“whoever controlled

the sea controlled the

universe”

LAWS OF THE
SEABED

PIL PROJECT

SREELAKSHMI K M
SEMESTER THREE
1384
 1

CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4
INTRODUCTION 5
HISTORY AND BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE 7
LAWS OF SEABED- BREIF HISTORY
RELEVANCE OF LAWS RELATING TO 9
SEABED
LEGISLATION 10

THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE 11

SEA
IMPORTANT STEPS WHICH CULMINATED IN THE FOR- 12
MATION OF THE LAWS OF THE SEABED:
REVIEW OF INITIATIVES LEADING TO THE UN-
CLOS III
C. MAIN AREAS OF TENSION IN THE EARLY UNCLOS III 14
DEBATE ON THE DEEP SEA-BED
Important International organisations and dispute 15
redressal mechanisms exclusive for the laws of seabed
Conclusion 17

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:

HARI HARA DAS,INTERNATIONAL LAW,92-98

ANDERS HENKIRSEN , INTERNATIONAL LAW,151-173.2-ed2017

MALCOM N. SHAW,INTERNATIONAL LAW,895-896,7-ed2013

OPPENHEIM,

ARTICLES REFERRED

1. Vicuña, F. (1981). National Laws on Seabed Exploitation: Problems of International

Law. Lawyer of the Americas, 13(2), 139-156. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/40175927
2. Hardy, M. (1977). The Implications of Alternative Solutions for Regulating the Exploitation
of Seabed Minerals. International Organization, 31(2), 313-342. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706407
3. Payne, R. (1978). Mining the Deep Seabed: The Political, Economic and Legal Struggle. The
Journal of Politics, 40(4), 933-955. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2129903
4. Burton, S. (1977). Freedom of the Seas: International Law Applicable to Deep Seabed Min-
ing Claims. Stanford Law Review,29(6), 1135-1180. doi:10.2307/1228080

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 3

5. Strati, A. (1991). Deep Seabed Cultural Property and the Common Heritage of Mankind. The
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 40(4), 859-894. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/759958
6. LAYLIN, J. (1971). Past, Present and Future Development of the Customary International
Law of the Sea and Deep Seabed. The International Lawyer, 5(3), 442-451. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40704672
7. The Law of the Deep Seabed Post UNCLOS III,Oregon Law Review, Vol. 63, Issue 1
(1984), pp. 19-52,Charney, Jonathan L.
8. Notes on the Unilateral Exploitation of the Deep Seabed, Italian Yearbook of International
Law, Vol. 4, pp. 3-19
9. The Legal Status of Genetic Resources of the Deep Seabed,New Zealand Journal of Environ-
mental Law , Vol. 11, pp. 33-66 Deep Seabed Mining: An Indian Perspective
10. Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 17, Issue 4 (1986), pp. 325-350,Shyam,
Manjula R.

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher prof.Liji Samuel for giv-
ing me this opportunity to do interesting and engaging project on the topic Laws of seabed,
which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new
things I am really thankful to you for guiding me through the initial stages of my project and
helping me successfully finish the same.

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 5

INTRODUCTION

The idea that whosoever controlled the sea controlled the universe was popular among maritime
powers Since the regulations to be formulated was based on the idea that the deep sea and its re-
sources form part of ‘common heritage of mankind and thus no state can claim or exercise sover-
neighty and the rights attached thereof over the area and the exploitation must be carried out for the
benefit of all’,even the ancient literature is deeply carved with instances relating to seas and oceans.

The ship was cheered, the harbour cleared,

Merrily did we drop

Below the kirk, below the hill,

Below the lighthouse top.

(The Rime of the ancient mariner)

Since ancient Rome, people have begun to pay close attention to the ocean the azure waters, and ocean
regime has experienced changes. During the changes in the ocean regime over thousands of years, the
seabed has been sleeping all the while, hardly being noticed by the human society.

