DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

LUCKNOW

Public International Law

United Nation Convention on laws of sea, 1982

SUBMITTED TO:
Mr. Abdullah Nasir
Assistant Professor (Public International Law)
DR. RMLNLU
Lucknow

SUBMITTED BY:
Kaushik Das
220101081
Section A
4th Semester
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I take this opportunity to thank profusely our lecturer Mr. Abdullah Nasir, for providing us
with a platform to express our views on “United Nation Convention on Laws of Sea, 1982”
and to explorethe depths of the topic. Indeed, the experience has been insightful and most
often, thought provoking. A deeper understanding of such an important topic has enriched
our knowledge.

We also wish to express our gratitude to all the library staff for their patience and cooperation
in helping us find the apt research material and being generous with the due dates. Our thanks
furtherextend to all our other sources of information and of course, to our friends and seniors,
without whose insightful thoughts and relevant criticisms, the project would not have been
complete.

Last but not the least, we wish to thank our parents and the God Almighty for their help and
constant support through various means.

We also hope that we are provided with similar opportunities to work on such other
interesting topics in the future.
TABLE OF CONTENT
 INTRODUCTION
The oceans, covering 70% of Earth's surface, represent a vast and complex ecosystem that
remains inadequately understood by humanity. Efforts to preserve this invaluable resource
have been ongoing for years, leading to extensive debates and attempts to establish
comprehensive laws governing its exploitation. With pollution emerging as a pressing
concern, the need for effective regulation and management of marine resources has become
increasingly apparent.

In response to these challenges, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) was adopted in 1982. This convention aimed to define the rights and
responsibilities of nations regarding ocean use, providing guidelines for environmental
protection, business activities, and the management of marine resources. UNCLOS replaced
several earlier treaties and is considered reflective of customary international law in many
respects.

UNCLOS addresses various aspects of ocean governance, including pollution prevention,

freedom of navigation, and the establishment of exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Despite
its extensive coverage, questions persist regarding its effectiveness in achieving its goals,
particularly in addressing environmental concerns. This paper aims to evaluate UNCLOS's
success or failure, focusing specifically on its ability to address environmental issues.

The researcher will provide an overview of UNCLOS, highlighting key provisions and areas
of concern. Special attention will be given to provisions related to EEZs and the
establishment of fisheries in international waters, considering their implications for
environmental conservation. Criticisms of UNCLOS's perceived shortcomings in addressing
ocean degradation will be explored, along with suggestions for potential amendments to
better address modern-day challenges such as marine pollution.

In conclusion, the paper will offer an assessment of UNCLOS's overall success or failure in
fulfilling its objectives, particularly in the realm of environmental protection.

BACKGROUND AND PROVISIONS OF UNCLOS: A Brief Overview

The Law of the Sea became imperative due to the inadequacy of the outdated 17th-century
notion of the 'freedom of the seas'. Previously, nations' rights were confined to a specified belt
of water extending from their coastlines, typically three nautical miles or 6 kilometers. All
water beyond national boundaries was deemed international waters, accessible to all nations
but owned by none.

As the 20th century dawned, states began asserting sovereignty over seas near their territories.
They sought control over mineral resources, protection of fish stocks, and the ability to manage
pollution of oceanic resources. However, the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958
didn't prioritize marine environmental protection, and subsequent Geneva Conventions offered
little on the matter.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which concluded after nine
years of deliberation in 1982, introduced significant changes. It established Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs) extending up to 200 nautical miles, granting coastal states sovereign
rights over resources within these zones. This marked a departure from the previous common
property regime of the high seas, curtailing the freedom of fishing and scientific research for
other states.

UNCLOS also addressed conservation and management of marine living resources,

establishing jurisdictional boundaries and responsibilities. It mandated coastal states to take
measures for conservation within their EEZs and recognize traditional rights of neighboring
states. Additionally, it dealt with issues concerning archipelagic states, continental shelf
resources, and high seas conservation, albeit with some ambiguity and gaps.

Despite its comprehensive framework, UNCLOS has faced criticism for certain provisions. For
instance, it lacks clear mechanisms for coordinating conservation efforts among states and
organizations, leaving room for exploitation and over-exploitation of marine resources.
Ambiguities regarding jurisdiction over deep seabed organisms and conservation measures on
the high seas further highlight its shortcomings.

