Public trusteeship for the oceans

Law of the Sea, Environmental law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 521-544

  Sand, Peter H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882619222     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004161566.i-1188     Document Type: Chapter

References (281)

1. For background, see J.L. Sax, "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law: Effective Judicial Intervention", Mich. L. Rev. 68 (1969-1970), 471 et seq..
2. and the Symposium on "Takings, Public Trust, Unhappy Truths, and Helpless Giants: A Review of Professor Sax's Defense of the Environment Through Academic Scholarship", Ecology L. Q. 25 (1998-1999), 325 et seq.
3. For a comparative overview see P.H. Sand, "Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources?", Global Envtl. Pol. 4 (2004), et seq.
4. Mehta v. Kamal Nath et al., Supreme Court of India, decision of 13 December 1996, [1997] 1 SCC 388; reprinted in: United Nations Environment Programme, Compendium of Judicial Decisions on Matters Related to Environment: National Decisions 1 (Nairobi: UNEP 1998), 259 et seq.
5. and followed by subsequent Supreme Court cases. See M.R. Anderson, "International Environmental Law in Indian Courts", RECIEL 7 (1998), 21 et seq., at 29.
6. and J. Razzaque, "Application of Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Cases", J. Envtl. L. 13 (2001), 221 et seq.
7. See notes 12-14 and 34-40 below, and R.D. Eckert, The Enclosure of Ocean Resources: Economics and the Law of the Sea (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press 1979).
8. L.M. Alexander, "The Ocean Enclosure Movement: Inventory and Prospect", San Diego L. Rev. (1983), 561 et seq.
9. and W.S. Ball, "The Old Grey Mare: National Enclosure of the Oceans", Ocean Dev. & Int'l L. 27 (1996), 97 et seq.
10. On parallels to the enclosure of global genetic resource commons, see C.B. Thomson, "International Law of the Sea/Seed: Public Domain versus Private Commodity", Nat. Resources J. 44 (2004), 841 et seq.
11. T.A. Mensah, "The IMCO Experience", in: J.L. Hargrove (ed.), Law, Institutions, and the Global Environment (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana 1972), 237 et seq., at 250. On recent developments, see notes 41-51 below.
12. See H. Motulsky, "De l'impossibilite juridique de constituer un 'trust' anglosaxon sous l'empire de la loi francaise", RCDIP 37 (1948), 467 et seq., and the decision of the German Federal Supreme Court of 13 June 1984 according to which the legal concept of the common law trust is "incompatible with the doctrinal basis of German law"; BGH/IVaZR/196/82, NJW (1984), 2762 et seq.
13. But see also, for more recent developments, R.H. Helmholz and R. Zimmermann (eds), Itinera Fiduciae: Trust and Treuhand in Historical Perspective (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1998).
14. H. Hansmann and U. Mattei, "The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis", N.Y.U. L. Rev. 73 (1998), 434 et seq.
15. Most famous is the mistranslation of Woodrow Wilson's term, "sacred trust of civilization", in article 22 of the 1919 League of Nations Covenant and article 73 of the 1945 United Nations Charter, which had no equivalent in French and therefore was rendered as "mission sacree", thereby shifting the legal metaphor from trusteeship to mandate/agency ("heilige Aufgabe" in the German version of the Covenant, "Auftrag" in the Charter)
16. see R. Jacobs, Mandat und Treuhand im Volkerrecht (Gottingen: Universitats-Verlag 2004), at and 111 et seq.; and N. Matz, "Civilization and the Mandate System Under the League of Nations as Origins of Trusteeship", Max Planck UNYB 9 (2005), 47 et seq., at 50 and (considering Wilson's term to be "without specific legal or even political meaning", though possibly analogous to tutelage or guardianship). See also notes 54-55 and 87 below.
17. H.A. Schwarz-Liebermann von Wahlendorf, Vormundschaft und Treuhand des romischen und englischen Privatrechts in ihrer Anwendbarkeit auf volkerrechtlicher Ebene (Tubingen: Mohr 1951).
18. and M. Bothe, "Whose Environment? Concepts of Commonality in International Environmental Law", in: G. Winter (ed.), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change: Perspectives from Science, Sociology and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006), 539 et seq., at 551 and 558.
19. For an historical account, see M. Selvin, This Tender and Delicate Business: The Public Trust Doctrine in American Law and Economic Policy 1789-1920 (New York: Garland 1987)
20. see also B.S. Cohen, "The Constitution, the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Environment", Utah L. Rev. [1970], 388 et seq.
21. P. Deveney, "Title, Ius Publicum, and the Public Trust: An Historical Analysis", Sea Grant L. J. 1 (1976), 13 et seq.
22. L.H. Kosloff, "Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi [48 U.S. 469]: Is the Public Trust Becoming Synonymous with the Public Interest?", Envtl. L. Rep. 18 (1988), 10200 et seq.
23. A. Rieser, "Ecological Preservation as a Public Property Right: An Emerging Doctrine in Search of a Theory", Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 15 (1991), 393 et seq.
24. R.G. Natelson, "The Constitution and the Public Trust", Buff. L. Rev. 52 (2004), 1077 et seq.
25. See A. Kanner, "The Public Trust Doctrine, 'Parens Patriae', and the Attorney General as the Guardian of the State's Natural Resources", Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 16 (2005), 57 et seq.
26. See J.L. Sax, "Environmental Citizen Suits: Three Years' Experience Under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act", Ecology L. Q. 4 (1974), 1 et seq.
27. D.K. Stone, "The Michigan Environmental Protection Act: Bringing Citizen-Initiated Environmental Suits into the 80's", Ecology L. Q. 12 (1985), 271 et seq.
28. B.B. Bayer and E.E. Meidinger, "Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement: A Preliminary Assessment of Citizen Suits Under Federal Environmental Laws", Buff. L. Rev. 35 (1985), 864 et seq.
29. D.P. Gionfriddo, "Sealing Pandora's Box: Judicial Doctrines Restricting Public Trust Citizen Environmental Suits", B. C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. (1986), 439 et seq.
30. B. Breen, "Citizen Suits for Natural Resource Damages: Closing a Gap in Federal Environmental Law", Wake Forest L. Rev. 24 (1989), 851 et seq.