In the 19th century, under the impact of a rapid developing science and technology, the seabed began
to acquire an importance of its own: the laying of marine telegraph cables, offshore oil exploitation
and the discovery of the economic value of all kinds of seabed nodules have drawn people's attention
to this long ignored area But in this project I would like to culminate the legislation on the lesser
dealtwith part of the sea,the seabed rich in Flora ,Fauna and minerals the seabed had been open to
exploration and exploitation.Even still ironically a huge fraction of it is still tere unknown and waiting
to be discovered.Years and Years of discussions and Deliberations have ended up in forming Intera-
tonal bodies for the excusive purpose of overlooking and controlling the activities of the seabed.This
PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED
 6

long process is summarised in this project.The main disastrous consequences of exploitation of seabed
includes the destruction of marine life,depletion of mineral resources ….The most common hazard
beind seabed mining ,the same is being dealt with here since the legislations saw the light of the day
as a result of the urgency created by the inevitable nature of this continued abuse of resources.Here By
employing the itnernationalism-nationalism scale, it is possible to compare variables within a common
framework

And the same has been attempted to over here.

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 7

HISTORY AND BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAWS

OF SEABED

Breif of historical developments

In the Middle Ages, maritime countries were impelled to raise sovereignty claims to the oceans due
to the competition in the oceans withthe development of commerce and seafaring. In 1493, to con-
firm the geographical discoveries made by Portugal and Spain, the then Pope Alexander VI enacted
apapal edict to specify a meridian in the Pacific Ocean as the boundary for Portugal and Spain to ex-
ercise their control over the ocean. By then, the ocean, which had been deemed a common posses-
sion in ancient Rome, had started its process of division. Division of the ocean hampered the devel-
opment of capitalism, giving riseto a fierce fight between supporters of sovereignty over the ocean
and those of themaintenance of freedom of the seas. In 1609, Hugo Grotius, the Dutch jurist known
as the "father of modem international law", published his book Mare Liberum (The Free Sea),
which first formulated the notion of freedom of the seas. This notion was opposed by Selden, a Brit-
ish jurist representing the interests of traditional maritime countries, which began the debate about
the concepts of "mare clausum" and "mareliberum". The debate ended in the 17th century with the
establishment of the legal order of the freedom of the seas and sovereignty over territorial waters,
and it wasgenerally established that an area covering three nautical miles off the coast shouldbe un-
der the control of the coastal State.In these changes to the ocean regime, the seabed drew very little
attentionbecause it was a region out of reach. However, with the rapid advancement of technology,
people had turned their attention from the surface to the bottom of the sea. The exploration of the
ocean depths and the laying of marine cables gradually highlighted the importance of the seabed. In
the meanwhile, the development of marine science and technology and fishing technology, among
others, caused Statesto be dissatisfied with the existing jurisdiction of coastal States, and some
Statesstarted to seek more extensive coastal jurisdiction unilaterally. In the Conference for the Codi-
fication of International Law held in 1930, it was obvious that the two parties were in opposition to
each other: one was the maritime powers trying to defend the existing ocean regime, and the other
was the less-powerful States non-maritime States seeking changes to the old regime that damaged
their interests. As this conference failed to reach an agreement as to the limits of territorial waters
,more and more countries took unilateral action thereafter, which symbolized the beginning of the
long process of coastal States enlarging their jurisdiction unilaterally. For the issue of seabed politics
in this period, Barry only briefly introduces in the first chapter the fact that this is the start of the

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 8

seabed issue, theinitial development and achievement of seabed science and technology. A
greatamount of information was acquired through the long and tedious survey of the seabed by the
end of the 19th century, which was powerful enough to prove that the continental shelf is the natural
extension of the continental plate.' This conclusion was the cornerstone for the countries to assert
claims to the continental shelf was the cornerstone for the countries to assert claims to the continental
shelf The sea was divided into three major parts the 1. Territorial sea 2. contiguous zone and 3. the
high seas,The coastal state exercised exclusive jurisdiction over Territorial sea, that which extended
upto three nautical miles. The contiguous zone extended to an extra three miles and was demarcated
for police purposes. like prevention of smuggling ,regulating external trade etc…

