The development of the law of the sea since the adoption of the UN convention on the law of the sea: Achievements and challenges for the future

Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation: IUU Fishing, Oil Pollution, Bioprospecting, Outer Continental Shelf

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 41-58

  Treves, Tullio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952364995     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004180406.i-610     Document Type: Chapter

References (53)

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN doc. A/CONF.62/122
2. UNTS, Vol. 1833, pp. 3ff
3. text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 21, 1982, pp. 1,261ff
4. www.un.org/ Depts/los>. The Convention was opened for signature on 10 December 1982, and entered into force on 16 November 1994. As of 8 June 2009, there were 158 parties to the Convention; in addition, on 10 July 2009 Dominican Republic became a party to the Convention.
5. I had the occasion of holding the views mentioned in the text writing immediately after the adoption of the LOS Convention in a report for the first Fridtjof Nansen Institute symposium on the law of the sea, held in 1983
6. T. Treves, 'The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as a Non-universally Accepted Instrument: Notes on the Convention and Customary Law', in A. Koers and B.H. Oxman (eds), The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (Honolulu: The Law of the Sea Institute, University of Hawaii, 1984), pp. 685-690
7. T. Treves, 'Codification du droit international et pratique des Etats dans le droit de la mer', Recueil des cours, Vol. 223-IV, 1990, pp. 9-302.
8. See an essay adapted from the statements of Ambassador Tommy T.B. Koh of Singapore
9. UN doc. S/RES/1816, of 2 June 2008. See D. Guilfoyle, 'Piracy off Somalia: UN Security Council Resolution 1816 and IMO Regional Counter-piracy Efforts', ICLQ, Vol. 57, 2008, pp. 690-699
10. T. Treves, 'Piracy, Law of the Sea, and Use of Force: Developments off the Coast of Somalia', European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, 2009, pp. 399-414.
11. UN doc. S/PV.5902, of 2 June 2008, p. 2.
12. T. Treves, 'The General Assembly and the Meeting of States Parties in the Implementation of the LOS Convention', in A.G. Oude Elferink (ed.), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), pp. 55-74.
13. Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, UN doc. A/RES.48/263
14. text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, pp. 1,311ff
15. . Agreement was opened for signature on 28 July 1994; entered into force on 28 July 1996. As of 8 June 2009, there were 136 parties.
16. On the work of the Commission, see Jares, chapter 25 in this book. For a list of submissions made as of 8 June 2009, see Tables 23.1 and 23.2 in this book.
17. On issues related to the Arctic continental shelves, see McDorman, chapter 27, and Jensen, chapter 28 in this book
18. T. Treves, 'La participation de l' "Organisation internationale compétente" aux décisions de l'Etat côtier dans le nouveau droit de la mer', in Le droit international à l'heure de sa codification. Etudes en l'honneur de Roberto Ago, Vol. 2 (Milano: Giuffré, 1987), pp. 473-490
19. T. Treves, 'The Role of Universal International Organizations in Implementing the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention', in A.H.A. Soons (ed.), Implementation of the Law of the Sea Convention Through International Institutions. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute (Honolulu: The Law of the Sea Institute, University of Hawaii, 1990), pp. 14-37.
20. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions 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, UN doc. A/CONF.164/37; text in UNTS, Vol. 2167, pp. 3ff
21. . The Agreement was opened for signature on 4 December 1995 and entered in force on 11 December 2001. As of 8 June 2009, there were 75 parties.
22. International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (Nairobi, 18 May 2007), text in IMO doc. LEG/CONF.16/19, of 23 May 2007
23. . Text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 46, 2007, pp. 697ff.
24. T. Treves, 'Dispute-Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Disorder or System?', in M. Kohen (ed.), Promoting Justice, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution through International Law/ La promotion de la justice, des droits de l'homme et du règlement des conflits par le droit international. Liber Amicorum Lucius Caflisch (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 927-949.