31. According to the late Ralph Johnson, it may go back even further: "On the third day, God created the oceans; and of course with the creation of the oceans, he must have created the public trust doctrine to protect the oceans"
32. R.W. Johnson, "The Public Trust Doctrine", in: D.J. Canning and J. Scott (eds), The Public Trust Doctrine in Washington State: Proceedings of the Symposium, November 18, 1992 (Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology 1993).
33. "By the law of nature, these things are common to mankind: the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and buildings, which are not, like the sea, subject [only] to the law of nations." Institutes II.1.1 (de rerum divisione); English translation by T.C. Sandars, The Institutes of Justinian (London: Longmans Green, 4th edn 1903), at 90.
34. For translation of the related texts by Ulpian (Digest XLVII.10.13.7) and his contemporary Aelius Marcianus (Digest I.8.2).
35. see C.H. Monro, The Digest of Justinian 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1904), at 39-40.
36. See also P.T. Fenn Jr., "Justinian and the Freedom of the Sea", AJIL 19 (1925), 716 et seq., at 724 (coasts as "sacred trust of civilization", drawing an analogy to article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, note 6 above).
37. Ward v. Creswell, 125 Eng. Rep. 1165 (C.P. 1741); Gann v. Free Fishers of Whitstable, 11 Eng. Rep. 1305 (H.L. 1865)
38. and the earlier treatise by Lord Chief Justice Matthew Hale, De jure maris et brachiorum ejusdem (1667), reprinted in: R.G. Hall, Essay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm (London: Stevens & Haynes, 2nd edn 1875), Appendix V. On more recent UK practice
39. see J. Gibson, "The Ownership of the Sea Bed Under British Territorial Waters", Int'l Rel. 6 (1978), 474 et seq.
40. Note, however, that the term "public trust" in English legal usage today refers to a different category of (statutory) financial trusteeship; see J. Barratt, "Public Trusts", Mod. L. Rev. 69 (2006), 514 et seq.
41. Martin v. Lessee of Waddell, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 367 (1842), at 410-411 ("dominion and property in navigable waters, and in the lands under them, [were] held by the king as public trust"), reprinted in: D.W. Nixon, Marine and Coastal Law: Cases and Materials (Westport, Conn.: Praeger 1994), at 1 et seq.
42. and Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), at 228-229 (public trust concept extended to all US States, pursuant to the "equal-footing" doctrine).
43. See H.C. Dunning, "The Public Trust: A Fundamental Doctrine of American Property Law", Envtl. L. 19 (1989), 515 et seq.
44. Submerged Lands Act of 22 May 1953, Public Law 83-31, 67 Stat. 29 (1953, as amended 1986).
45. M.T. Kirsch, "Upholding the Public Trust in State Constitutions", Duke L. J. 46 (1997), 1169 et seq. E.g.
46. see the constitutions of Florida (art. X § 11: "lands under navigable waters . . . held in trust for all the people"); Pennsylvania (art. I §27: "Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come.
47. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people"); and Hawaii (art. XI §1: "all public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the People", which according to arts XI §6 and XV includes the "archipelagic waters of the state", and according to art. XI §11 as amended in 1988, an "exclusive economic zone"), as implemented by the Supreme Court of Hawaii in its decision of 22 August 2000, In re Water Use Permit Applications for the Waiahole Ditch, 9 Pacific Rep. 3rd 409 (2000), and 93 Pacific Rep. 3rd 643 (2004)
48. see also note 49 below. Presidential Proclamation 5928 of 27 December 1988, 54 Fed. Reg. 777: "Nothing in this Proclamation extends or otherwise alters existing Federal or State law or any jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations derived therefrom."
49. See J.L. Jacobson, "U.S. Coastal States and the International Law of the Sea", Ocean Dev. & Int'l L. 24 (1993), 393 et seq.
50. Presidential Proclamation 7219 of 2 September 1999, 64 Fed. Reg. 48701: "Nothing in this Proclamation (a) amends existing Federal or State law; (b) amends or otherwise alters the rights and duties of the United States or other nations in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States established by Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983; or (c) impairs the determination, in accordance with international law, of any maritime boundary of the United States with a foreign jurisdiction." - International aspects of underwater cultural heritage have since been addressed by the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at Paris on 2 November 2001 [not signed by the United States]
51. see R. Garabello and T. Scovazzi (eds), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Before and After the 2001 UNESCO Convention (Leiden: Nijhoff 2003)
52. R.C. Blumberg, "International Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage", in: M.H. Nordquist et al. (eds), Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea and China (Leiden: Nijhoff 2006); and the contribution by Djamchid Momtaz in this volume.
53. Executive Order 13158 of 26 May 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 34909
54. see D.R. Christie, "Marine Reserves, the Public Trust Doctrine and Intergenerational Equity", J. Land Use & Envtl. L. (2004), 427 et seq.
55. K.D. Bevis, "Stopping the Silver Bullet: How Recreational Fishermen Can Use the Public Trust Doctrine to Prevent the Creation of Marine Reserves", Se. Envtl. L. J. 13 (2005), 171 et seq.
56. On past and present conflicts with private ocean uses (differently resolved for living and non-living resources), see the Note, "The Public Trust in Tidal Areas: A Sometimes Submerged Traditional Doctrine", Yale L. J. 79 (1970), 762 et seq.
57. T.W. Earnhardt, "Defining Navigable Waters and the Application of the Public Trust Doctrine in North Carolina: A History and Analysis", N.C. L. Rev. 49 (1971), 888 et seq.
58. B.W. Wyche, "Tidelands and the Public Trust: An Application for South Carolina", Ecology L. Q. 7 (1978), 137 et seq.
59. S. Wilson, "Private Property and the Public Trust: A Theory for Preserving the Coastal Zone", UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 4 (1984), 57 et seq.
60. R.W. Johnson et al., "The Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Zone Management in Washington State", Wash. L. Rev. 67 (1992), 521 et seq.
61. S. Macinko, "Public or Private? United States Commercial Fisheries Management and the Public Trust Doctrine: Reciprocal Challenges", Natural Resources Journal 33 (1993), 919 et seq.
62. D.F. Britton, "The Privatization of the American Fishery: Limitations, Recognitions, and the Public Trust", Ocean & Coastal L. J. 3 (1997), 217 et seq.
