5.3
The Outer Continental Shelf and the Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.3.1
Relationship Between the Common Heritage
of Mankind Principle and the Definition of the Outer
Limits of the Continental Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.3.2
Controversies Regarding the Size of the Area and the
Emergence of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm . . . 126
5.3.3
Revenue-Sharing Mechanism of the Outer Continental
Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.4
Partial Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6
Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational
Freedoms or Stand Against “Spoliative Jurisdiction”? . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.1
Context of the Practice Known as “Creeping Jurisdiction” . . . . . 142
6.2
Definition of “Creeping Jurisdiction” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.3
Reasons for Alarm? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.3.1
Pre-UNCLOS State Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.3.2
Post-UNCLOS State Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.4
Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental
Perspective: Creeping Jurisdiction or Valid Attempt at Raising
the Bar? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.4.1
Avoiding the Wholesale Use of the Phrase “Creeping
Jurisdiction” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.4.2
Asserting Jurisdiction as a Means of Pushing for
Changes in the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.4.3
Exercising Increased Powers to Protect the Marine
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6.4.4
Reducing Tensions Between Military Security Interests
and the Protection of the Marine Environment . . . . . . . 174
6.5
Partial Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7
Legal Basis of Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction
on the Continental Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.1
The Role of Law in Protecting Nature: Birth of an Obligation
to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7.1.1
Historical Track of the International Obligation
to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment . . . . . . 196
7.1.2
Marine Environmental Protection and the Consolidation
of the Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
7.2
Coastal States’ Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law
of the Sea: Seeing Beyond Part XII UNCLOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.2.1
Definition of Environmental Jurisdiction in International
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Contents
ix