A comprehensive look at the

codification process of the

International Law of the Sea
By
Samiur Rahman,
LLB ,Department of Law, Jagannath University,
Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Development of Sea Law before 1930 .......................................................................................................... 5
Canon Shot Rule ........................................................................................................................................ 5
freedom of the Sea or “Mare Liberum” ................................................................................................... 6
(c) The Hague Conference for the Codification of International Law (1930) ........................................... 7
The First UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1958 ) ......................................................................... 10
The Second UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1960) ..................................................................... 11
The Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–1982) .............................................................. 12
Towards the adoption of the LOSC 1982 ................................................................................................ 16
Short Outline of the UNCLOS 1982 ......................................................................................................... 17
Short outline of the Maritime Zones under UNCLOS 1982..................................................................... 20
Subsequent development after 1982 ..................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Introduction
“Sea” denotes to vast body of waters consisting of numerous
uncontrolled natural resources. So to regulate the administration and
functioning of this gigantic body of waters and all those which dwell on
this body of waters, a branch of public international law has been
emerged. The pertinent piece of international instrument that regularize
sea related issues is the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea 1982 hereinafter called as (UNCLOS) . UNCLOS replaces the older
'freedom of the seas' 1concept, dating from the 17th century. The
development cycle of UNCLOS commenced from:
a) Development of Sea Law before 1930.
b) The First UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1958)
c) The Second UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1960)
d) The Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–1982)
e) Codification of the UNCLOS in 1982.
f) Subsequent development after 1982
In this article I shall strive to concisely enumerate all those
aforementioned phases which conjointly contributed towards shaping
and construing modern maritime law.

1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Development of Sea Law before 1930

The development of International Sea law throughout 16 th to 18th

century can be summed up into two segments:
a) Earlier concept to determine “territorial sea” by employing the
“Canon Shot Rule”
b) Hugo Grotius‟s principle of “freedom of the Sea” or “Mare
Liberum”

Canon Shot Rule

The “Canon Shot Rule” was a concept emanated from 17 th Century
Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek.2 Where the a coastal state
could anticipate it‟s limit of territorial sovereignty by firing a canon
in the open sea , that means the more distance the canon ball can
cover the more distance the coastal state could claim as it‟s territorial
sea. This limit roughly corresponded to the outer range of coastal
artillery weapons and therefore reflected the principle terrae
dominum finitur, ubi finitur armorium vis (the dominion of the land
ends where the range of weapons ends). The rule is now not widely
recognized: many nations have established a 6- or 12-mile coastal
limit3.

2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
3
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095546425

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 freedom of the Sea or “Mare Liberum”
Earlier development of the law of the Sea during 16 th & 17th century
was centralized on two contradictory doctrines. One of them
advocated the essence of closed sea known as (Mare Clausum).
British author, John Selden argued for the right of states to extend
their jurisdiction over the seas. Grotius defended the interests of the
Dutch government in general, and those of the Great United
Company of the East Indies in particular, while Selden argued the
position of the British government, which then sought, inter alia, to
protect the rich fishing grounds around the British isles from
depletion by foreign fishermen4. On the contrary another prominent
author Hugo Grotius counter argued Selden‟s theory of “closed sea”
& developed another liberalized the theory of “Mare liberum” in his
famous book called “Hugo Grotius, Mare Liberum”. In thirteen
chapters Grotius states his ideas of the principle of the „Free Sea‟.
The sea was to be considered international territory and all nations
were free to use it for trade.5Ultimately Grotius‟s view of a more
accessible sea gained momentum as Great Britain gained strength as
a maritime power, the British government abandoned its efforts to
license foreigners to fish in “British seas” and to impose tolls on the
passage of foreign vessels. The supremacy of British sea power
during the 19th century solidified a customary international law
regime based on the principle of the freedom of the seas, a principle
that still carries weight today6

4 Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea, Second Edition by Authors: Louis B. Sohn, John Noyes, Erik
Franckx and Kristen Juras ,Chapter 2 ,page 1,2.

5
https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/2009/10/hugo-grotius-mare-liberum-1609-2009/
6
Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea, Second Edition by Authors: Louis B. Sohn, John Noyes, Erik
Franckx and Kristen Juras ,Chapter 2 ,page 2.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 The freedom of the sea in a nutshell encompasses the below
mentioned attributes .In light of this doctrine:
1) A sea shall be accessible to trade & commerce
2) Specific freedoms such as navigational rights , right to lay
submarine cables , pipelines
3) And the right to conduct scientific exploration & research.
But such rights must be exercised subject to some exceptions
respectively.