63. B.J. McCay, Oyster Wars and the Public Trust: Property, Law and Ecology in New Jersey History (Tucson: University of Arizona Press 1998)
64. S. Macinko and D.W. Bromley, Who Owns America's Fisheries? (Covelo, CA: Island Press 2002); D. Mongeau, "Public Beach Access: An Annotated Bibliography", Law Libr. J. 95 (2003), 515 et seq., at 536
65. D. Mongeau, "Public Beach Access: An Annotated Bibliography", Law Libr. J. 95 (2003), 515 et seq., at 536
66. J. Firestone et al., "Regulating Offshore Wind Power and Aquaculture: Messages from Land and Sea", Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 14 (2004), 71 et seq., at 105
67. R. George, "The 'Public Access' Doctrine: Our Constitutional Right to Sun, Surf, and Sand", Ocean & Coastal L. J. 11 (2005), 73 et seq.
68. M. Higgins, "Public Access to the Shore: Public Rights and Private Property", in: D.M. Whitelaw and G.R. Visgilio (eds), America's Changing Coasts: Private Rights and Public Trust (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2005), 183 et seq.
69. and J.C. Sylvan, "How to Protect a Coral Reef: The Public Trust Doctrine and the Law of the Sea", Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y (2006), 32 et seq.
70. For detailed discussion see D.C. Slade et al. (eds), Putting the Public Trust to Work: The Application of the Public Trust Doctrine to the Management of Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the Coastal States (Washington, DC: Coastal States Association, 2nd edn 1997).
71. Originally created in 1855; Florida Statutes, Ch. 253 (State Lands), and note 16 above. - National funds for public allocation of offshore oil revenues have been established in Norway (Special Petroleum Fund, 1990), and proposed for Nigeria; see E. Duruigbo, "Managing Oil Revenues for Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria: The Case for Community-Based Trust Funds", N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 30 (2004), 121 et seq., at 191
72. further examples in I. Bantekas, "Natural Resource Revenue Sharing Schemes (Trust Funds) in International Law", NILR 52 (2005), 31 et seq.
73. E.g., in the emerging Northeast Regional Ocean Council (comprised of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont)
74. see K.M. Fletcher, "Regional Ocean Governance: The Role of the Public Trust Doctrine", Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F. 16 (2006), et seq.
75. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Public Law 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280 (1972, as amended through 2004)
76. see J.J. Kalo et al., Coastal and Ocean Law: Cases and Materials (St Paul, MN: West Group, 2nd edn 2002).
77. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments (OCSLAA), Public Law 95-372, 92 Stat. (1978).
78. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980).
79. Oil Pollution Act, Public Law 101-380, 104 Stat. 486 (1990).
80. Established by President Reagan's Proclamation 5030 of 10 March 1983, 48 Fed. Reg. 10605, 22 ILM 465
81. see M.C. Jarman, "The Public Trust Doctrine in the Exclusive Economic Zone", Or. L. Rev. 65 (1986), 1 et seq.
82. J.H. Archer and M.C. Jarman, "Sovereign Rights and Responsibilities: Applying Public Trust Principles for the Management of EEZ Space and Resources", Ocean & Coastal Mgmt. 17 (1992), 253 et seq.
83. R.G. Hildreth, "The Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal and Ocean Resources Management", J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 8 (1993),
84. J.H. Archer et al., The Public Trust Doctrine and the Management of America's Coasts (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press 1994)
85. and G. Osherenko, "New Discourses on Ocean Governance: Understanding Property Rights and the Public Trust", J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 21 (2006), 317 et seq., at 366.
86. "Trusteeship zone" in articles 26-28 of the Draft United Nations Convention on the International Seabed Area: Working Paper submitted by the US Delegation to the UN Seabed Committee (23 May 1970), Official Records of the UN General Assembly, 25th Session: Supplement 21, UN Doc. A/8021, Annex V; reprinted in: The Law of the Sea: Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind, Legislative History of Articles 133 to 150 and 311(6) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations 1996), at 150.
87. See also M.G. Schmidt, Common Heritage or Common Burden? The United States Position on the Development of a Regime for Deep Sea-Bed Mining in the Law of the Sea Convention (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1989), at 27
88. and R. Wolfrum, Die Internationalisierung staatsfreier Raume: die Entwicklung einer internationalen Verwaltung fur Antarktis, Weltraum, Hohe See und Meeresboden (Berlin: Springer 1984),at 364.
89. See B.D. Smith, State Responsibility and the Marine Environment: The Rules of Decision (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1988), at 239-249
90. viz., "democratic accountability" in the terms of C. Redgwell, Intergenerational Trusts and Environmental Protection (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1999), at 68.
91. See also P. Allott, Towards the International Rule of Law: Essays in Integrated Constitutional Theory (London: Cameron May 2005), at 378 (accountability for mare nostrum). - There is no reason why a national trust for EEZ ocean resources should not, by its own choice, have global beneficiaries (I owe this clarification to David Caron).
92. Great Britain v. United States, Arbitration Award (Paris, 15 August 1893)
93. J.B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office 1898), 755 et seq.
94. US government statement, in Moore (note 32 above), at 813-814, 852-854 and 875-876. The arbitral tribunal - chaired by French Ambassador Alphonse de Courcel - rejected the claim, with the US arbitrators (Supreme Court Justice John M. Harlan and Senator John T. Morgan) dissenting
95. see C.P.R. Romano, The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: A Pragmatic Approach (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2000), 133 et seq., at 141.
96. For a comparison of John Selden's Mare clausum seu de dominio maris (London: Meighen 1635; English translation by M. Nedham, Of the Dominion, or, Ownership of the Sea, London: DuGard 1652, reprint Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange 2004) and 20th-century claims of marine territory
97. see J. Schneider, "Something Old, Something New: Some Thoughts on Grotius and the Marine Environment", Va. J. Int'l L. 18 (1977), 147 et seq., at 150.
98. See also D.D. Caron, "International Sanctions, Ocean Management and the Law of the Sea: A Study of Denial of Access to Fishing", Ecology L. Q. 16 (1989), 311 et seq., at 351; and Osherenko (note 29 above), at 16.
99. Dissent by US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947), at 44: "Rights of ownership are here asserted - and rights of ownership are something else".
100. Dissent by US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272 (1954), at 279: "Once private property rights in ocean waters are recognized, I am uncertain where lines can be drawn".
101. See note 3 above, and P.H. Sand, "Green Enclosure of Ocean Space: Deja Vu?", Marine Pollution Bull. 54 (2007), 374 et seq.
