contribution of other actors, namely non-governmental organizations.
13 In any
event, the framework provided by UNCLOS allows for the possibility of adopting
a wide range of multilateral instruments or joint action.
14 Furthermore, Part XII
explicitly safeguards that its provisions apply in the context of applying existing
instruments adopted in the area of protecting and preserving the marine
environment.
15
As we have seen above, the legislator and decision instances have to face different
aspects regarding the exploitation of living resources within the context of fragmentation of international law.
16 In fact, multiple instruments deal with several closelyrelated issues here: the targeted protection of certain species; activities on the high
seas; safeguarding biological diversity; exploitation of the deep sea; protected areas;
rules on international trade, security of navigation and the social dimension. The
differences registered in State practice and in the efficiency of international cooperation mechanisms should also be taken into account. The challenge is to address
these issues in a way that ensures the potential coherence of the adopted instruments
with a suitable level of cooperation. In our view, this is the path to be taken in the
foreseeable absence of a competent global body for the management of marine living
resources. In any case, UNCLOS offers a framework of institutional stability
regarding the central issues mentioned above, namely the rights and duties of States
regarding the different maritime spaces, international cooperation and dispute settlement mechanisms.
Within this context, other issues deserve our attention too. Taking into account
the commitments of the international community, we should mention the role of
MPAs. Although there is no formal definition in international law, it is widely
recognized that MPAs are spaces to which special protection is conferred, based
on a number of parameters but preferably relating to preservation of the ecosystems.
Nevertheless, some efforts have been deployed in the sense of achieving a definition.
It is worth referring to the definitions tendered by IUCN in 1988 (“Any area of
intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlaying waters, and associated
flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or
other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment”) and by the
United Nations Convention on the Biological Diversity
17 (“‘Marine and Coastal
Protected Area’ means any confined within or adjacent to the marine environment
(. . .) which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including
custom, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higher
level of protection than its surroundings”). Some international instruments explicitly
foresee the establishment of these areas. Within the framework of the Convention for
13 Cf. point 53 of the document.
14 Cf. Arts 51, 61, 63, 64, 94, 118, 194, 242, 266, 273 and 278, UNCLOS.
15 Art. 237, UNCLOS.
16 For interesting general views, Cf. Tladi (2011), pp. 223–230; Ferri (2015).
17 Adopted in Rio de Janeiro on 20 May 1992. Cf. Arts 8 and 22(2) of the Convention.
6 Considerations on Some Global Institutional Challenges Within the Context of. . .
115
13 In any
event, the framework provided by UNCLOS allows for the possibility of adopting
a wide range of multilateral instruments or joint action.
14 Furthermore, Part XII
explicitly safeguards that its provisions apply in the context of applying existing
instruments adopted in the area of protecting and preserving the marine
environment.
15
As we have seen above, the legislator and decision instances have to face different
aspects regarding the exploitation of living resources within the context of fragmentation of international law.
16 In fact, multiple instruments deal with several closelyrelated issues here: the targeted protection of certain species; activities on the high
seas; safeguarding biological diversity; exploitation of the deep sea; protected areas;
rules on international trade, security of navigation and the social dimension. The
differences registered in State practice and in the efficiency of international cooperation mechanisms should also be taken into account. The challenge is to address
these issues in a way that ensures the potential coherence of the adopted instruments
with a suitable level of cooperation. In our view, this is the path to be taken in the
foreseeable absence of a competent global body for the management of marine living
resources. In any case, UNCLOS offers a framework of institutional stability
regarding the central issues mentioned above, namely the rights and duties of States
regarding the different maritime spaces, international cooperation and dispute settlement mechanisms.
Within this context, other issues deserve our attention too. Taking into account
the commitments of the international community, we should mention the role of
MPAs. Although there is no formal definition in international law, it is widely
recognized that MPAs are spaces to which special protection is conferred, based
on a number of parameters but preferably relating to preservation of the ecosystems.
Nevertheless, some efforts have been deployed in the sense of achieving a definition.
It is worth referring to the definitions tendered by IUCN in 1988 (“Any area of
intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlaying waters, and associated
flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or
other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment”) and by the
United Nations Convention on the Biological Diversity
17 (“‘Marine and Coastal
Protected Area’ means any confined within or adjacent to the marine environment
(. . .) which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including
custom, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higher
level of protection than its surroundings”). Some international instruments explicitly
foresee the establishment of these areas. Within the framework of the Convention for
13 Cf. point 53 of the document.
14 Cf. Arts 51, 61, 63, 64, 94, 118, 194, 242, 266, 273 and 278, UNCLOS.
15 Art. 237, UNCLOS.
16 For interesting general views, Cf. Tladi (2011), pp. 223–230; Ferri (2015).
17 Adopted in Rio de Janeiro on 20 May 1992. Cf. Arts 8 and 22(2) of the Convention.
6 Considerations on Some Global Institutional Challenges Within the Context of. . .
115