In conclusion, while UNCLOS represents a significant step forward in the management of

oceanic resources, its effectiveness is subject to interpretation and implementation. It provides
a foundation for international cooperation but requires further refinement to address emerging
challenges and ensure sustainable use of marine resources.
 THE CONVENTION
The Treaty on the Law of the Sea serves as a comprehensive framework dictating various
aspects of oceanic resources and activities. It covers a wide range of issues including
navigational rights, territorial sea limits, economic jurisdiction, legal status of seabed resources
beyond national jurisdiction, passage of ships through narrow straits, conservation of marine
resources, protection of the marine environment, establishment of a marine research regime,
and dispute resolution between states. Widely regarded by the United Nations Secretary-
General as possibly the most significant legal instrument of its time, the Convention was
adopted as a package deal, requiring acceptance of all its provisions without reservation.

Signing the Convention indicates a commitment by governments to abstain from actions that
undermine its objectives, while ratification or accession expresses a state's consent to be bound
by its provisions. It came into force in 1994 and saw rapid acceptance by the international
community.

Governments around the world have taken measures to assert their jurisdiction over adjacent
ocean areas, assessing resources within their waters and on the continental shelf. These actions
have mostly followed the principles outlined in the Convention, especially after its widespread
acceptance. Critical provisions such as defining territorial seas and regulating navigation
through them have helped resolve conflicting claims. Coastal states now enjoy extensive
economic rights within a 200-mile zone along their shores, and the rights of landlocked
countries to access the sea have been affirmed. The Convention also establishes principles for
conducting marine scientific research, preventing unreasonable denial of such activities.

Institutional mechanisms like the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea have been set up to manage activities in the deep seabed beyond national
jurisdiction and settle related disputes. While concerns were raised, notably by industrialized
states, regarding Part XI of the Convention governing deep-sea mineral mining, informal
consultations initiated by the Secretary-General led to the Agreement Related to the
Implementation of Part XI in 1998. This agreement, now an integral part of the Convention,
addressed these concerns and facilitated broader participation in the Convention. Overall, the
Convention promises stability, order, and harmonious development in the use and management
of the oceans, ensuring equitable access to resources and resolution of disputes through
international cooperation.
 SETTING LIMITS
The historical contestation over jurisdiction of the world's oceans can be traced back to ancient
times, when early civilizations like the Egyptians navigated the Mediterranean using
rudimentary rafts. Through the ages, nations both large and small, with varying degrees of
maritime capability, have sought to assert control over expansive stretches of ocean, whether
for commercial exploitation or strategic advantage.

This struggle for dominance reached a notable juncture in 1494, following Christopher
Columbus' pioneering voyage to the Americas, when Pope Alexander VI mediated between
Spain and Portugal, dividing the Atlantic Ocean between them through a Papal Bull. This
agreement delineated spheres of influence, granting Spain control over the western territories
and Portugal dominion over the eastern regions, including significant portions of the Pacific
and Indian Oceans.

However, before contemporary concerns such as resource exploitation, navigation rights, and
economic jurisdiction could be addressed, a fundamental question needed resolution: the
establishment of boundaries. The delineation between national waters and international waters
was paramount, as it would dictate the framework for subsequent maritime regulations.
Although the concept of a territorial sea, affording coastal states jurisdiction over a certain belt
of water adjacent to their shores, was well-established in international law, there was
considerable disagreement among nations regarding its breadth.

At the outset of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, diverse opinions
prevailed regarding the extent of territorial waters. While some nations advocated for a
traditional three-mile limit, others pushed for a broader 12-mile boundary. Additional
variations included claims ranging from 4 to 10 miles, as well as a significant faction
advocating for a 200-nautical-mile limit.

The Convention on the Law of the Sea addressed these divergent perspectives, establishing
parameters for both territorial seas and contiguous zones. Coastal states were granted
jurisdiction extending 24 nautical miles from their shores, allowing for enforcement of laws
and police powers to combat various infractions, including drug smuggling and illegal
immigration. Moreover, the Convention introduced provisions tailored to archipelagic states
like the Philippines and Indonesia, defining their territorial seas based on the outermost islands
of their respective groups. This framework facilitated the delineation of archipelagic waters,
where the right of innocent passage was ensured for vessels of all nations, while permitting the
establishment of designated sea lanes and air routes to facilitate efficient transit.

Navigation
Navigational rights posed a significant challenge and were of utmost importance during the
negotiations of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Historically, countries have laid claim
to portions of the seas beyond their coastlines as a means of safeguarding their territories
against various threats such as smugglers and intruding warships. This claim stemmed from
the principle of protection, which evolved during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries into
a notion that the extent of a coastal state's jurisdiction should be determined by its ability to
exert control over a given area.

In the eighteenth century, the "cannon-shot" rule gained widespread acceptance in Europe,
dictating that a coastal state's sovereignty extended to the range of cannon fire from its shores.
Scholars estimate that during this period, land-based cannons had a range of approximately one
marine league, equivalent to three nautical miles. It is believed that this principle contributed
to the establishment of the traditional three-mile territorial sea limit.