(c) The Hague Conference for the Codification of International

Law (1930)
Maiden attempt to codify International law of the sea was undertaken
at the Hague Conference for the codification of the International
law.7 The Hague Conference aimed to codify international law
concerning three subjects, namely nationality, State responsibility
and territorial waters. With regard to territorial waters, two issues,
among various issues discussed at the Conference, are of particular
interest: the nature of the rights possessed by a State over its
territorial sea and the breadth of the territorial sea.8 Those two
contexts are briefly enumerated below:

7
For the list of the participating governments, see ‘Conference for the Codification of International Law Held at
The Hague in March-April, 1930
8
International Law of the Sea , 2nd edition
Yoshifumi Tanaka, page 20.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 1) Right of coastal states over territorial sea: The Report adopted by
the Second Committee at the Hague Conference (hereafter the
1930 Report) stated that the coastal state can exercise it‟s
sovereignty over a belt of sea round it‟s coast9. At the same time,
the right of innocent passage of foreign ships through the
territorial sea was generally recognized because of the importance
of the freedom of navigation.10
2) Determining the breadth of the territorial sea: Determining the
exact distance of the territorial sea was the most controversial
issue. But this concept was attempted to be rationalized by two
separate practices :
The first practice relates to the cannon-shot rule.
According to the rule, the seaward limit of the territorial
sea is determined by the range of cannon shot from the
shore11.
The second practice is developed by the Scandinavian
country, where the limit of the territorial sea is
determined by the distance of the coast. Denmark &
Sweden developed this notion & adjusted their maritime
belt four miles from the shore.
Later USA during 1793, UK strongly supported
maximum of three miles limit of the territorial sea. the
Scandinavian countries continued to claim a four-mile
limit. Several countries, such as France and Italy,
maintained different limits for different purposes.

9
League of Nations, C.351(b). M. 145(b). Annex V, Report Adopted by the Committee on April 10th 1930,
reproduced in Rosenne, League of Nations (vol. 4), p. 1411
10
Rosenne, League of Nations (vol. 4), p. 1412.
11
International Law of the Sea , 2nd edition
Yoshifumi Tanaka page 20.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Unfortunately the 3 miles limit rule as adopted by USA
and UK was opposed by the Hague Conference because
the Scandinavian countries & France, Italy considered
varying territorial limit. So due to the discrepancies
Hague Conference didn‟t exact a specific international
limit of the territorial sea.
But that doesn‟t mean that Hague Conference was
meaningless. Indeed, the Hague Conference produced
valuable statements on important issues regarding the law
of the sea. As noted, it must be remembered that the
principle of freedom of navigation, territorial sovereignty
over the territorial sea and the right of innocent passage
through the territorial sea were generally recognised at the
Conference.12

12
International Law of the Sea , 2nd edition
Yoshifumi Tanaka , page 21.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 The First UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1958 )
Due to exigencies of situations prompted states to extend their
jurisdiction from their coasts, these are:
1) access to offshore natural resources
2) improvements in technology
So in order to keep pace with these advancing situations the maiden
attempt to delaminate the sea was first undertaken by former USA
President Truman made certain claims over the continental shelf &
coastal fisheries.
Later In 1949 the International Law Commission, an expert body
operating within the UN system, began to draw up articles on the regime
of the high seas and related subjects. Drafts prepared by the Commission
served as the basis for negotiations at the First United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I), held at Geneva in 1958.
The Conference adopted four conventions relating to: (1) the territorial
sea and the contiguous zone; (2) the high seas; (3) fishing and
conservation of the living resources of the high seas; and (4) the
continental shelf. It adopted also an optional protocol concerning the
compulsory settlement of disputes arising out of the interpretation and
application of these conventions. But again no agreement could be
reached on the breadth of the territorial sea.13

13
Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea, Second Edition
Book by Louis B. Sohn, John Noyes, Erik Franckx and Kristen Juras , page : 3

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 The Second UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1960)

During the second UN Conference on the law of the sea (UNCLOS II)
organized at 17 March 1960 again the proposal was raised to determine
the exact breadth of the territorial sea including the exclusive fishery
zone. Around 88 states participated in the conference. And final joint
proposal was raised by the USA and Canada joint proposal which
provided for a six-mile territorial sea plus a maximum of six-mile
exclusive fishery zone, and for a ten-year moratorium period for historic
fishing the outer six miles.14. But the proposal was ultimately turned
down based on a single vote & subsequently in UNCLOS II however the
actual determination of the breadth of the territorial sea remained in a
limbo.