The three tier compartmentalisation continued till the early 20th century,later debates arose relating to
the demarcation of areas as the territorial , contiguous zone etc…The Hague Convention also failed to
decide on the matter . After the World War II, coastal States sought every way to enlarge their juris-
diction over maritime areas by extending the breadth of the territorial sea, changing the baselines for
its measurement and declaring special contiguous zones, etc. On September 28, 1945, President Tru-
man of USA issued a proclamation on September 28,1954 assuming unilateral jurisdiction over the
continental shelf1 From 1945 until 1958 there was an accelerated acceptance of the doctrine that littoral
states have a legal right to develop and utilize seabed resources off their coasts. In 1958 an international
conference promulgated the Convention on the Continental Shelf.9 This multilateral treaty is a codifi-
cation of the customary international legal rule of the doctrine of the continental shelf which had de-
veloped in the period from 1945 to 1958 the doctrine of the continental shelf set forth in the Shelf
Convention provides that a coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploit-
ing seabed resources, which include mineral resources and living organisms of the sedentary species,
to a depth of 200 meters, or beyond that to the point where the depth of the superjacent water allows
exploitation The Shelf Convention's shortcomings are that it does not really provide completely for a
proper accommodation of other interests, it does not establish a fixed seaward limit and it fails to
provide for all seabed exploitation. .At the time recent technological developments had made it possi-
ble to exploit the resources (primarily oil ,natural gas etc)in the seabed and subsoil below the surface
if the sea.The other countries soon followed suit and in the 1958 Geneva Convention ,the same states
that the Sovereign state exercises sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purposes of explo-
ration and exploitation of the natural resources available.The North sea continental shelf cases was
referred to as the basis for emergence of customary law on the same by the ICJ.A Coastal state may

1
HARI HARA DAS,INTERNATIONAL LAW,93
PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED
 9

exercise both legislative and enforcement jurisdiction over foreign individuals and vessels in its Ex-
clusive Economic Zone (EEZ which is about 200 nautical miles from the baseline.To measure athe
breadth of various maritime zones one must examine the exact physical point from which he breadth
of the zone is measured,and this is the Baseline) to ensure respect for its rights on the continental
shelf.It also has jurisdiction in relation to marine scientific research .In Practice of course there are
only limited means by which other states can interefere with a coastal states exploitation of its conti-
nental shelf subject to the consent of the relevant coastal state.The deep seabed beyond the outer limit
of where states claim right to the continental shelf is called the ‘Area’. Reaching agreement on the
regulation of area was one of the most difficult aspectsof the negotiation of LOSC and the dissatisfac-
tion of the created legal regime nearly tookout the universal support of the convention.Since the regu-
lation was based on the idea that the deep sea and its resources form part of ‘common heritage of
mankind’ and thus no state can claim or exercise soverneighty and the rights attached thereof over
the area and the exploitation must be carried out for the benefit of all.ARTICLE133 defines ‘resources’
inclusive of solid liquid or gaseous minerals,but the definition not being exhaustive also left important
Marine genetic resources out of it. The same being not covered,when recovered are called ‘minerals’.

Relevance of laws regulating exploitation of seabed

One of the developments of our time is the ability of corporations to exploit mineral resources in
almost any part of the ocean. This development is challenging fundamental concepts of international
law and is influencing the formulation of new rules in relation to the exploitation and distribution of
benefits derived from seabed resources. Of major interest is the mining of manganese nodules. The
latter, composed of nickel, copper, cobalt, iron ore, and other minerals are potato-sized, irregular in
shape, and brownish black in color and are found on the ocean floor beyond the 200 mile economic
zone and therefore generally beyond the legal jurisdiction of any state. Future exploitation of them has
touched off an extremely significant debate in the United Nations and elsewhere, a combination of
intricate political economic factors are frustrating attempts by the U.N. First Committee of the Third
U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea has focused almost entirely on the creation of an International

