arrangements guide us in analysing the different ways in which the institutional
design of the ILBI could take shape, and how the ILBI could influence State and
non-State actors’ practice on how to conserve and sustainably use BBNJ.
The three structural elements analysed in this chapter cannot, however, be looked
at without taking into consideration the necessity not to undermine existing frameworks, structures, instruments and bodies. Indeed, such necessity has been at the
heart of the discussions of the PrepCom, has found its way to the Report of the
Committee, and remains a central concern for the delegations taking part in the IGC.
Although the impact of the terms remains uncertain, they will shape the way the ILBI
is constructed and, within its framework, how mechanisms are developed, and
existing bodies interact.
The protection and conservation of ABNJ is at a critical juncture, where we must
take advantage of the momentum that the BBNJ process enjoys and of the enthusiasm of State and non-State actors towards the next stages of the process. Yet we
should remain prudent in anticipating the real impact that the ILBI will have.
Positions vary, so do interests, and many crucial elements remain far from triggering
consensus. Finding ways to rally certain dissident actors on critical issues will also
require diplomatic perseverance. The progress achieved through almost 15 years of
discussions on the topic must be acknowledged, but the work that still needs to be
done should not be underestimated.
References
Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea, Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) P.C.A. Case No
2011-03, Award (18 March 2015)
Ardron J et al (2013) Advancing governance on the high seas. IDDRI Policy Brief 06/13:1–11
Barnes R (2016) The proposed LOSC implementation agreement on areas beyond national jurisdiction and its impact on international fisheries law. Int J Mar Coast Law 31(4):583–619
Blasiak R, Yagi N (2016) Shaping an international agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas
of national jurisdiction: lessons from high seas fisheries. Mar Policy 71:210–216
Caddell R (2016) ‘Only connect’? Regime interaction and global biodiversity conservation. In:
Bowman M et al (eds) Research handbook on biodiversity and law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp 437–471
Drankier P (2012) Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Int J Mar Coast Law
27:291–350
Fletcher R et al (2017) Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction: legal options for a new international agreement. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Freestone D (2016) Governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction: an unfinished agenda? In:
Barret J, Barnes R (eds) Law of the sea: UNCLOS as a living treaty. The British Institute of
International and Comparative Law, London, pp 231–256
Gjerde K et al (2013) Ocean in peril: reforming the management of global ocean living resources in
areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Pollut Bull 74(2):540–551
Gjerde K, Rulska-Domino A (2012) Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: some
practical perspectives for moving ahead. Int J Mar Coast Law 27(2):351–373
Glowka L et al (1994) A guide to the convention on biological diversity. IUCN Environmental
Policy and Law Paper No. 30:1–161
19 Three Structural Pillars of the Future International Legally Binding Instrument. . .
373
design of the ILBI could take shape, and how the ILBI could influence State and
non-State actors’ practice on how to conserve and sustainably use BBNJ.
The three structural elements analysed in this chapter cannot, however, be looked
at without taking into consideration the necessity not to undermine existing frameworks, structures, instruments and bodies. Indeed, such necessity has been at the
heart of the discussions of the PrepCom, has found its way to the Report of the
Committee, and remains a central concern for the delegations taking part in the IGC.
Although the impact of the terms remains uncertain, they will shape the way the ILBI
is constructed and, within its framework, how mechanisms are developed, and
existing bodies interact.
The protection and conservation of ABNJ is at a critical juncture, where we must
take advantage of the momentum that the BBNJ process enjoys and of the enthusiasm of State and non-State actors towards the next stages of the process. Yet we
should remain prudent in anticipating the real impact that the ILBI will have.
Positions vary, so do interests, and many crucial elements remain far from triggering
consensus. Finding ways to rally certain dissident actors on critical issues will also
require diplomatic perseverance. The progress achieved through almost 15 years of
discussions on the topic must be acknowledged, but the work that still needs to be
done should not be underestimated.
References
Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea, Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) P.C.A. Case No
2011-03, Award (18 March 2015)
Ardron J et al (2013) Advancing governance on the high seas. IDDRI Policy Brief 06/13:1–11
Barnes R (2016) The proposed LOSC implementation agreement on areas beyond national jurisdiction and its impact on international fisheries law. Int J Mar Coast Law 31(4):583–619
Blasiak R, Yagi N (2016) Shaping an international agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas
of national jurisdiction: lessons from high seas fisheries. Mar Policy 71:210–216
Caddell R (2016) ‘Only connect’? Regime interaction and global biodiversity conservation. In:
Bowman M et al (eds) Research handbook on biodiversity and law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp 437–471
Drankier P (2012) Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Int J Mar Coast Law
27:291–350
Fletcher R et al (2017) Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction: legal options for a new international agreement. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Freestone D (2016) Governance of areas beyond national jurisdiction: an unfinished agenda? In:
Barret J, Barnes R (eds) Law of the sea: UNCLOS as a living treaty. The British Institute of
International and Comparative Law, London, pp 231–256
Gjerde K et al (2013) Ocean in peril: reforming the management of global ocean living resources in
areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Pollut Bull 74(2):540–551
Gjerde K, Rulska-Domino A (2012) Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: some
practical perspectives for moving ahead. Int J Mar Coast Law 27(2):351–373
Glowka L et al (1994) A guide to the convention on biological diversity. IUCN Environmental
Policy and Law Paper No. 30:1–161
19 Three Structural Pillars of the Future International Legally Binding Instrument. . .
373