14
DOCUMENT A/CONF.19/C.1/L.10. Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Ofi cial
Records, Summary Records of Plenary Meetings and of Meetings of the Committee of the Whole
(Geneva, 17 March–26 April 1960), p. 169

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 The Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973–1982)
Since the second UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II)
failed to resolve many outstanding concerns in 1960, discussions and
negotiations continued until the third UN Conference on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III) in 1982, which tried to address most issues of
concern. Delegates submitted for ratification the Law of the Sea treaty,
which formally outlines modern international policy regarding the
oceans and marine resources. It was adopted by the Conference on 10
December 1982. The comprehensive document contains 320 articles and
9 annexes, and notably replaces the longstanding freedom of the sea
principle, which held that nations could only hold territorial claim over
coastline waters that were within the short distance of a cannon shot
from shore. Instead, the treaty provides a graduated system of
sovereignty in which countries can assert complete ownership of water
within 12 nautical miles of their coastline. Each country can also claim
an additional 200 nautical miles as an exclusive economic zone, which is
an area where each coastal country can regulate scientific research and
the exploitation of marine resources. However, all areas outside of these
regions are immune to any nation‟s control. The treaty also outlines
general responsibilities towards limiting marine pollution and preserving
marine resources. Additionally, it catalyzed the creation of regulating
authorities, including the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,
the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and the
International Seabed Authority.15

15
http://www.environmentandsociety.org/tools/keywords/united-nations-convention-law-sea-unclos-iii

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 The work of the Conference was mainly conducted in three
committees16
 First Committee : the legal regime for the deep seabed beyond the
limit of national jurisdiction.
 The Second Committee : the territorial sea, the contiguous zone,
the EEZ, the continental shelf, international straits, archipelagic
waters, the high seas and land-locked and geographically
disadvantaged States.
 The Third Committee : protection of the marine environment,
marine scientific research and the transfer of technology. Certain
issues – such as the Preamble, final clauses, peaceful uses of ocean
space, the general principles on dispute settlement, the general
provisions and the Final Act.17

16
International Law of the Sea , 2nd edition
Yoshifumi Tanaka, page , 26
17
J. Evensen, ‘Working Methods and Procedures in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea’ ( 1986 ) 199 RCADI p. 454

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

UNCLOS III distinctive features & it‟s mode of operations are given
below:
1) Unlike the former conferences the 3rd conference of the law of the
sea saw drastically increased number of participants18. And the
huge number of states complying with the terms of this conference
means UNCLOS III was truly universal. The agreement has been
ratified by 150 parties (all of which are parties to the Convention),
which includes 149 states (146 United Nations member states plus
the UN Observer state Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands and
Niue) and the European Union. An additional three UN member
states have signed, but not ratified the agreement.19
2) UNCLOS III & the subsequent adoption of the LOSC took much
longer time , it took ten years – from 1973 to 1982 – to complete
the work. Taking into account the preparatory work of the Seabed
Committee, which commenced its work in 1967, it took nearly
sixteen years to adopt the LOSC.
3) The task of preparing the UNCLOS III was quantitatively
enormous because it had to deal with various marine issues in a
comprehensive manner.
4) At the same time, the task of the Conference was qualitatively
enormous in the sense that it had to formulate a number of
provisions reconciling highly complicated interests between
States.20

18
The UNCLOS III participants comprised: the members of the United Nations, its specialised agencies and the
International Atomic Energy Agency, parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, as well as Guinea-
Bissau and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. In addition, the participants in UNCLOS III included a wide range of
observers, such as intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, trust territories, associated States, the
United Nations Council for Namibia, and national liberation movements recognised in their region by the
Organisation of African Unity or the League of Arab States
19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
20
International Law of the Sea , 2nd edition
Yoshifumi Tanaka, page : 27.