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 10

Seabed Authority2.Third Conference on the Law of the Sea to reach agreement on a new law of the
seas. There is no evidence indicating any major recent alterations in dependence on them. The issue
goes beyond the immediate problem of mining manganese nodules. Essentially, what we are dealing
with is a struggle over control of the deep seabed which is obviously a continuation of the political and
economic confrontation on land between MNCs3 and producers of copper, cobalt, nickel, etc., between
rich countries of the North and poor countries of the South in relation to the establishment of a new
"international economic order" and, finally, a struggle over the control of the operation and direction
of inter- national organizations, such as the United Nations. MNCs interested in the exploitation of
manganese nodules are at the heart of the present struggle.

LEGISLATION
Law governing the efficient recovery of the mineral resources of the beds of the oceans will be an
important part of the public international law known generally as the "law of the sea." The international
community has not agreed on the precise limits of a coastal state's territorial sea. It has agreed, how-
ever, that there are limits. Wheresoever the boundaries may be, there exist areas of the high seas that
are outside of the jurisdiction of any nation. At the same time, customary international law recognizes,
as we have seen, that nations may have exclusive use of the high seas for certain limited purposes over
limited periods of time without violating their obligation to respect the freedom of the high seasAny
making of such seabed mineral recovery law requires the consideration of four separate economic
questions, only two of which will be treated here. First, are individual profit-maximizing decisions in
a free seabed mineral development market the best means to achieve a socially optimal use of seabed
minerals?2 Second, should the competitive losses of existing mineral producers who are displaced by
future seabed production be compensated? Third, on what principles should the proceeds of seabed
mineral resource development be distributed? Fourth, what sort of government controls should be
adopted to cover the costs of environmental harms external to seabed mineral resource development?
We deal here, and only preliminarily, with the first and second questions of the free market and of
protectionism. Tand fourth questions of distribution and of externalities are flagged here for

2
Citation: Henry C. Jr. Byrum, An International Seabed Authority: The Impossible Dream, 10 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 621
(1978)
3
Vicuña, F. (1981). National Laws on Seabed Exploitation: Problems of International Law. Lawyer of the Americas, 13(2),
139-156. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40175927
PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED
 11

consideration elsewhere. Legal regulation of seabed mineral development is the logical next step in
United Nations negotiations which began in 1967 and continue to the present day. In 1967, a proposal
by Malta3 stimulated international interest in the seabed and its economic potential, leading to the
establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed on December 18, 1967.
This committee was made permanent on December 21, 1968, and is now called the Committee on the
Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, or,
more easily, the Seabed Committee. On December 17, 1970, the United Nations General Assembly
passed a resolution calling for a conference on the law of the sea to convene in 1973.4 By this resolu-
tion, a majority of the world's States contemplated the internationalization of the deep seabed and the
fixing of a definite jurisdictional boundary between an international deep seabed and the shallower
submerged lands adjacent to the world's coastal States. This law of the sea conference is now to include
an "organizational" session in New York in November and December, 1973, with "substantive" meet-
ings in 1974 and 1975 in Santiago and Vienna. The superiority of the free market over a regime of
international governmental controls, as a device to make decisions about production and pricing of
minerals recovered from an international seabed. Economically efficient recovery of the mineral re-

sources of an international seabed area would best serve consumer interests through- out the world.

THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA

The United Nations (UN) held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS I) in 1956, which
resulted in a 1958 Convention..The United Nations Convention on the laws of the sea (UNCLOS) ids
the most important source.Being a vast 320 article including document the LOSC entered into force in
1994.It is built on the holistic mandate od controlling the laws of the sea and 1973-1982 Third UN
Conference on the Laws of the Sea which had adopted that the convention was to reach agreements on
all maters of the laws of the sea.Ratified by 168 parties, which includes 167 states (164United Nations
member states plus the UN Observer state Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands and Niue) and the
European Union. An additional 14 UN member states have signed, but not ratified the convention.Un-
like the 1958 convention the third convention managed to reach agreements on a host of contentious
issues.It established a system that seeks to balance the interest of states willing to exploit deep seabed
with a fair distribution of wealth thereof.One of the most notable accomplishments is the establishment

