DEEP-SEA BED CONSERVATION- INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

6.1 Environmental Law

Submitted to:

Mr. Chiradeep Basak

Submitted by:

Uditanshu Misra

SM0117057

III year; VI semester

National Law University, Assam

 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 sovereignty 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.

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 dealt with 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 there unknown and waiting to be discovered. Years and Years of discussions and
Deliberations have ended up in forming International bodies for the excusive purpose of
overlooking and controlling the activities of the seabed. This long process is summarized in
this project. The main disastrous consequences of exploitation of seabed include the
destruction of marine life, depletion of mineral resources. The most common hazard being
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 internationalism-nationalism scale, it is possible to compare variables
within a common framework. The same has been attempted to over here.

Aim and Objectives

The aim of this project is to comprehensively study the laws regulating the sea beds around the
world. It is aimed to understand the international and national legal obligations of the state, as
well as the individuals towards ensuring that seabed is properly conserved.
 The objectives of this project are as follows:

1. To study why sea bed conservation is important by dwelling into historical background
2. To study the various laws governing the sea bed conservation
3. To understand the role of several authorities in sea bed conservation

Scope and Limitation

The scope of this project includes a concise study of the concept and laws related to deep
seabed conservation. It covers the Indian and International laws regulating the deep sea beds. It
also includes the analysis of the ill effects of deep sea mining. It also involves the study of the
judicial role in ensuring the implementation of such laws. The limitation of this project is that it
only analyses the conventions, statutes and regulations pertaining to the deep sea bed
conservation.

Literature Review
P. Leelakrishnan’s book1, though does not stress upon the concept of international legal
framework on deep sea bed conservation but still broadens the ambit of marine conservation
and has helped the researcher in understanding the importance of deep sea beds for the
existence of mankind as well as, has helped the researcher in knowing the importance of
legislations related to deep sea beds as well as the ill effects of deep sea mining and several
other sea exploitation hazards.

Charney’s article2, draws a clear picture as well as distinction regarding the state of affairs
related to deep sea bed before UNCLOS III and after the same. The author has also made the
researcher understand the importance of deep sea bed conservation and the need of a proper
uniform legislation in order to work for the same. The author has also made clear, the role of
authorities and international organizations in regards to put sanctions on deep sea mining and
determine its extent.

1
 P LEELAKRISHNAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA,(Lexis Nexis, 5th ed.) (2018)
2
Charney, Jonathan L, The Law of the Deep Seabed Post UNCLOS III, OREGON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 63, Issue 1
(1984), pp. 19-52.
Research Methodology
In this project, the researcher has adopted analytical type of research and a doctrinal method of
data collection. Doctrinal research methodology is essentially a library-based study, which
means that the materials needed by a researcher may be available in libraries, archives and
other data-bases. The researcher has used computer laboratory and used various websites to get
important data related to this topic. 20th Edition of Bluebook citation is used as a mode of
citation for footnoting

Data has been collected from secondary sources like books, journals, web sources etc. No
primary source like survey data or field data was collected by the researcher.
 CHAPTER-2

HISTORY AND BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAWS OF SEABED

Brief 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 exercise their control over the ocean. By then, the ocean, which had
been deemed common possession in ancient Rome, had started its process of division. Division
of the ocean hampered the development of capitalism, giving rise to a fierce fight between
supporters of sovereignty over the ocean and those of the maintenance 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 seas3. This notion was opposed by Selden, a British 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 was generally
established that an area covering three nautical miles off the coast should be under the control
of the coastal State. In these changes to the ocean regime, the seabed drew very little attention
because 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 states to be dissatisfied with the existing jurisdiction of
coastal states, and some States started to seek more extensive coastal jurisdiction unilaterally.
In the Conference for the Codification 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
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/sta- ble/40175927
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 sea bed
issue, the initial development and achievement of seabed science and technology. A great
amount 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, 1. Territorial sea 2.
Contiguous zone and 3. The high seas, The coastal state exercised exclusive jurisdiction over
Territorial sea, that which extended up to 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 compartmentalization 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 jurisdiction 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 Truman of USA issued a proclamation on

September 28,1954 assuming unilateral jurisdiction over the continental shelf 1 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 codification
of the customary international legal rule of the doctrine of the continental shelf which had
developed 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 exploiting 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 possible 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 exploration and
exploitation of the natural resources available. The North Sea continental shelf cases was
referred to as the basis of customary on the same by ICJ.

A coastal state may exercise both legislative and enforcement jurisdiction over foreign
individuals and vessels in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ which is about 200 nautical miles
from the baseline. To measure at the 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
interfere with a coastal states exploitation of its continental 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 aspects of the negotiation of LOSC and the dissatisfaction of the created legal
regime nearly took out the universal support of the convention. Since the regulation 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 sovereignty and the rights attached thereof over the area and
the exploitation must be carried out for the benefit of all. ARTICLE 133 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 is
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 Seabed Authority4.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 MNCs5 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.

CHAPTER-3

4
Henry C. Jr. Byrum, An International Seabed Authority: THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM, 10 CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L.
621 (1978)
5
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 on 26th May 2020
THE LEGISLATIONS AND ITS IMPORTANCE WITH RESPECT TO DEEP SEA BED
CONSERVATION

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’s 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 seas Any 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 is 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.

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 resolution, 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" meetings 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 resources of an international seabed area would best serve consumer interests

throughout 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) is 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 matters of the laws of the sea. Ratified by 168 parties, which includes 167
states (164 United 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. Unlike 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 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
independent 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 tribunal has jurisdiction over any disputes that concerns interpretation and application
 of LOSC6 and any related international 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 be abided 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.7

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 distribution; 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.

6
Laylin J. , Past, Present and Future Development of the Customary International Law of the Sea and DeepSeabed.
THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER, 5(3), 442-451.
7
The M/V "SAIGA" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS PV 97/21 Decided on 28 Nov.
1997.
 CHAPTER-4

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-session meetings. 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 unilateral expansion of coastal state jurisdiction and at the same
time, to allow the international 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 purposes 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 establishment 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 follows:

(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 appropriated by any means by States or persons, natural or juridical
(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 Assembly 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 pertaining 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 mobilizing developing
country support for international action concerning the deep seabed. On the other hand, the
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 comprehensive 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 deliberations by the time the NIEO
discussions commenced.

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,
Venezuela, the principal issues before Committee I were the fundamental principles of the
international regime and the structure 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 restricting to
some extent, the area available for deep seabed mining.
 CHAPTER-5

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

TRIBUNAL 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
International 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
Nations 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 employment 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, particularly 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
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 Agreement, its provisions and Part XI of the Convention are to be interpreted
and applied together as a single instrument; the present rules and references in these rules to
the Convention are to be interpreted and applied accordingly.
 CHAPTER-6

CONCLUSION

As Deep Sea mining progresses in areas of national jurisdictions, concerns over the implications
for the environment will increase. It may become necessary to conclude an international
agreement that seeks to assure environmental protection. This paper has looked at three national
laws governing deep sea mining and identified features that may be useful in the preparation of
any such international agreement. Due to the uncertainties regarding the effect of DSM on the
environment, it would be particularly useful for States seeking to gain access to deep seabed
minerals to consider practical measures for the implementation of the precautionary principle in
order to ensure that their desire to harness these mineral resources is balanced with the need for
environmental protection.

The long drawn legislative measures for the seabed culminated in the establishment of efficient
Inter- national organizations, 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.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Referred

(1) P LEELAKRISHNAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN INDIA,(Lexis Nexis, 5th ed.) (2018)

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

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
(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.