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 5) UNCLOS III introduced an innovative “Negotiation” mechanism
involving a “General consensus” means the method of obtaining
the “general agreement” of all relevant actors in a conference or an
organ through negotiations without vote21
6) UNCLOS III doesn‟t explicitly articulate the existence of the
“consensus” mechanism , However, paragraph 1 of Rule 37
impliedly stated it‟s existence that: „Before a matter of substance is
put to the vote, a determination that all efforts at reaching general
agreement have been exhausted shall be made‟ by the two-thirds
majority specified in Rule 39(1).
7) But the “consensus” technique in the UNCLOS III suffered from
two inherent defect which makes this process somewhat risky. For
instance, the consensus procedure is inherently slow moving.
There is also a concern that consensus may mask opposition and
create subsequent opposition or non-participation22
8) The second approach the UNCLOS III introduced was “Package
deal approach” . This method involves a possible trade off or give
& take between all the interested parties & after considering the
“deal” the interested parties should accept the final treaty in it‟s
entirety.
9) The third approach is the “Group approach” where discussions
took place in a wide variety of delegation groups with common
interests. The Conference realized at an early stage that working
groups would be more efficient than plenary meetings owing to the
large number of participants and sensitive issues involved.
Consequently, negotiations were to a large extent carried out in

21
The consensus procedure must be distinguished from unanimity. While adoption with unanimity means
adoption by voting after all actors involved have agreed, the consensus procedure precludes voting.
22
International Law of the Sea , 2nd edition
Yoshifumi Tanaka, page : 28

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 smaller working negotiating groups on the basis of interest in a
particular issue.
10) Another unique feature of the UNCLOS III was that the
substantive meetings conducted under the conference was informal
& without summary records. Most of the intricate issues were dealt
by in “privately convened negotiating groups”. So the lack of
formality was said to be the most unique feature of the UNCLOS
III.
Towards the adoption of the LOSC 1982
The conclusion of the 11th session of the UNCLOS III adopted the
most embryonic piece of international agreement governing the Law
of the Sea. On April 30, 1982, the Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention
was organized. 130 states voted at the convention including 17
abstentions23. The conference numerous resolutions, these are
1) Resolution establishing a Preparatory Commission for the
International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea.
2) A resolution governing preparatory investment in pioneer seabed
mining activities

23
Eight Eastern European states, seven Western European states, Mongolia, and Thailand)

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Short Outline of the UNCLOS 1982
The drafting committee prepared the draft of the convention & was
approved by the 11th session of the conference during September
22-24, 1982. The final text contains 320 articles & nine annexes.
At the final part of the 11th session, in Montego Bay, Jamaica,
December 6–10, 1982, 119 states and entities signed both the los
Convention and the Final Act of the Conference, which contains a
history of UNCLOS III and the final texts of the various UNCLOS
III resolutions24. The final 1982 convention finally determined the
actual limits of the territorial waters alongside with that introduced
newer maritime zones & prescribed it‟s definite limits. the LOSC
is often called „a constitution for the oceans‟.25
the Convention is divided into seventeen Parts
1) The First eleven parts deal with the legal regime governing
marine space. The LOSC divides the entire sea into 5 maritime
zones which are internal waters, territorial seas, archipelagic
waters, the EEZ and the high seas under Article 86.
Furthermore, the LOSC provides for the contiguous zone (Part
II, section 4), international straits (Part III), the continental shelf
(Part VI), and the Area (Part XI) 26
2) Consequently, it may be said that the spatial structure of the law
of the sea was transformed from dualism to multilateralism.
Parts XII to XV are devoted to specific issues, that is to say, the
protection and preservation of the marine environment (Part
XII), marine scientific research (Par XIII), development and

24
Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea

Book by John E. Noyes and Louis B. Sohn page : 7

25
The International Law of the Sea
Textbook by Yoshifumi Tanaka page : 31
26
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 transfer of marine technology (Part XIV), and settlement of
disputes (Part XV). Parts XVI and XVII deal with general and i
nal provisions, respectively. Reflecting the package-deal
approach, the balance of rights and duties as well as overall
equitableness are essential elements of the Convention27.
3) The LOSC for the very first time settled the actual breadth of
territorial sea. Article 3 of the convention the states agreed the
maximum breadth of the territorial sea to be 12 nautical miles.
4) the LOSC has succeeded in establishing compulsory procedures
of dispute settlement 28. Under article 286 any disputes on the
interpretation or the application of the LOSC must be submitted
before the international courts and tribunals , having jurisdiction
under section 2 of Part XV but this obligation is subject to
certain limitations as prescribed under section 329 . The sea
tribunal is responsible for peaceful & amicable settlement of sea
related disputes.
5) Moreover the LOSC introduced three new institutions. A) The
International Seabed Authority30 , The International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is the permanent international
tribunal for law of the sea disputes.31, . The Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) has a principal role to

27
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
28
LOSC, Part XV, section 2 , http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
29
The International Law of the Sea
Textbook by Yoshifumi Tanaka page : 31
30
https://www.isa.org.jm/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. ,
31
https://www.itlos.org/en/general-information/ , The Tribunal was established as a specialised tribunal to deal
with disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention.