However, by the late 1960s, a global trend toward a 12-mile territorial sea had emerged, with
the majority of nations asserting sovereignty up to this limit. Yet, major maritime powers,
particularly those with significant naval capabilities, persisted in advocating for a three-mile
limit. Their reluctance to embrace a broader territorial sea was primarily driven by concerns
that a 12-mile limit would effectively close off over 100 international straits crucial for
maritime navigation.

Expanding the territorial sea to 12 miles would grant riparian states control over strategically
vital passages such as the Strait of Gibraltar (the only access point to the Mediterranean, eight
miles wide), the Strait of Malacca (the primary route between the Pacific and Indian Oceans,
20 miles wide), the Strait of Hormuz (the sole passage to the oil-producing regions of Gulf
States, 21 miles wide), and Bab el Mandeb (connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea, 14
miles wide).

Exclusive Economic Zone

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is one of the most revolutionary features of the
Convention, and one which already has had a profound impact on the management and
conservation of the resources of the oceans. Simply put, it recognizes the right of coastal States
to jurisdiction over the resources of some 38 million square nautical miles of ocean space. To
the coastal State falls the right to exploit, develop, manage and conserve all resources - fish or
oil, gas or gravel, nodules or sulphur - to be found in the waters, on the ocean floor and in the
subsoil of an area extending 200 miles from its shore.

The EEZs are a generous endowment indeed. About 87 per cent of all known and estimated
hydrocarbon reserves under the sea fall under some national jurisdiction as a result. So too will
almost all known and potential offshore mineral resources, excluding the mineral resources
(mainly manganese nodules and metallic crusts) of the deep ocean floor beyond national limits.
And whatever the value of the nodules, it is the other non-living resources, such as
hydrocarbons, that represent the presently attainable and readily exploitable wealth.

The special interest of coastal States in the conservation and management of fisheries in
adjacent waters was first recognized in the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of
the Living Resources of the High Seas. That Convention allowed coastal States to take
"unilateral measures" of conservation on what was then the high seas adjacent to their territorial
waters. It required that if six months of prior negotiations with foreign fishing nations had
failed to find a formula for sharing, the coastal State could impose terms. But still the rules
were disorderly, procedures undefined, and rights and obligations a web of confusion. On the
whole, these rules were never implemented.

The claim for 200-mile offshore sovereignty made by Peru, Chile and Ecuador in the late 1940s
and early 1950s was sparked by their desire to protect from foreign fishermen the rich waters
of the Humboldt Current (more or less coinciding with the 200-mile offshore belt. This limit
was incorporated in the Santiago Declaration of 1952 and reaffirmed by other Latin American
States joining the three in the Montevideo and Lima Declarations of 1970. The idea of
sovereignty over coastal-area resources continued to gain ground.

Today, the benefits brought by the EEZs are more clearly evident. Already 86 coastal States
have economic jurisdiction up to the 200-mile limit. As a result, almost 99 per cent of the
world's fisheries now fall under some nation's jurisdiction. Also, a large percentage of world
oil and gas production is offshore. Many other marine resources also fall within coastal-State
control. This provides a long-needed opportunity for rational, well-managed exploitation under
an assured authority.

It is evident that it is archipelagic States and large nations endowed with long coastlines that
naturally acquire the greatest areas under the EEZ regime. Among the major beneficiaries of
the EEZ regime are the United States, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia and the
Russian Federation.

Coastal States have certain other obligations, including the adoption of measures to prevent
and limit pollution and to facilitate marine scientific research in their EEZs.

CONCLUSION
Three Decades Of Unclos: A Success Or Failure?

UNCLOS makes extensive provisions regarding the conduct of marine scientific research and
marine environmental protection. Other international instruments further complement, enhance
and implement the marine environmental protection provisions of UNCLOS and are
continually evolving in response to our growing understanding of the ocean and the effects of
our activities on it. The evolution of principles such as the precautionary and polluter-pays
principles, as well as ecosystem-based management, are examples of efforts taken in this
regard. However, the marine scientific research provisions have not been developed equally
well under UNCLOS. To ensure that the right to obtain potentially commercially valuable
information on resources within its marine jurisdiction remains with the coastal state, the MSR
regime and state practice effectively remove over one-third of the ocean from scientific
examination. This situation hampers the global community's ability to identify, investigate and
assess the effects of the community's activities on the global marine environment, and to
develop scientifically robust policies for its sustainable use.

One can also sense a disjunction between marine scientific research and environment
protection regimes, especially in the case of experimental activities that intentionally introduce
perturbations into the marine environment, and these activities are only increasing every day
with more and more technological developments. Such experiments conducted in the ocean to
obtain important scientific data enhance our knowledge of the ocean and contribute valuable
information on the marine environment. However, such work may also have significant
environmental effects, which may even become synergistic or additive, with unknown
consequences for the marine environment.

