February 23, 2009 Session
The State of the Oceans: How Adequate is the International Law of the Sea?
Primary Uses of Ocean Areas
Navigation and Overflight
Fishing
Disposal of Pollutants
Seabed Resources
Off-shore oil and gas
Seabed minerals
Wikipedia Encyclopedia, "Seabed Nodules"
Environmental Threats to the Oceans
Pollution
-Land-based (intentional and otherwise)
Rise of "dead zones"
-Vessel Source (intentional and otherwise)
Overharvesting of living resources (fish and marine mammals)
Distant water fishing fleets
FAO, State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006
Global study (animation) numbers of large ocean fish have declined by 90% over the past 50 years
Degradation of the marine environment
Deep Water Trawling
"UN to Consider Deep Sea Trawling Ban," Reuters, Oct. 6, 2006
Decline of Coral Reefs
"Acid Seas Kill Off Coral Reefs," Sunday Times/UK, February 27, 2006
Coastal Development
Climate Change
"Warmer Seas Will Wipe Out Plankton, Source of Ocean Life," Independent/UK, January 19, 2006
Evolution of Ocean Law
Customary Law of the Seas (origins date back many centuries)
"Freedom of the Seas"
Three-Mile Territorial Waters
list of ratifying countries (157 as of February 2008)
Liberia the most recent to ratify.
United States has signed but not ratified the treaty.
Major Provisions
12-mile territorial waters
Complications in drawing baselines
200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
Continental Shelves
"Arctic Seabed Belongs to Russia," BBC News, September 20, 2007
Right of transit passage for ships and submaries through international straits (less than 24 miles wide)
"Parallel system" for seabed (common heritage of mankind)
seabed mining firms designate seabed plots (one to be chosen and held by the International Enterprise)
seabed mining firms share technologies at a reasonable price
limits on seabed mining to protect land-based producers
Other Treaties which Specifically Address ----
Vessel-source pollution (especially by oil tankers)
Dumping of toxic substances
Environment of regional seas (such as the Baltic and Mediterranean)
Conservation of Fisheries (also marine mammals, such as whales)
International Fishery Commissions (example, International Whaling Commission)
The Turbot War between Canada and Spain
Agreement on the Conservation of Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Species (1995)
The United States and the Law of the Sea
Nixon and Carter Administrations (negotiated the original treaty)
Reagan administration (reconsidered, then rejected the treaty)
Bush I administration (began negotiating revised section on seabed)
Clinton Administration (negotiated revised section on seabed, signed and referred to the Senate for ratification)
Bush II administration (recommends ratification of the treaty)
Reasons:
*The United States would be in a stronger position invoking a treaty's provisions to which it is party, for instance in a bilateral disagreement where the other country does not understand or accept those provisions.
* While we have been able to rely on diplomatic and operational challenges to excessive maritime claims, it is desirable to establish additional methods of resolving conflict.
* The Convention is being implemented in various forums, both those established by the Convention and certain others (such as the International Maritime Organization). While the Convention's institutions were not particularly active during the past decade since the Convention entered into force, they are now entering an operational phase and are elaborating and interpreting various provisions. The United States would be in a stronger position to defend its military interests and other interests in these forums if it were a party to the Convention.
* Becoming a party to the Convention would permit the United States to nominate members for both the Law of the Sea Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission. Having U.S. members on those bodies would help ensure that the Convention is being interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with U.S. interests.
* As a party, the United States could get the legal certainty with respect to its continental shelf claim beyond 200 miles that will facilitate activities in those areas by the U.S. oil and gas industry.
* Becoming a party to the Convention would strengthen our ability to deflect potential proposals that would be inconsistent with U.S. interests, including freedom of navigation. It is worth noting that the Convention will be open to amendments beginning next November.
Beyond those affirmative reasons for joining the Convention, there are downside risks of not acceding to the Convention. U.S. mobility and access have been preserved and enjoyed over the past 20 years largely due to the Convention's stable, widely accepted legal framework. It would be risky to assume that it is possible to preserve indefinitely the stable situation that the United States currently enjoys. Customary international law may be changed by the practice of States over time and therefore does not offer the future stability that comes with being a party to the Convention.