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 make recommendations with regard to the outer limits of the
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles32
6) Preserving the integrity of the convention thus the convention
expressly prohibits under the article 309 of the said convention
that “„No reservations or exceptions may be made to this
Convention unless expressly permitted by other articles of this
Convention.’ The prohibition of reservations certainly
contributes to secure the integrity of the Convention.
7) Any declarations made by the states shall not under the article
310 of the convention that such declarations or statements are
not intended to exclude or modify the legal effect of the
provisions of the LOSC in their application to that State33
8) Amendment procedures to the said convention are laid down
under articles 312-316 where , any state party to the convention
can after 10 years of the entry into force through written
communication to the Secretary General of the UN can propose
amendment to any provisions of the convention. The Secretary
General shall organize a conference where the proposal shall be
raised & through consensus process the amendment proposal
shall be processed.

32
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_purpose.htm The purpose of the Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf (the Commission or CLCS) is to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) in respect of the establishment of the outer limits of the
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured. Under the Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer limits of its continental shelf where it
extends beyond 200 M on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. The Commission shall make
recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of those limits; its recommendations
and actions shall not prejudice matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts.
33
In fact, the ICJ in the 2009 Romania/Ukraine case gave no effect to Romania’s declaration to the LOSC.

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Short outline of the Maritime Zones under UNCLOS 1982

(Figure 1: Five maritime zones under UNCLOS 1982)34

A) Zones of Coastal State Sovereignty: internal waters, such as ports.
Internal waters are located inside a coastal state‟s baseline, which
often conforms to the low-water mark of its coastline but in some
instances may be a straight line that diverges from the coastline ,
the territorial sea which extends up to 12 nautical miles , the
coastal state possess exclusive jurisdiction over it‟s territorial sea.
B) Zones of Coastal State Limited Functional Jurisdiction: the
contiguous zone which is located outside the territorial sea. The
contiguous zone extends up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline.
In this zone a coastal state may prevent violations of its fiscal,
customs, immigration, and sanitary laws. The Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) which extends to 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
The EEZ was introduced in the UNCLOS III negotiations. The
coastal state has sovereign rights or jurisdiction over natural
34
https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-two/

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 resources and certain economic uses in the EEZ . Other states may
exercise specified high seas freedoms in the EEZ. Lastly the
“Continental Shelf”. This maritime zone remains underneath the
territorial sea and can extend up to the EEZ or sometimes can also
exceed it. The continental shelf comprises the seabed and subsoil
of a coastal state‟s land territory. The coastal state enjoys exclusive
sovereign rights to exploit the natural resources of the continental
shelf. The LOS Convention created a technical body, the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), to
make recommendations to the coastal state concerning the location
of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical
miles from the baseline.35.
C) Regions Beyond the Limits of Coastal State Jurisdiction: body of
waters falling outside the coastal state‟s jurisdiction known as the
high seas, where all states can exercise their freedom of transit. the
seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,
known as the Area, where a special regime applies to the
exploration and exploitation of mineral resources.

35
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_purpose.htm

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Subsequent development after 1982
a) 1994 Implementation Agreement36 : This agreement was
undertaken to elaborate the regime for the deep sea37 bed
beyond the limits of the national jurisdiction. The task was
assigned to Preparatory Commission for the International
Seabed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea (PREPCOM) had been established by Resolution I
annexed to the Final Act of UNCLOS III. The aim of this
Commission was to draft the necessary rules and procedures
that would enable the Authority to commence its functions and
to exercise the powers and functions assigned to it by
Resolution II relating to preparatory investment38. But later
super power countries such as USA disinclination to the regime
regulating deep sea bed activities. Despite disagreements the
1994 agreement has contributed greatly toward modifying the
Part X1 of the convention as well as facilitated the ratification
of the LOSC by industrialized States, and major developed
States39
b) 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement : 40 This Agreement seekto
elaborate provisions concerning the conservation and
management of fish stocks provided for in Parts V and VII of
the LOSC.41

36
1836 UNTS p. 42. Entered into force on 28 July 1996.
37
Part XI of the UNCLOS 1982
38
Paragraph 5 of Resolution I
39
including Germany, Japan, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
ratified the LOSC in the wake of the Implementation Agreement
40
2167 UNTS p. 88. Entered into force 28 July 1996. The full title is United Nations Agreement for
the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks.
41
The International Law of the Sea
Textbook by Yoshifumi Tanaka, page 34.