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 12

of ITLOS or the International Tribunal for the law of the Sea .Since Customary International law re-
mains an important source of law ,the adoption of principles of equity in maritime delimitation disputes
relating to sharing of continental self is an extensive resort. The Tribunal is composed of 21 independ-
ent members elected by secret ballot by the States Parties to the Convention. Each State Party may
nominate up to two candidates from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and
integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea.The tribunalhas jurisdiction
over any disputes that concerns interpretation and application of LOSC4 ,as well as any related inter-
natonal law agreements.The tribunal has established a Seabed Disputes Chamber that deals with sea-
bed disputes of the area.The decision of the chamber is to beabided by as it is final in the case of
contentious cases.To Prevent serious harm to the environment and also is is deemed fit to do so the
tribunal may prescribe provisional measures M/v Saiga Case being the first contentious case to be
submitted.

No two members may be nationals of the same State and in the Tribunal as a whole it is necessary to
assure the representation of the principal legal systems of the world and equitable geographical distri-
bution; there shall be no fewer than three members from each geographical group as established by the
General Assembly of the United Nations (African States, Asian States, Eastern European States, Latin
American and Caribbean States and Western European and Other States). Members are elected for
nine years and may be re-elected; the terms of one third of the members expire every three years.

IMPORTANT STEPS WHICH CULMINATED IN THE FORMATION OF THE LAWS OF

THE SEABED:

▪ REVIEW OF INITIATIVES LEADING TO THE UNCLOS III

The UNCLOS III began with a procedural session in December 1973, and was followed by ten further
sessions and numerous inter sessional meetings.12 This series of high level international negotiations
was dramatically initiated in 1967 when, at the 22nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
Malta's Ambassador Arvid Pardo presented his country's proposal for: a seabed treaty to prevent uni-
lateral expansion of coastal State jurisdiction and, at the same time, to allow the international

4
LAYLIN, J. (1971). Past, Present and Future Development of the Customary International Law of the Sea and Deep
Seabed. The International Lawyer, 5(3), 442-451.
PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED
 13

development of the resources of the seabed for the sole benefit of developing countries. Pardo called
on States to undertake an examination of the question of the reservation exclusively for peaceful pur-
poses of the seabed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, underlying the high seas beyond the limits
of present national jurisdiction; and use of their resources in the interest of mankind.

Consequently, the General Assembly, at its 22nd Session, established the Ad Hoc Committee com-
posed of 35 States to study the peaceful uses of the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction. And, following the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, the General Assembly, at its 23rd
Session in 1968, established the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed and Ocean Floor Be-
yond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, popularly known as the Seabed Committee.16 In 1969 and
1970, two important General Assembly Resolutions concerning the deep seabed were adopted. In
1969, Resolution 2574D (XXIV), calling for a moratorium on seabed exploitation pending the estab-
lishment of an international convention was carried.This was followed by Resolution 2749 (XXV), the
Declaration of Principles Governing the Seabed and Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil Thereof, Beyond
the Limits of National Jurisdiction, which received the affirmative votes of 104 States, with none
against, and with 14 abstentions.18 The main propositions advanced in Resolution 2749 were as fol-
lows:

(1) that there is an international area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction

(2) that the international area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind

