4.1 Global Model
Under the global model, the global institution created by the ILBI would have full
competence to establish MPAs in ABNJ,
109 and to recognize the MPAs in ABNJ
established by existing regional or sectoral regimes and thus make those MPAs
legally binding on all State parties to the ILBI.
110 In addition, the global institution
would be competent to adopt relevant management measures associated with
existing MPAs in ABNJ.
111 This means that, even where an MPA has already
been established by existing regimes, the global institution would still be able to
adopt additional measures to complement the measures of existing regimes. This
model would to a large extent ensure universal participation of States in the
establishment of MPAs and coordination with other relevant competent organizations, provided that the ILBI adopting this approach was universally accepted. By
making the establishment of those MPAs under the existing regional or sectoral
regimes legally binding on all States parties to the ILBI, the global model would also
obligate those States that are not parties to the regional regimes, but parties to the
ILBI, to comply with the measures associated with those MPAs established under
the existing regimes. This means that non-party States would also be legally bound
by the MPAs established by existing regional or sectoral regimes via the ILBI on the
condition that the non-party States are parties to the ILBI. As a result, if the ILBI
adopting the global model was universally accepted and ratified, the global model
would be better at ensuring universal participation of States in the establishment of
MPAs than existing regional/sectoral regimes, and thus enhance further compliance
of States with their general obligations to protect the marine environment and marine
biodiversity. By establishing a process to recognize existing MPAs and complement
the protection of those existing regional or sectoral MPAs, the global model would
promote coordination of the management measures related to MPAs in ABNJ with
existing legal regimes in relation to the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ. However,
it should be admitted that the global model runs the risk of having a number of States
who would probably not ratify the ILBI because of their disagreement with the
global model. As indicated in the discussions of the PrepCom, there are some States
that are not in favour of such a global model, such as the United States, Russia,
Japan, Australia, New Zealand and so on.
112 Rather, they prefer using existing
mechanisms or emphasize that the institutional arrangements under the ILBI shall
not contravene with the existing mechanisms nor interfere with the mandate of
existing regional or sectoral bodies.
113 If the ILBI, adopting the global model, is
109 DOALOS (2017a), p. 49.
110 DOALOS (2017b), para. 138; See also Id., p. 57.
111 See DOALOS (2017a), p. 57.
112 See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 53; See also Millicay (2018),
pp. 167–168.
113 IISD (2017), Ibid.
368
C. Blanchard et al.
Under the global model, the global institution created by the ILBI would have full
competence to establish MPAs in ABNJ,
109 and to recognize the MPAs in ABNJ
established by existing regional or sectoral regimes and thus make those MPAs
legally binding on all State parties to the ILBI.
110 In addition, the global institution
would be competent to adopt relevant management measures associated with
existing MPAs in ABNJ.
111 This means that, even where an MPA has already
been established by existing regimes, the global institution would still be able to
adopt additional measures to complement the measures of existing regimes. This
model would to a large extent ensure universal participation of States in the
establishment of MPAs and coordination with other relevant competent organizations, provided that the ILBI adopting this approach was universally accepted. By
making the establishment of those MPAs under the existing regional or sectoral
regimes legally binding on all States parties to the ILBI, the global model would also
obligate those States that are not parties to the regional regimes, but parties to the
ILBI, to comply with the measures associated with those MPAs established under
the existing regimes. This means that non-party States would also be legally bound
by the MPAs established by existing regional or sectoral regimes via the ILBI on the
condition that the non-party States are parties to the ILBI. As a result, if the ILBI
adopting the global model was universally accepted and ratified, the global model
would be better at ensuring universal participation of States in the establishment of
MPAs than existing regional/sectoral regimes, and thus enhance further compliance
of States with their general obligations to protect the marine environment and marine
biodiversity. By establishing a process to recognize existing MPAs and complement
the protection of those existing regional or sectoral MPAs, the global model would
promote coordination of the management measures related to MPAs in ABNJ with
existing legal regimes in relation to the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ. However,
it should be admitted that the global model runs the risk of having a number of States
who would probably not ratify the ILBI because of their disagreement with the
global model. As indicated in the discussions of the PrepCom, there are some States
that are not in favour of such a global model, such as the United States, Russia,
Japan, Australia, New Zealand and so on.
112 Rather, they prefer using existing
mechanisms or emphasize that the institutional arrangements under the ILBI shall
not contravene with the existing mechanisms nor interfere with the mandate of
existing regional or sectoral bodies.
113 If the ILBI, adopting the global model, is
109 DOALOS (2017a), p. 49.
110 DOALOS (2017b), para. 138; See also Id., p. 57.
111 See DOALOS (2017a), p. 57.
112 See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 53; See also Millicay (2018),
pp. 167–168.
113 IISD (2017), Ibid.
368
C. Blanchard et al.