25. B.H. Oxman, 'Tools for Change: the Amendment Procedure', in Proceedings of the Twentieth Anniversary Commemoration of the Opening for Signature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations, 2003), pp. 194-207
26. D. Freestone and A.G. Oude Elferink, 'Flexibility and Innovation in the Law of the Sea: Will the LOS Convention Amendment Procedures ever be Used?', in Oude Elferink (ed.), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea, pp. 169-221.
27. The time-limit for submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which Article 4 of Annex II to the LOS Convention sets as 10 years after entry into force of the Convention for the submitting state, was modified in 2001 by a consensus decision of the Meeting of the States Parties as 'having commenced on 13 May 1999' for states for which the Convention had entered into force before that date (UN doc. SPLOS/72 of 29 May 2001). It is remarkable that in 2008 the Meeting of States Parties decided not to adopt a further postponement in order to meet the request of states that are just at the beginning of the preparation of their submissions. It decided that the requirements to be satisfied within the 2009 time-limit established in 2001 could consist in the submission of 'preliminary information indicative of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and a description of the status of preparation and intended date of making a submission in accordance with the requirements of Art. 76 of the Convention and the Rules of Procedure and Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission' (UN doc. SPLOS/184). It seems clear that the Meeting of the States Parties has thereby, although in a different way, again amended the LOS Convention. While the 2008 decision may make the necessity of further amendments concerning the same question less likely, it would seem that it has not contributed to the orderly processing of submissions. See further Vidas, chapter 23 in this book.
28. Compare the tables listing parties to the LOS Convention and to the 1994 Implementing Agreement at .
29. Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (Paris, 2 November 2001; entered into force 2 January 2009)
30. text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 41, 2002, pp. 40ff.
31. Convention on Biological Diversity, text in UNTS, Vol. 1760, pp. 79ff; text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 818ff
32. . Convention was opened for signature on 5 June 1992; entered into force on 29 December 1993. As of 8 June 2009, there were 191 parties.
33. On marine genetic resources, see Part IV in this book
34. See UN doc. A/RES/62/215, of 14 March 2008.
35. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Rome: FAO, 1995)
36. B.H. Oxman, 'The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea', AJIL, Vol. 100, 2006, pp. 830-851, at p. 847.
37. T. Treves, 'The European Community and the European Union and the Law of the Sea: Recent Developments', Indian Journal of International Law, UN doc. A/58/65, para. 57. See Vol. 48, 2008, pp. 1-20, at p. 8.
38. Further on IUU fishing, see Part II in this book
39. See further Lobach, chapter 6 in this book
40. See further Doulman, chapter 7 in this book
41. See the summary of the discussion in the Report on the work of the United Nations Openended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea at its Eighth Meeting, UN doc. A/62/169 (2007), especially paras. 71-80.
42. Further on this issue, see Part IV in this book
43. New Zealand v. Japan, Australia v. Japan, 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280.
44. Ireland v. United Kingdom, 2 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95
45. Malaysia v. Singapore, 8 October 2003, ITLOS Reports 2003, p. 10.
46. See the Order of the Tribunal of 11 December 2008, setting out the latest postponement; available at the Tribunal website .
47. See further discussion by Lobach, chapter 6 in this book
48. B.H. Oxman, 'Human Right and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea', in J.I. Charney, D.K. Anton and M.E. O'Connell (eds), Politics, Values and Functions: International Law in the 21st Century, Essays in Honor of Professor Louis Henkin (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1997), pp. 377-404.
49. B. Vukas, 'Droit de la mer et droits de l'homme', in B. Vukas, The Law of the Sea: Selected Writings (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), pp. 71-79
50. Medveyev v. France, judgment of the 5th Chamber, 11 July 2008
51. see website of the European Court of Human Rights, at .
52. T. Treves, 'Fragmentation of International Law: the Judicial Perspective', Comunicazioni e Studi, Vol. 23, 2007, pp. 821-875.
53. T. Treves, 'Fragmentation of International Law', pp. 848-849.