legally binding on all States parties to the ILBI.
101 An example of this model is
the regulation, by the ISA, of the mining activities in the Area, and such activities
are subject to the organization, performance and control of the ISA “for the
benefit of mankind as a whole” as per Article 137 of UNCLOS.
102
• Option 2—Regional or Sectoral Model: The full authority of existing regional
and sectoral regimes, such as the International Maritime Organization, RFMOs
and Regional Environmental Conventions, would be recognized, which means
that all matters would still be addressed by existing regional and sectoral legal
regimes.
103 The global mechanism would only provide general principles or
policy guidance on those above-mentioned matters to enhance cooperation and
coordination among existing relevant mechanisms, but it would have no competence to oversee the decision-making and implementation by existing relevant
mechanisms.
104
• Option 3—Hybrid Model: The regional/sectoral regimes would still be relied
upon for scientific advice, decision-making, implementation and compliance, but
a global institution would be established to provide general guidance, criteria and
standards on those above-mentioned matters at the global level to enhance the
coherence and complementarity.
105 In addition, the global institution could
oversee the decision-making and implementation by existing regional/sectoral
regimes and thus ensure those existing regimes duly respect the global
mechanism.
106
By making a comparison between these three different approaches, this section
addresses the question as to which approach should be chosen and why.
The choice of institutional arrangements is considered as a cross-cutting issue,
which is relevant to all four elements of the “package”—MGRs, EIAs, ABMTs
including MPAs, and CB&TT.
107 This section intends to take one element of the
“package” as a case study on the general approaches to be taken, which will be
helpful for better understanding how would these different approaches work on a
specific element. The element to be analysed is the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ.
This is because the process for establishing MPAs has to address the issues of
institutional arrangements such as “who will establish the criteria. . .” and “who
will take the decision” and thus must be built upon the institutional arrangements of
the ILBI.
108
101 Ibid.
102 Tanaka (2014), pp. 146–147.
103 Ibid.
104 DOALOS (2017b), paras. 96, 123, 241; See also IGC (2019), p. 23.
105 DOALOS (2017b), paras. 95, 122, 241; See also IGC (2019), p. 24.
106 DOALOS (2017b), Ibid.
107 Fletcher et al. (2017), p. 42.
108 See Millicay (2018), p. 175; See also ICG (2018a), p. 5.
19 Three Structural Pillars of the Future International Legally Binding Instrument. . .
367
101 An example of this model is
the regulation, by the ISA, of the mining activities in the Area, and such activities
are subject to the organization, performance and control of the ISA “for the
benefit of mankind as a whole” as per Article 137 of UNCLOS.
102
• Option 2—Regional or Sectoral Model: The full authority of existing regional
and sectoral regimes, such as the International Maritime Organization, RFMOs
and Regional Environmental Conventions, would be recognized, which means
that all matters would still be addressed by existing regional and sectoral legal
regimes.
103 The global mechanism would only provide general principles or
policy guidance on those above-mentioned matters to enhance cooperation and
coordination among existing relevant mechanisms, but it would have no competence to oversee the decision-making and implementation by existing relevant
mechanisms.
104
• Option 3—Hybrid Model: The regional/sectoral regimes would still be relied
upon for scientific advice, decision-making, implementation and compliance, but
a global institution would be established to provide general guidance, criteria and
standards on those above-mentioned matters at the global level to enhance the
coherence and complementarity.
105 In addition, the global institution could
oversee the decision-making and implementation by existing regional/sectoral
regimes and thus ensure those existing regimes duly respect the global
mechanism.
106
By making a comparison between these three different approaches, this section
addresses the question as to which approach should be chosen and why.
The choice of institutional arrangements is considered as a cross-cutting issue,
which is relevant to all four elements of the “package”—MGRs, EIAs, ABMTs
including MPAs, and CB&TT.
107 This section intends to take one element of the
“package” as a case study on the general approaches to be taken, which will be
helpful for better understanding how would these different approaches work on a
specific element. The element to be analysed is the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ.
This is because the process for establishing MPAs has to address the issues of
institutional arrangements such as “who will establish the criteria. . .” and “who
will take the decision” and thus must be built upon the institutional arrangements of
the ILBI.
108
101 Ibid.
102 Tanaka (2014), pp. 146–147.
103 Ibid.
104 DOALOS (2017b), paras. 96, 123, 241; See also IGC (2019), p. 23.
105 DOALOS (2017b), paras. 95, 122, 241; See also IGC (2019), p. 24.
106 DOALOS (2017b), Ibid.
107 Fletcher et al. (2017), p. 42.
108 See Millicay (2018), p. 175; See also ICG (2018a), p. 5.
19 Three Structural Pillars of the Future International Legally Binding Instrument. . .
367