacts on four main
dimensions: sovereign/defense, economic, scientific, and environmental,
166 which
correspond to interests that have informed the Brazilian modus operandi in the law
of the sea for decades. More recently, the need to raise awareness amid the national
population as to the role of oceans in fulfilling those state interests has prompted the
Brazilian Navy to coin the catch phrase which stands at the core of this research: The
Blue Amazon. The delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf consolidates that grandiose Brazilian Blue Amazon.
From the discussed above, Brazil does not seem to hamper unjustifiably marine
scientific research, as such a practice is key to enhancing the world’s scientific
understanding of the oceans, a paramount pillar to better protecting the marine
environment.
167 However, it is never enough to emphasize the need to adequate
domestic legislation to UNCLOS Art. 246 (6), regarding the granting of consent for
pure research projects on the outer continental shelf. Besides, it is also the case to
reinforce how much the tide has changed regarding Brazilian ocean policies. The
difficulties encountered in meeting the proposed goals are related to the scarcity of
166 Mattos (1996), p. 65.
167 See Brazilian Statement, DOALOS, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, 2015.
348
10 Brazilian Legal Framework Applicable to the Blue Amazon’s...