(3) that no State could acquire or exercise sovereignty over the international area, nor could it be ap-
propriated by any means by States or persons, natural or juridical

and

(4) that an international machinery would be created by a treaty universally agreed upon to manage
resources of the international area for the benefit of mankind,

keeping particularly in view the interests of the developing countries. In 1970 also, the General As-
sembly adopted Resolution 2750C (XXV), convening the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea.The developing countries, many of which had not attended either the First or Second
of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea (in 1958 and 1960, respectively) because
they were colonies at that time, were instrumental in advocating these United Nations resolutions per-
taining to law of the sea issues. Also, Ambassador Pardo's initial proposal that the minerals of the deep
seabed should be used primarily for the benefit of developing countries greatly assisted in mobilising
developing country support for international action concerning the deep seabed. On the other hand, the
PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED
 14

formal debate on the NIEO was launched during the Sixth Special Session of the General Assembly
in 1974, some seven years after the initial United Nations negotiations on the seabed issue. The NIEO
debate was unique in that it represented the first time that the developed world was constrained to
discuss the international economic system and interrelationship with development issues in a compre-
hensive manner. But, to be sure, international economic and technological issues, especially as they
affected the exploitation of natural resources both within and beyond the boundaries of national juris-
diction in the sea, had already been given fairly advanced consideration in the pre-UNCLOS III delib-
erations by the time the NIEO discussions commenced.

C. MAIN AREAS OF TENSION IN THE EARLY UNCLOS III DEBATE ON THE DEEP SEABED

In July 1974, at the beginning of the first substantive session of the UNCLOS III in Caracas, Vene-
zuela, the principal issues before Committee I were the fundamental principles of the international
regime and the stucture and functions of the international authority to be set up in relation to the regime.
With respect to the former issue, a major problem concerned the definition of the deep seabed area.
Because the outer limit of the area of national jurisdiction coincides with the inner boundary of
the deep seabed area, this question had significant overtones for several countries. In particular, States
with broad continental margins, on the one hand, and land-locked and geographically disadvantaged
States which wished to keep the outer limit of national jurisdiction within narrow boundaries, on the
other, had diametrically opposed perspectives, and maintained their divergent viewpoints up to the end
of the UNCLOS III deliberations. Ultimately, under Article 76 of the Law of the Sea Convention, a
somewhat generous approach is contemplated for broad-margin States - this has the result of restrict-
ing, to some extent, the area available for deep seabed mining.

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 15

Important International organisations and dispute redressal

mechanisms exclusive for the laws of seabed

State is free to choose one or more of four possible options of settlement

➢ The ITLOS
➢ The ICJ
➢ Arbitral Tribunal constituited under AnnexVII of LOSC – THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBU-
NAL FOR THE LAW OF SEA.
➢ Special Arbitral tribunal under Annex VII f LOSC

The Agreement on Cooperation and Relationship between the United Nations and the Interna-
tional Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was signed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations
and the President of the Tribunal on 18 December 1997 in New York. It entered into force on 8
September 1998. It establishes a mechanism for cooperation between the two institutions.

➢ United Nations Appeals Tribunal - An agreement between the Tribunal and the United Na-
tions Appeals Tribunal was concluded and signed by the President of the Tribunal on 23 June
2010 and by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 13 July 2010. The Agreement
extends the competence of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal to the Tribunal with respect
to applications alleging non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contracts of em-
ployment of staff members of the Registry.
➢ The International Seabed Authority

The International Seabed Authority is an autonomous international organization established under

the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement relating to the
Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Authority is
the organization through which States Parties to the Convention shall, in accordance with the regime
for the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the
Area) established in Part XI and the Agreement, organize and control activities in the Area, particu-
larly with a view to administering the resources of the Area .A principal function of the Authority is
to regulate deep seabed mining and to give special emphasis to ensuring that the marine environment
is protected from any harmful effects which may arise from mining activities exploration and

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 16

exploitation. On 28 July 1994 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Agreement
relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
and the Agreement has been provisionally applied since 16 November 1994. According to the Agree-
ment, its provisions and Part XI of the Convention are to be interpreted and applied together as a sin-
gle instrument; the present rules and references in these rules to the Convention are to be interpreted
and applied accordingly.

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED

 17

CONCLUSION
The long drawn legislative measures for the seabed culminated in the establishment of efficient Inter-
national organisations,even so exploitation of the seabed cannot be said to have stopped. The refining
of the adjudicatory , mediatory and arbitrary techniques can be expected in the coming years .

PIL PROJECT , LAWS OF SEABED