Depending, of course, on the precise and final content of the future instrument, it
seems that the new obligations are in conformity and coherence with the existing EU
law, with a specific view to the objective of sustainable development consecrated in
Article 3(5) of the TUE. The principles and concepts stressed in the future ILBI,
which is mainly focused on the utilitarian sustainable development objective, are
already part of the EU legal framework, and the international obligations will simply
be reaffirmed, detailed, and their implementation reinforced, in order to reach
efficiency.
4 Conclusion and Way Forward
All in all, it is noteworthy that the participation of the EU in current discussions on
international law of the sea raises very controversial and technical issues. The
repartition and articulation of institutional but also substantive competences, which
are deeply interlinked, remain ambiguous and lead to internal controversies detrimental to the effective application of the law of the sea and marine biodiversity
conservation, as demonstrated by the CCAMLR’s MPA case.
However, one can also underline the important contribution of the EU as regards
the substantive law of the sea: establishment of marine protected areas networks,
implementation of a concrete marine spatial planning policy, and the search for a
sustainable use of marine resources in general, with the concept of “blue growth”.
The EU is a singular actor for the law of the sea, and, save for some internal
difficulties, its contribution to the development of the law of the sea is important
and instructive in the context of the future ILBI.
References
Arnaud-Haond S (2018) La différence essentielle entre échantillon biologique et ressource
génétique: apprendre des écueils terrestres pour une meilleure gouvernance pour les ressources
génétiques marines. In: INDEMER, La connaissance des océans au service du développement
durable – Les grands domaines de la recherche scientifique marine, aspects scientifiques et
juridiques. Actes de la Conférence internationale de Monaco de 27 et 28 avril 2017. Pedone,
Paris, pp 51–60
Beslier S (2016) Brexit et droit de la mer. INDEMER. Annuaire du droit de la mer XXI:15–24
Chiarolla C (2014) Intellectual property rights and benefit sharing from marine genetic resources in
areas beyond national jurisdiction: current discussions and regulatory options. Queen Mary J
Intellect Prop 4(3):171–194
Churchill R (2017) The 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. In: Rothwell DR,
Oude Elferink AG, Scott KN, Stephens T (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the law of the sea.
Oxford University Press, pp 24–45
Churchill R (2018) The European Union as an actor in the law of the sea, with particular reference to
the arctic. Int J Mar Coast Law 33(2):290–323
398
P. Ricard
seems that the new obligations are in conformity and coherence with the existing EU
law, with a specific view to the objective of sustainable development consecrated in
Article 3(5) of the TUE. The principles and concepts stressed in the future ILBI,
which is mainly focused on the utilitarian sustainable development objective, are
already part of the EU legal framework, and the international obligations will simply
be reaffirmed, detailed, and their implementation reinforced, in order to reach
efficiency.
4 Conclusion and Way Forward
All in all, it is noteworthy that the participation of the EU in current discussions on
international law of the sea raises very controversial and technical issues. The
repartition and articulation of institutional but also substantive competences, which
are deeply interlinked, remain ambiguous and lead to internal controversies detrimental to the effective application of the law of the sea and marine biodiversity
conservation, as demonstrated by the CCAMLR’s MPA case.
However, one can also underline the important contribution of the EU as regards
the substantive law of the sea: establishment of marine protected areas networks,
implementation of a concrete marine spatial planning policy, and the search for a
sustainable use of marine resources in general, with the concept of “blue growth”.
The EU is a singular actor for the law of the sea, and, save for some internal
difficulties, its contribution to the development of the law of the sea is important
and instructive in the context of the future ILBI.
References
Arnaud-Haond S (2018) La différence essentielle entre échantillon biologique et ressource
génétique: apprendre des écueils terrestres pour une meilleure gouvernance pour les ressources
génétiques marines. In: INDEMER, La connaissance des océans au service du développement
durable – Les grands domaines de la recherche scientifique marine, aspects scientifiques et
juridiques. Actes de la Conférence internationale de Monaco de 27 et 28 avril 2017. Pedone,
Paris, pp 51–60
Beslier S (2016) Brexit et droit de la mer. INDEMER. Annuaire du droit de la mer XXI:15–24
Chiarolla C (2014) Intellectual property rights and benefit sharing from marine genetic resources in
areas beyond national jurisdiction: current discussions and regulatory options. Queen Mary J
Intellect Prop 4(3):171–194
Churchill R (2017) The 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. In: Rothwell DR,
Oude Elferink AG, Scott KN, Stephens T (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the law of the sea.
Oxford University Press, pp 24–45
Churchill R (2018) The European Union as an actor in the law of the sea, with particular reference to
the arctic. Int J Mar Coast Law 33(2):290–323
398
P. Ricard