102. K. Booth, "Naval Strategy and the Spread of Psycho-Legal Boundaries at Sea", Int'l J. (1983), 373 et seq., at 375.
103. P.E. Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2001), at 169.
104. See also W. Graf Vitzthum, "Terranisierung des Meeres: die Tendenz zu einem rohstoffbezogenen Seerecht", EA 31 (1976), 129 et seq.
105. J.A. Knauss, "Creeping Jurisdiction and Customary International Law", Ocean Dev. & Int'l L. 15 (1985), 209 et seq.
106. E. Franckx, "The 200-Mile Limit: Between Creeping Jurisdiction and Creeping Common Heritage?", GYIL 48 (2005), 117 et seq.
107. and B.H. Oxman, "The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea", AJIL 100 (2006), 830 et seq.
108. On the first wave of creeping environmental enclosure (Canada's Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act of 1970), see note 55 below.
109. J. Boyle, "The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain", Law & Contemp. Probs. 66 (2003), 33 et seq., at 50
110. see also H.N. Scheiber and C.J. Carr, "From Extended Jurisdiction to Privatization: International Law, Biology, and Economics in the Marine Fisheries Debate", Berkeley J. Int'l L. 16 (1998), 54 et seq.
111. R. Hannesson, The Privatization of the Oceans (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2004)
112. and K.M. Wyman, "From Fur to Fish: Reconsidering the Evolution of Private Property", N.Y.U. L. Rev. 80 (2005)
113. Offshore leases granted under the US Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, Public Law 83-212, 67 Stat. 462) have long been recognised as creating "vested rights" for private investors
114. e.g., see Union Oil Co. of California v. Morton, 512 F. 2d 743 (9th Cir. 1975), at 747; Osherenko (note 29 above), at 50.
115. Both the National Trust in the United Kingdom and the Nature Conservancy in the United States have begun to purchase or lease large intertidal and seabed areas from the government in order to preserve them from commercial exploitation (by analogy to the "land trust movement" dating back to 1894)
116. see M.W. Beck et al., "New Tools for Marine Conservation: The Leasing and Ownership of Submerged Lands", Conservation Biology 18 (2004), 1214 et seq.
117. M.W. Beck et al. (eds), Towards Conservation of Submerged Lands: The Law and Policy of Conservation Leasing and Ownership (Narraganset, RI: Rhode Island Sea Grant 2005)
118. J.D. Echeverria, "Regulating versus Buying the Coast", in: Whitelaw and Visgilio (note 20 above), 29 et seq.
119. Zone de protection ecologique, Act No. 2003-346 of 15 April 2003, implemented by Decree No. 2004-33 of 8 January 2004
120. J.O. (16 April 2003), 6726, and (10 January 2004), 844.
121. See L. Lucchini, "La zone de protection ecologique francaise et son application en Mediterranee: quelques breves observations", An. Dr. Mer 8 (2003), 433 et seq.
122. S. Marciali, "Instauration d'une zone de protection ecologique en Mediterranee", RGDIP 107 (2003),
123. C. Deffigier, "La zone de protection ecologique en Mediterranee, un outil efficace de lutte contre la pollution par les navires?", RJE 28 (2004), 129 et seq. and 257 et seq.
124. J. Saura, Specially Protected Areas in the Mediterranean: Recent Trends in State Practice, Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2005-20 (Los Angeles, CA: Loyola Law School 2005)
125. and S. Wolf, "Neue Tendenzen zur Ausdehnung kustenstaatlicher Umweltkompetenzen auf See: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der franzosischen 'zone de protection ecologique' im Mittelmeer", ZaoRV 66 (2006), 73 et seq. - Delimitation of the zone is still subject to bilateral negotiations.
126. Notified to the United Nations on 21 February 2006, English text in Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 60 (2006), 56.
127. For background see D. Arnaut, "Stormy Waters on the Way to the High Seas: The Case of the Territorial Sea Delimitation Between Croatia and Slovenia", Ocean & Coastal L. J. 8 (2002), 21 et seq.
128. reprinted in D.D. Caron and H.N. Scheiber (eds), Bringing New Law to Ocean Waters (Leyden: Nijhoff 2004), 427 et seq.
129. Croatia has requested international arbitration on the question of geographical delimitation; see Note Verbale of 11 January 2005, Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 57 (2005), 125 et seq., at 127.
130. Act No. 61 of 8 February 2006, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No. 52 (3 March 2006), Riv. Dir. Int. 89 (2006), 606
131. referring to the LOS Convention, the 1994 Implementation Agreement, and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (see note 18 above), though excluding application to fisheries activities.
132. For background see G. Cataldi, "L'Italia e la delimitazione degli spazi marini: osservazioni sulla prassi recente di estensione della giurisdizione costiera nel Mediterraneo", Riv. Dir. Int. 87 (2004), 621 et seq.
133. and U. Leanza, "L'Italia e la scelta di rafforzare la tutela dell'ambiente marino: l'istituzione di zone di protezione ecologica", Riv. Dir. Int. 89 (2006), 309 et seq.
134. See Malta Department of Information, "Malta's Contribution Towards the Commission's Green Paper on EU Maritime Policy", Press Release 0181A (8 February 2006).
135. But see the caveat by A.E. Boyle, "EU Unilateralism and the Law of the Sea", Int'l J. Marine & Coastal L. 21 (2006), 15 et seq., at 30.
136. Proclamation and geographical boundaries notified to the United Nations on 12 March 2004, text in Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 54 (2004), 99.
137. According to the ministerial statement in 659 Lords Hansard for 31 March 2004 (240331-30), the designation of the area was made "under Article 75 of UNCLOS" (i.e., as an EEZ).
138. See also C. Sheppard and M. Spalding, Chagos Conservation Management Plan (London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2003)
139. and R. Edis, Peak of Limuria: The Story of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago (London: Chagos Conservation Trust, rev. edn. 2004). - UK sovereignty claims in the archipelago are contested by Mauritius
140. see A. Chellapermal, The Problem of Mauritius Sovereignty Over the Chagos Archipelago and the Militarization of the Indian Ocean (Perth: University of Western Australia Press 1984)
141. and A. Oraison, "Le contentieux territorial anglo-mauricien de l'archipel des Chagos revisite", R.D.I. 83 (2005), 109 et seq.
142. E.g., whereas the United Kingdom, in its instrument of accession to the of the LOS Convention, declared (on 25 July 1997) that the accession extends to the British Indian Ocean Territory, Mauritius in its instrument of ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict declared (on 22 September 2006) that the convention also extends to "the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia".