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

c) Amendment of the LOSC through Meetings of States Parties :
Subsequent changes to the convention were made by different
international forums namely SPLOS , CLCS .& ITLOS.
d) Development of the LOSC through international organizations The
United Nations “UN Family” contributed a lot for the development of
the existing LOSC. One of the most influential organization is
International Maritime Organization (IMO)42 . Apart from formulating
rules relating to safe navigation & protection of the maritime
environment IMO construed some “Rule of Reference” which is a set of
standards framed by IMO which the state parties to the convention shall
adhere to. In other words, legal instruments can be incorporated into
provisions of the LOSC via the „rules of reference‟. In so doing, IMO
instruments can further elaborate provisions of the LOSC 43. Another
laudable organization in this regard is the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) . The FAO is the only organisation of the UN
system that has a global fisheries body, the Committee on Fisheries FAO
(COF)44 . FAO has significant role to manage international fisheries.
The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct45 . The 1995 Code of Conduct is a
voluntary instrument but certain phases of this Code specifically pertains
to the norms of the international law , including the LOSC. The Code of
42
http://www.imo.org/en/About/Pages/Default.aspx , As a specialized agency of the United Nations, IMO is the
global standard-setting authority for the safety, security and environmental performance of international shipping.
Its main role is to create a regulatory framework for the shipping industry that is fair and effective, universally
adopted and universally implemented.
43
The International Law of the Sea
Textbook by Yoshifumi Tanaka , page : 36
44
http://www.fao.org/fishery/about/cofi/en The Committee on Fisheries (COFI), a subsidiary body of the FAO
Council, was established by the FAO Conference at its Thirteenth Session in 1965. The Committee presently
constitutes the only global inter-governmental forum where major international fisheries and aquaculture
problems and issues are examined and recommendations addressed to governments, regional fishery bodies,
NGOs, fishworkers, FAO and international community, periodically on a world-wide basis. COFI has also been used
as a forum in which global agreements and non-binding instruments were negotiated.
45
http://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/international-framework/code-of-conduct-for-responsible-fisheries/en/ The
purpose of 1995 FAO Code of Conduct is to set international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with
a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due
respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity.

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

Conduct is also to be interpreted and applied in conformity with the
1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement46 under Article 3 . Finally the UN
General Assembly also contributed a lot towards the refinement of the
LOSC which included “annual review” of the evaluation &
implementation of the LOSC. Furthermore Open-ended Informal
Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (ICP)47. The ICP
is considered an useful forum where different issues concerning the
marine affairs are frequently raised and debated every year since 2002.
Finally UN General Assembly contributes towards generating customary
international law governing the oceans.

46
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/oceans/unfishstock , The United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks sets out principles for the conservation and management of those fish stocks and establishes
that such management must be based on the precautionary approach and the best available scientific information.
The Agreement elaborates on the fundamental principle, established in the Convention, that States should
cooperate to ensure conservation and promote the objective of the optimum utilization of fisheries resources both
within and beyond the exclusive economic zone.
47
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/consultative_process.htm , In 1999, the General Assembly
decided to establish the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the
Sea (the Consultative Process) in order to facilitate the annual review by the General Assembly, in an effective and
constructive manner, of developments in ocean affairs and the law of the sea by considering the report of the
Secretary-General on oceans and the law of the sea and by suggesting particular issues to be considered by it, with
an emphasis on identifying areas where coordination and cooperation at the intergovernmental and inter-agency
levels should be enhanced (resolution 54/33).

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777

 Conclusion
International Law of the Sea evolved periodically through decades .
After the devastation of world war ii the world envisaged a need for
oceanic rules where unified system of international mechanism shall be
incorporated to regularize the affairs of the sea. And the UNCLOS 1982
was the answer to it. So in fine The adoption of the LOSC does not
mean an end to the history of the law of the sea. After 1982, many
binding and non-binding instruments were adopted in the field of the law
of the sea.48

The End.

48
The International Law of the Sea
Textbook by Yoshifumi Tanaka , Page 38.

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3404777