200 nm. However, the principle, its origin, definition and relationship with the
continental shelf regime will be analyzed in detail in Chap. 3. For now, it suffices
to mention its codification as one of the greatest developments in international law
(not just of the sea), a development that approves the innovative and groundbreaking character of UNCLOS.
From an environmental perspective, UNCLOS has moved from an initial focus
on responsibility and liability for environmental damage to one on international
regulation and cooperation, without ignoring the relevance of attributing liability and
the respective compensation.
22 In fact, the Convention incorporated some of the
inchoate environmental discussions held at Stockholm in 1972, during the Conference on the Human Environment, and developed stronger environmental standards
on a reactive basis, following oil tanker disasters, namely the Torrey Canyon in 1967
and the Amoco Cadiz in 1978.
23 While the Torrey Canyon oil spill triggered the
adoption of the OILPOL Convention in 1969, focuses primarily on liability and
compensation schemes, UNCLOS laid emphasis on the preventive role of international law, through the codification of a duty to cooperate, as well as to enact
measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.
24
The 45 articles comprising UNCLOS Part XII on the protection and preservation
of the marine environment represented a revolutionary step taken by the international community towards an increased prise de conscience environmentale,
25
placing the Convention amongst the first binding documents (perhaps the first on a
global scale) to regulate environmental uses of the ocean and set protection and
conservation principles and standards. The innovative character of UNCLOS was
such that Wolfrum and Matz-Lück enquired whether the Convention could even be
considered an environmental treaty, having righteously concluded for the negative.
26
In short, the Convention was born ahead of its time. Remained, however, a product
of its time, i.e. facing increased limitations in light renewed challenges posed by
rapidly advancing technologies. It is not to be hailed as the beginning and end of the
law of the sea, the answer to current questions may lie in the interface between
UNCLOS and instruments of other special regimes.
27
22 Art. 195 ff. UNCLOS. Liability is dealt particularly with regard to pollution from oil. On the other
hand, provisions on international cooperation include Art. 283 and others.
23 See 1972 Stockholm Declaration, UN Conference on the Human Environment, A/RES/2994,
15 December 1972.
24 Arts. 194 UNCLOS, on the duty to adopt measures to reduce, prevent and control pollution of the
marine environment, and 197, on the duty to cooperate on a global or regional basis.
25 Kiss (2005), p. 115.
26 For Wolfrum and Matz-Lück (2000), p. 42, despite the plurality of environmental provisions
punctuating UNCLOS, it must not be forgotten that the treaty is rather of a liberal nature, much
more trade and communication-oriented.
27 In this regard, there have been plenty of works examining the relationship between UNCLOS and
other treaties, in particular the “major” environmental law treaty, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. For further detail, Id. 445–480.
2.2 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Cornerstone of the New Law of the Sea
25
continental shelf regime will be analyzed in detail in Chap. 3. For now, it suffices
to mention its codification as one of the greatest developments in international law
(not just of the sea), a development that approves the innovative and groundbreaking character of UNCLOS.
From an environmental perspective, UNCLOS has moved from an initial focus
on responsibility and liability for environmental damage to one on international
regulation and cooperation, without ignoring the relevance of attributing liability and
the respective compensation.
22 In fact, the Convention incorporated some of the
inchoate environmental discussions held at Stockholm in 1972, during the Conference on the Human Environment, and developed stronger environmental standards
on a reactive basis, following oil tanker disasters, namely the Torrey Canyon in 1967
and the Amoco Cadiz in 1978.
23 While the Torrey Canyon oil spill triggered the
adoption of the OILPOL Convention in 1969, focuses primarily on liability and
compensation schemes, UNCLOS laid emphasis on the preventive role of international law, through the codification of a duty to cooperate, as well as to enact
measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.
24
The 45 articles comprising UNCLOS Part XII on the protection and preservation
of the marine environment represented a revolutionary step taken by the international community towards an increased prise de conscience environmentale,
25
placing the Convention amongst the first binding documents (perhaps the first on a
global scale) to regulate environmental uses of the ocean and set protection and
conservation principles and standards. The innovative character of UNCLOS was
such that Wolfrum and Matz-Lück enquired whether the Convention could even be
considered an environmental treaty, having righteously concluded for the negative.
26
In short, the Convention was born ahead of its time. Remained, however, a product
of its time, i.e. facing increased limitations in light renewed challenges posed by
rapidly advancing technologies. It is not to be hailed as the beginning and end of the
law of the sea, the answer to current questions may lie in the interface between
UNCLOS and instruments of other special regimes.
27
22 Art. 195 ff. UNCLOS. Liability is dealt particularly with regard to pollution from oil. On the other
hand, provisions on international cooperation include Art. 283 and others.
23 See 1972 Stockholm Declaration, UN Conference on the Human Environment, A/RES/2994,
15 December 1972.
24 Arts. 194 UNCLOS, on the duty to adopt measures to reduce, prevent and control pollution of the
marine environment, and 197, on the duty to cooperate on a global or regional basis.
25 Kiss (2005), p. 115.
26 For Wolfrum and Matz-Lück (2000), p. 42, despite the plurality of environmental provisions
punctuating UNCLOS, it must not be forgotten that the treaty is rather of a liberal nature, much
more trade and communication-oriented.
27 In this regard, there have been plenty of works examining the relationship between UNCLOS and
other treaties, in particular the “major” environmental law treaty, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. For further detail, Id. 445–480.
2.2 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Cornerstone of the New Law of the Sea
25