143. The Chagos archipelago includes Diego Garcia Island, which was made available to the US as a strategic airbase under a 50-years' lease agreement along the lines of the Guantanamo model, signed in London on 30 December 1966 (603 UNTS 273) and followed by eviction of the indigenous population to Mauritius in 1967-1973.
144. See K.S. Jawatkar, Diego Garcia in International Diplomacy (Bombay: Popular Prakashan 1983).
145. J. Larus, "Diego Garcia: The Military and Legal Limitations of America's Pivotal Base in the Indian Ocean", in: W.L. Dowdy and R.B. Trood (eds), The Indian Ocean: Perspectives on a Strategic Arena (Durham, NC: Duke University Press 1985), 435 et seq.
146. R.B. Rais, The Indian Ocean and the Superpowers: Economic, Political and Strategic Perspectives (Towota, NJ: Barnes & Noble 1987), 76 et seq.
147. A. Oraison, "Une base militaire americaine au coeur de l'ocean indien (la cession a bail strategique de l'archipel britannique des Chagos aus Etats-Unis et la militarisation progressive de l'atoll de Diego Garcia)", R.D.I. 80 (2002), 223 et seq.
148. R. O'Keefe, "Decisions of British Courts During 2003 Involving Questions of Public or Private International Law", BYIL 74 (2003), 461 et seq, at 486
149. and J. Pilger, Freedom Next Time (London: Bantam Press 2006), 19 et seq.
150. The Diego Garcia base ("Dodge City") has been crucial for air support in all US operations in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, especially in the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is also reported to have served as a detention camp for suspected terrorists (D. Norville, interview with retired US General Barry McCaffrey, MS/NBC-TV: 6 May 2004). On 4 July 2001, the UK Government had designated Diego Garcia as an internationally protected site under the 1971 Ramsar Convention (996 UNTS 245), though specifically exempting part of the area set aside for the US military facility.
151. see D. Taylor et al., Ramsar Sites: Directory and Overview (8th edn Wageningen: Wetlands International 2005), No. 1077 (2UK001). - On the interface of environmental and military claims to authority in the EEZ generally.
152. see J.M. Van Dyke, "The Disappearing Right to Navigational Freedom in the Exclusive Economic Zone", Marine Policy 29 (2005), 107 et seq.
153. M.J. Valencia and K. Akimoto, "Guidelines for Navigation and Overflight in the Exclusive Economic Zone", Marine Policy 30 (2006), 704 et seq., at
154. ("temporary" restrictions for environmental reasons); and the contribution by Sam Bateman in this volume.
155. Presidential Proclamation 8031 of 15 June 2006, 71 Fed. Reg. 36,441; taking up the substance of earlier draft legislation introduced in the US Congress by Rep. Ed Case (D-Hawaii) as H.R. 2376 on 16 May 2005. The original Hawaiian Islands Reservation had been established for bird conservation by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, subsequently expanded into a Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve by President Clinton under Executive Orders 13178 (4 December 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 76903) and 13196 (23 January 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 7395).
156. see M. Chapman, "The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve: Ephemeral Protection", Ecology L. Q. 29 (2000), 347 et seq..
157. and R.K. Craig, "Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii", McGeorge L. Rev. 34 (2003), 155 et seq.
158. On 29 September 2005, a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Refuge had been created by Governor Linda Lingle for all waters and subjacent lands under State jurisdiction (Hawaii Administrative Rules, title 13, ch. 60.5).
159. The 2006 Presidential Proclamation was made under the Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities of 8 June 1906 (Public Law 59-209, 34 Stat. 225), section 2 of which authorises the President - bypassing Congress - to restrict land use in areas designated as national monuments "situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States"
160. see R.K. Craig, "Are National Monuments Better Than National Marine Sanctuaries? U.S. Ocean Policy, Marine Protected Areas, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands", Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 7 (2006), 27 et seq.
161. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "President Sets Aside Largest Marine Conservation Area on Earth" (NOAA News Release, Washington, DC, 15 June 2006)
162. see also notes 16 and 48 above. All the islands are part of the State of Hawaii, except for the US federal territory of Midway Atoll; on the boundary question
163. see J.M. Van Dyke et al., "The Exclusive Economic Zone of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: When Do Uninhabited Islands Generate an EEZ?", San Diego L. Rev. 25 (1988), 425 et seq.
164. See Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), IMO Assembly Res. A.982(24) (1 December 2005)
165. R. Lagoni, "Marine Protected Areas in the Exclusive Economic Zone", in: A. Kirchner (ed.), International Marine Environmental Law: Institutions, Implementation and Innovations (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2003), 157 et seq.
166. J.P. Roberts, Marine Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation: The Application and Future Development of the IMO's Particularly Sensitive Area Concept (Berlin: Springer 2006)
167. and Y. Uggla, "Environmental Protection and the Freedom of the High Seas: The Baltic Sea as a PSSA from a Swedish Perspective", Marine Policy 31 (2007), 251 et seq.
168. Alternatively, the area could be designated as an international "marine protected area" (MPA) under article 211(6) of the LOS Convention; but that article has never been invoked in practice and is unlikely to be inaugurated by the United States.
169. Regarding the compatibility of environmental restrictions by coastal States with rights of passage under LOS Convention articles 58(1), 194(4), 211(5) and 220, see Wolfrum (note
170. above), at 640; Van Dyke (note 47 above); A. Merialdi, "Legal Restraints on Navigation in Marine Specially Protected Areas", in: T. Scovazzi (ed.), Marine Specially Protected Areas (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1999), 29 et seq., at 34
171. F. Spadi, "Navigation in Marine Protected Areas: National and International Law", Ocean Dev. & Int'l L. 31 (2000), 285 et seq.
172. R. Lagoni, "Die Errichtung von Schutzgebieten in der ausschliesslichen Wirtschaftszone aus volkerrechtlicher Sicht", Natur und Recht 24 (2002), 121 et seq.
173. H.D. Jarass, Naturschutz in der Ausschliesslichen Wirtschaftszone (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2002), at 39 et seq.; D. Czybulka, "Meeresschutzgebiete in der Ausschliesslichen Wirtschaftszone (AWZ)", ZfU 14 (2003), 329 et seq.