When countries first came together for the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea in 1974, the developing countries were determined to play a proactive role in
formulating new and comprehensive laws to manage oceanic resources. They were
convinced that freedom of the seas would have to be regulated in accordance with and
balanced against the needs of all nationsto safeguard their economic interests as well as their
national security and sovereignty. The long-standing laissez faire policy with respect to the
high seas had ceased to serve international justiceand was being exploited by few powerful
countries to monopolize the marine resources. UNCLOStried to change this practice but did
not succeed to a large extent.

Through the creation of high seas, and more importantly through the adoption of conflicting
concepts of mare liberum, sovereignty, and resource management, UNCLOS unwittingly
has allowed for the over-exploitation of migratory marine species on the high seas. The
overexploitation has focused on a few developed nations at the detriment of the majority of
developing nations. Attempts to regulate the migratory species through the creation of
Regional Fisheries Organizations (hereinafter RFOs) has led to conflict between notions of
mare liberum, or freedom of the high seas, and internationally accepted principles of
sovereignty.

A better method for regulating migratory marine species has been shown through unilateral
state action in the form of trade embargos. Further, suggestions to redefine certain areas of the
high seasin an attempt to create strong management controls without destroying notions of
mare liberum and sovereignty have been suggested. One of these proposed solutions seems to
focus on the powerof developed nations, and it is questionable whether developing nations
will benefit from the protection of resources on the high seas.

It should however, be kept in mind that UNCLOS has not entirely failed. Compared to the
44 countries and the 86 and 88 participants in the 1930, 1958 and 1960 Conferences,
respectively, UNCLOS III started with 137 participating countries in 1974 and then this
number rose to 156 in1976. Also, even during the third conference, with the large number of
participants, there was a lot of discord among the countries and yet credit should be given to
the nations for evolving a largely comprehensive law at the end of the conference. We have
already discussed how a large number of regulatory bodies were established under the aegis
of UNCLOS such as those regulatingthe seabed, and International Tribunal on the Law of the
Sea, etc. Even though it is still not very well-defined, UNCLOS also has tried to regulate and
streamline scientific research. Furthermore,it has tried largely to lay down provisions for
protection of environment and marine resources.

Therefore, if one were to make a final judgment on the success or failure of the UNCLOS
after three decades of its existence, one would have to say that the answer would be midway
between success and failure. There is no hard and fast judgement that one can make on the
achievement of the Convention, as we have seen that certain negatives as well as positives
have both been thrown in due course of this paper. Professor Venzijl, a noted scholar who
was present at the 1958 Conference can be quoted to describe the UNCLOS after three
decades to be “as a whole, it has been a success”. As for the failures of the Convention, one
can onlyhope that the shortcomings and the lacunae existent in the UNCLOS can be amended
and steps can be taken to improve upon the provisions which fall short on meeting their
desired goals. One will truly see a just and fair regulation of the marine resources and will
be able to take adequate measures to save our precious oceans and all the resources it had to
offer.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
Anand, Ram Prakash, 1982, ‘Origin and Development of the Law of the Sea: History of
International Law', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands, available online at
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=UcGG8UIkEsoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=developme
nt+of
+law+of+the+sea&source=bl&ots=aku5JC_OM_&sig=lZ5OtJLOXmkJ0wIKvZr-
joSWZ5s&hl=en&ei=XMa6S5nDB8qprAf58oW7Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=
one page&q&f=false, last visited on March 31, 2010

Birnie, P.W. and A.E. Boyle, 2002, ‘International Law and the Environment', Oxford
UniversityPress, New Delhi, 2nd Edition

Sands, Philippe and Paolo Galizzi (eds.), 2004, ‘Documents in International Environmental
Law',Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Journals Articles:

Freestone, David, ‘A Decade of the Law of the Sea Convention: Is it a success?', 39 Geo.
Wash.Int'l L. Rev. 499 2007

McDorman, Ted L., ‘The 1982 Law of The Sea Convention: The First Year', 15 J. Mar. L. &
Com.211 1984

Online Sources:

Anonymous, ‘Unclos And The High Seas: Problems and Suggested Solutions to the Creation
of a Common Pool Resource on an International Scale', available online at
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=chad_mcguire, last
visited on April 2, 2010

Verlaan, Philomene, ‘The marine scientific research and marine environmental protection
provisions of UNCLOS: implications for experimental activities that intentionally perturb
the marine environment', available online at
www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS05Folder/VerlaanAbstract.pdf, last visited on March
30, 2010.