174. A. Proelss, "Ausschliessliche Wirtschaftszone (AWZ)", in: W. Graf Vitzthum (ed.), Handbuch des Seerechts (Munich: Beck 2006), 222 et seq., at 257
175. K. Castringius, Meeresschutzgebiete (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2006), at 127 et seq.
176. and the contribution by Martin Tsamenyi and Julian Roberts in this volume. For marine protection areas in EEZs in the Baltic and the Northeast Atlantic Sea in particular, see G. Janssen, Die rechtlichen Moglichkeiten der Einrichtung von Meeresschutzgebieten in der Ostsee (Baden-Baden: Nomos 2002), at 68 et seq.
177. and A. Proelss, Meeresschutz im Volker- und Europarecht: Das Beispiel des Nordostatlantiks (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2004), at 93 et seq.
178. Transcript of White House proclamation ceremony, 15 June 2006 (see note 49 above).
179. See N.A. Robinson, "Stewardship and This New Journal", Earth L. J. 1 (1975), 3 et seq.
180. A.V. Lowe, "Reflections on the Waters: Changing Conceptions of Property Rights in the Law of the Sea", Int'l J. Estuarine & Coastal L. 1 (1986), 1 et seq.
181. T.P. Brady, "'But Most of It Belongs to Those Yet To Be Born': The Public Trust Doctrine, NEPA, and the Stewardship Ethic", B. C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 17 (1990), 621 et seq.
182. W.M. von Zharen, "Ocean Ecosystem Stewardship", Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 23 (1998), 1 et seq.
183. J.L. Brown, "Stewardship: An International Perspective", Environments: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies (1998), 8 et seq.
184. P.E. Steinberg, "Lines of Division, Lines of Connection: Stewardship in the World Ocean", Geographical Review 89 (1999), 254 et seq.
185. J.E. Moore, The Public Trust Doctrine and Environmental Stewardship in Coastal New Hampshire (Cambridge, MA: PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2000)
186. G. Chao, "Moving from International 'Good Steward' to Domestic Integrated Manager: Challenges of Importing Principles of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management into Canada's Ocean Law", Ocean Yearbook 16 (2002), 421 et seq.
187. the UK Government's "Marine Stewardship Report" (Safeguarding Our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of Our Marine Environment, London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2002)
188. D. Fuchs, An Institutional Basis for Environmental Stewardship: The Structure and Quality of Property Rights (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003).
189. E.g., see Sandars (note 12 above), at 159 (seashores "subject to the guardianship of the Roman people")
190. R. Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1922, rev. edn 1954), at 111 (State management of common natural resources as "a sort of guardianship for social purposes").
191. See also the analogy between natural resource trusteeship and guardianship ad litem drawn by E. Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity (Tokyo: United Nations University Press 1989), at 123
192. Kanner (note 9 above); and the definition of the role of coastal States in the EEZ as "caretakers of marine ecosystems", by A.H. Hoel et al., "Ocean Governance and Institutional Change", in: S.A. Ebbin et al. (eds.), A Sea Change: The Exclusive Economic Zone and Governance Institutions for Living Marine Resources (Dordrecht: Springer 2005), 3 et seq., at 12.
193. According to the report of the Pew Ocean Commission, America's Living Oceans: Charting the Course for Sea Change (Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trust 2003), "the public has entrusted the government with the stewardship of our oceans, and the government should exercise environmental and economic control over these with a broad sense of responsibility toward all citizens and their long-term interests" (chapter titled Uphold the Public Trust, at 10).
194. See also J.M. Van Dyke, "The Role of a Constitution for the U.S. Ocean", Ocean & Coastal Mgmt. 17 (1992), 273 et seq., at 289.
195. On the need for comprehensive "ocean zoning" - instead of fragmented spatial governance for different marine areas
196. see Y. Tanaka, "Zonal and Integrated Management Approaches to Ocean Governance: Reflections on a Dual Approach in International Law of the Sea", Int'l J. Marine & Coastal L. 19 (2004), 483 et seq., at 506
197. Osherenko (note above), at 71; and L.B. Crowder et al., "Sustainability: Resolving Mismatches in U.S. Ocean Governance", Science 313:5787 (4 August 2006), 617 et seq.
198. Article 133 et seq. of the LOS Convention, adopted at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982 (1833 UNTS 397), entered into force on 16 November 1994, ratified by 154 countries [not including the United States] and the European Union; as implemented by the Agreement on Part XI adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 48/263 on 28 July 1994, entered into force on 28 July 1996, ratified by 128 countries and the European Union [with provisional participation by the United States].
199. LOS Convention Article 82, designating least-developed and land-locked countries among the global beneficiaries of the trust; see A.E. Chircop, "Operationalizing Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A New Role for the International Seabed Authority?", Ocean Yearbook 18 (2004), 395 et seq.
200. A.C. Kiss, "La notion de patrimoine commun de l'humanite", RdC 175 (1982), 109 et seq., at 224.
201. P.W. Birnie and A.E. Boyle, International Law and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn 2002), at 144
202. see also A.E. Boyle, "Remedying Harm to International Common Spaces and Resources: Compensation and Other Approaches", in: Wetterstein (note 28 above), 83 et seq., at 84 (common heritage "as a form of international trusteeship"); and the contribution by Andree Kirchner in this volume.
203. IWCO, The Ocean: Our Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998), at 17 and
204. et seq.; see also the Commission's 1998 Lisbon Declaration, RECIEL 8 (1999), 84 et seq.
205. J.M. Van Dyke, "International Governance and Stewardship of the High Seas and Its Resources", in: J.M. Van Dyke et al. (eds), Freedom for the Seas in the 21st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony (Washington, DC: Island Press 1993), 13 et seq., at 19 ("guided by principles developed to protect the 'public trust' interest in the waters of the United States") and 478 (editors' perspectives: "the public trust doctrine should govern decisions").
206. See also M. Gorina-Ysern, "World Ocean Public Trust: High Seas Fisheries after Grotius - Towards a New Ocean Ethos?", Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 34 (2004),
207. and M. Gorina-Ysern et al., "Ocean Governance: A New Ethos Through a World Ocean Public Trust", in: L.K. Glover and S.A. Earle (eds), Defying Ocean's End: an Agenda for Action (Washington, DC: Island Press 2004), 197 et seq.
208. K. Suter, Antarctica: Private Property or Public Heritage? (London: Pluto Press 1991), at et seq.
209. H. Cleveland, "The Global Commons: A Global Commons Trusteeship Commission Is Needed to Guide Our Use of the Oceans, Antarctica, the Atmosphere, and Outer Space", The Futurist (May-June 1993), 9 et seq.
210. see also T. Iwama, "Emerging Principles and Rules for the Prevention and Mitigation of Environmental Harm", in: E. Brown Weiss (ed.), Environmental Change and International Law: New Challenges and Dimensions (Tokyo: United Nations University Press 1992), 107 et seq., at 115.
211. Report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly, Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, UN Doc. A/51/950 (14 July 1997)
212. see also the Note by the Secretary-General on United Nations Reform Measures and Proposals: A New Concept of Trusteeship, UN Doc. A/52/849 (31 March 1998)
213. and C. Redgwell, "Reforming the United Nations Trusteeship Council", in: W.B. Chambers and J.F. Green (eds), Reforming International Environmental Governance: From Institutional Limits to Innovative Reforms (Tokyo: United Nations University Press 2005), 178 et seq.
214. That proposal - based on earlier suggestions by Maurice Strong in 1988, Maltese Foreign Minister Guido de Marco in 1991, and the Commission on Global Governance in 1995 (see Sand, note 1 above, at 53) - appears to have been superseded, however, by UN General Assembly Resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005 ("2005 World Summit Outcome") winding up the Trusteeship Council.
215. E.g., see V.P. Nanda and W.K. Ris Jr., "The Public Trust Doctrine: A Viable Approach to International Environmental Protection", Ecology L. Q. 5 (1976), 291 et seq.; Kiss (note above), at 128 et seq.
216. R.D. Munro and J.G. Lammers (eds), Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development: Legal Principles and Recommendations (Dordrecht: Nijhoff 1987), at 43
217. M.J. Glennon, "Has International Law Failed the Elephant?", AJIL 84 (1990), 1 et seq., at 28-34
218. D. Zaelke and J. Cameron, "Global Warming and Climate Change: An Overview of the International Legal Process", Am. U. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 5 (1990), 249 et seq., at 280
219. A.C. Kiss and D. Shelton, International Environmental Law (Ardsley, NY: Transnational 1991), at 20
220. K. Bosselmann, Im Namen der Natur: Der Weg zum Okologischen Rechtsstaat (Bern: Scherz 1992), at 385
221. E. Duruigbo, "Permanent Sovereignty and Peoples' Ownership of Natural Resources in International Law", Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. 38 (2006), 33 et seq., at 67 (calling for "appropriate mechanisms in international law by which nationals can enforce their rights under this trust").
222. See also Judge C.G. Weeramantry's reference to the "principle of trusteeship for earth resources" in his separate opinion in the Case Concerning the Gabc?ikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) at the International Court of Justice, ICJ Reports 1997, 1 et seq.; 37 ILM 204, at 213.
223. et seq., at 395. See also Christie (note 19 above); and Redgwell (note 31 above).
224. Hong Sik Cho, The Public Trust Doctrine and Global Commons (Berkeley, CA: JSD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley 1995), at 272 et seq. and 377.
225. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation at Paris on 16 November 1972, entered into force on 17 December 1975; 1037 UNTS 151.
226. See R.N. Gardner (ed.), Blueprint for Peace (New York: McGraw-Hill 1966), at 154-155 (1965 White House Conference on International Cooperation convened by President L.B. Johnson, recommending "a trust for the world heritage")
227. US Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: Second Annual Report (Washington, DC: CEQ 1971), at 302-303 (message by President Nixon, calling for "a world heritage trust")
228. R.E. Train, "A World Heritage Trust", in: E.R. Gillette (ed.), Action for Wilderness (Washington, DC: Sierra Club 1972), 172 et seq.
229. R.L. Meyer, "Travaux Preparatoires for the UNESCO World Heritage Convention", Earth L. J. 2 (1976), 45 et seq., at 46-48.
230. See S. Lyster, International Wildlife Law (Cambridge: Grotius Publications 1985), at 208 et seq.
231. P.H. Sand, "A Century of Green Lessons: The Contribution of Nature Conservation Regimes to Global Governance", International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1 (2001), 33 et seq., at 49 et seq.
232. Commonwealth v. Tasmania, 158 C.L.R. 1 (1983); Richardson v. Forestry Commission,
233. C.L.R. 261 (1988); and Queensland v. Commonwealth, 167 C.L.R. 232 (1989).
234. See B. Davis, "Federal-State Tensions in Australian Environmental Management: The World Heritage Issue", Envtl. & Plan. L. J. 6 (1989), 66 et seq.
235. M. Tsamenyi, "Implementing International Environmental Law in Australia: Queensland vs. The Commonwealth", J. Envtl. L. 2 (1990), 117 et seq.
236. B.W. Boer, "World Heritage Disputes in Australia", J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 7 (1992), 247 et seq.
237. D. Anton et al., "Nationalizing Environmental Protection in Australia", Envtl. L. 23 (1993), 763 et seq., at 768
238. M.B. Lane et al., "Not All World Heritage Areas Are Created Equal: World Heritage Area Management in Australia", Envtl. & Plan. L. J. 13 (1996), 461 et seq.
239. M. Kennedy et al., "Development and Implementation of Conservation Law in Australia", RECIEL 10 (2001), 296 et seq.
240. D. Haigh, "Australian World Heritage, the Constitution and International Law", Envtl. & Plan. L. J. 22 (2005), et seq.
241. See J.C. Day, "Zoning: Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park", Ocean & Coastal Mgmt. 45 (2002), 139 et seq.; and text at note 50 above.
242. J.B. Poquelin dit Moliere, Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme (Paris: Ballard 1670), Act II, Scene 4.
243. The Mediterranean regional seas programme established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1976 has also been described as an existing (treaty-based) public trust regime
244. see E. Raftopoulos, "The Barcelona Convention System for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution: An International Trust at Work", Int'l J. Estuarine & Coastal L. 7 (1992), 27 et seq.
245. J.A. Rabkin, Why Sovereignty Matters (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute 1998), at 46. The occasion was a visit to Yellowstone National Park (at the invitation of the US Government) by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 1995, for hearings on potential threats to a "listed" protected area from a mining development project in an adjacent area. The incident prompted - unsuccessful - legislative proposals for an American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 3752, 104th Cong. 2nd Sess.), providing for congressional approval of all public land designations under international agreements
246. see D.L. Gebert, "Sovereignty Under the World Heritage Convention: A Questionable Basis for Limiting Federal Land Designation Pursuant to International Agreements", S. Cal. Interdisc. L. J. 7 (1998), 427 et seq.
247. See R.O. Keohane, "Global Governance and Democratic Accountability", in: D. Held and M. Koenig-Archibugi (eds), Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press 2003), 130 et seq., at 154 (global governance conditioned on external accountability "also helps the powerful, because they shape the terms of governance"); Sand (note 1 above), at 58.
248. See G. Kelleher et al., A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, 4 vols. (Washington, DC: Great Barrier Reef Authority/World Bank/IUCN 1995)
249. and S. Chape et al. (eds), 2003 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas (Gland & Cambridge: IUCN & UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 13th edn. 2003.
250. See also T. Scovazzi, "Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas: Some Legal and Policy Considerations", Int'l J. Marine & Coastal L. 19 (2004), 1 et seq
251. and the Proceedings of the First International Marine Protected Areas Congress, held at Geelong, Australia, in October 2005 (Theme: "Shared Stewardship", Gland: IUCN, forthcoming 2007).
252. Term coined by G. Scelle, Precis de droit des gens I (Paris: Sirey 1932), at 43 et seq.
253. see A. Cassese, "Remarks on Scelle's Theory of 'Role Splitting' (dedoublement fonctionnel)", EJIL (1990), 210 et seq.; and note 70 above.
254. See M.E. O'Connell, "Enforcement and the Success of International Environmental Law", Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 3 (1995), 47 et seq., at 57-64
255. D. Bodansky and J. Brunnee, "The Role of National Courts in the Field of International Environmental Law", RECIEL 7 (1998), 11 et seq. On national trusteeship for global beneficiaries see note 31 above.
256. J. Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1999), at 23.
257. As proposed by L.B. Sohn and F. Orrego Vicuna in the context of the report on "Responsibility and Liability Under International Law for Environmental Damage", AIDI (1997-I), at
258. and 340-341 (alternatively, Orrego Vicuna suggests designation of public trustees, by analogy to the 1990 US Oil Pollution Act, note 27 above).
259. E.g., see Kanner, note 9 above. above)
260. G. Prins, "Oceanguard: The Need, the Possibility, and the Concept", Ocean Yearbook 14 (1999), 398 et seq.
261. and the World Conservation Union's Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 31 Rev. 2 (Gland/Bonn: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1995, 3rd edn 2004), at 154 (commentary on draft article 58, advocating legal standing for "affected" interest groups in areas beyond national jurisdiction, "by analogy to trusteeship rights").
262. See note 10 above.
263. C.D. Stone, "Mending the Seas Through a Global Commons Trust Fund", in: Van Dyke et al. (note 64 above), 171 et seq. For national and international precedents see note 22 above, and P.H. Sand, "Trusts for the Earth: New Financial Mechanisms for International Environmental Protection", in: D. Freestone et al. (eds), Contemporary Issues in International Law: A Collection of the Josephine Onoh Memorial Lectures (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2002), at 161 et seq.
264. "International waters" was one of the four original focal areas of the GEF, which has provided funding, e.g., for ship-waste programmes in the Caribbean and in the Chinese sea, and for regional marine conservation in the Black Sea.
265. See L. Jorgenson, "The Global Environment Facility: International Waters Coming Into Its Own", Green Globe YB Int'l Coop. Env't & Dev. 6 (1997), 45 et seq.
266. A.M. Duda, "Contributing to Ocean Security: Global Environment Facility Support for Integrated Management of Land-Sea Interactions", J. Int'l Aff. 59 (2005), 179 et seq.; and D. Freestone, "The Role of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility in the Implementation of the Regime of the Law of the Sea Convention", in: D. Freestone et al. (eds), Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006).
267. The GEF has scheduled its 4th International Waters Conference to be held in Cape Town/South Africa from 31 July to 3 August 2007.
268. E.g., Canada's Environmental Damages Fund, established by the Treasury Board in 1995 and administered by the Environment Ministry as "custodian"
269. see D.J. Hill et al. (eds), Environmental Damages Fund Evaluation (Ottawa: Environment Canada 2002); see also note 28 above.
270. Lack of an international mechanism of this kind may partly account for the curious fact that, in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War oil spills, the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) never received a claim for environmental damage to areas or resources beyond national jurisdiction.
271. see A. Gattini, Le riparazioni di guerra nel diritto internazionale (Milan: CEDAM 2003), at 468 and 545; Caron (note 56 above)
272. and P.H. Sand, "Compensation for Environmental Damage from the 1991 Gulf War", Envtl. Pol'y & L. 35 (2005), 244 et seq., at 249 note 28.
273. On the work of the (non-governmental) Marine Stewardship Council, see D.H. Constance and A. Bonanno, "Regulating the Global Fisheries: The World Wildlife Fund, Unilever, and the Marine Stewardship Council", Agriculture and Human Values 17 (2000), 125 et seq..
274. but see also S. Ponte, Ecolabels and Fish Trade: Marine Stewardship Council Certification and the South African Hake Industry (Stellenbosch: Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa 2006).
275. J.B. Wiener, "Something Borrowed for Something Blue: Legal Transplants and the Evolution of Global Environmental Law", Ecology L. Q. 27 (2001), 1295 et seq.
276. R.J. Dupuy, Conclusions of the 1984 Workshop of the Hague Academy of International Law, L'avenir du droit international de l'environnement/The Future of the International Law of the Environment (Dordrecht: Nijhoff 1985), 494 et seq., at 513. For an "encouragement of utopian trends".
277. see also L.A. Teclaff, "The Impact of Environmental Concern on the Development of International Law", in: L.A. Teclaff and A.E. Utton (eds), International Environmental Law (New York: Praeger 1974), 229 et seq., at 258.
278. D. Pepper, "Utopianism and Environmentalism", Envtl. Pol. 14 (2005), 3 et seq.
279. L. Kolakowski, Der Mensch ohne Alternative: von der Moglichkeit und Unmoglichkeit, Marxist zu sein (Munich: Piper 1960), at 127.
280. English translation in: A.O. Hirschman, Development Projects Observed (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution 1967, rev. edn. 1995), at 32.
281. see P.H. Sand, Transnational Environmental Law: Lessons in Global Change (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1999), at 2.