The designation of particularly sensitive sea areas: A new layer in the regime for marine environmental protection from international shipping

The Future of Ocean Regime-Building Essays in Tribute to Douglas M. Johnston

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 573-609

  Chircop, Aldo ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882731008     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004172678.i-786     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

1. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modifi ed by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, London, 17 February 1978, U.N.T.S. 1340 (1983): 62 [hereinafter MARPOL 73/78]. Th e convention was further amended by the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modifi ed by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, London, 26 September 1997, which added Annex VI. Th ere have been numerous amendments to the annexes. For information on the latest amendments to the annexes, see IMO, online: www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258#2004sewage, accessed January 2008.
2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in Th e Law of the Sea: Offi cial Text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: United Nations, 1983) [hereinafter the LOS Convention].
3. "Identifi cation of the Great Barrier Reef Region as a Particularly Sensitive Area," IMO/ MEPC.44(30), 16 November 1990, which was extended to include the Torres Strait; "Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Forty-Ninth Session," IMO/MEPC 49/22, 8 August 2003; "Identifi cation of the Archipelago of Sabana-Camaguey as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," IMO/MEPC.74(40), 25 September 1997.
4. International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, Brussels, 29 November 1969, 970 U.N.T.S. 211 (1975), Art. 1.
5. Even earlier, OILPOL, the precursor of MARPOL 73/78, introduced no-discharge zones for oily wastes. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, London, 12 May 1954, 327 U.N.T.S. 3(1959). Th is instrument was amended in 1962, 1969 and 1971, and is largely superseded by MARPOL 73/78.
6. "Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78," IMO Doc A 22/Res 927, 15 January 2002 [hereafter Special Area Guidelines]. Th e Special Area Guidelines were formulated for Annexes I, II, and V, and do not concern emission control areas in Annex VI.
7. In inspecting ships visiting their ports, port States apply conventions designated in the MOU(s) to which the fl ags of visiting ships may not be parties. On port State control see G. Kasoulides, Port State Control and Jurisdiction: Evolution of the Port State Regime (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff , 1993).
8. IMO, "Summary of Status of Conventions" (31 July 2004), online: www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247, 3 September 2004.
9. Th e wastes at issue are dirty ballast water, tank-washing slops, oily mixtures containing chemicals, scale and sludge from tank cleaning, oily bilge water, and sludge from fuel oil purifi er. See "Facilities in Ports for the Reception of Oily Wastes from Ships," IMO/ MEPC 3/Circ 4, 18 November 2003. At its 12th Session in March 2004, the IMO Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation embarked on an initiative to address the problem of low level reporting by disseminating a questionnaire. See IMO/MEPC/Circ 417, 7 July 2004. See also, IMO, Comprehensive Manual on Port Reception Facilities, 2nd ed. (London: IMO, 1999).
10. M. Nordquist, ed., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. 4 (S. Rosenne and A. Yankov, vol. eds.) (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff , 1991), p. 181 [Rosenne and Yankov]; E. Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution (Th e Hague: Kluwer, 1998), p. 403.
11. K. Gjerde and D. Freestone, "Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas - An Important Environmental Concept at a Turning Point," International Journal of Maritime & Coastal Law 9 (1994): 431-468; G. Peet, "Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas - A Documentary History," International Journal of Maritime & Coastal Law 9 (1994): 469-506.
12. For example, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar, 2 February 1971, online: www.ramsar.org/key_conv_e.htm
13. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, London, 1 November 1974, 1184 U.N.T.S. 278 (1980), in particular Chapter V (Navigation). As an example, see "General Provisions on Ships' Routeing," IMO Assembly Resolution A 572(14), 20 November 1985.
14. IMO Assembly Resolution A 720(17), 6 November 1991, as amended by A 885(21), 25 November 1999. In addition to the 2001 amendments, the MEPC also approved a "Guidance Document for Submission of PSSA Proposals to IMO," IMO/MEPC 48/7/1, 30 April 2002 [hereafter PSSA Guidance Document]. Th e current version is "Revised Guidelines for the Identifi cation and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas," adopted by IMO Assembly Resolution A.982(24), 1 December 2005 [hereafter PSSA Guidelines].
15. "Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Fifty-First Session," IMO/MEPC 51/22, 22 April 2004 [hereafter MEPC 51 Report], pp. 29-32. PSSA proliferation was a concern expressed by the Russian Federation, Panama, Liberia, and several industry bodies. See "'Politically Sensitive Sea Areas' Agreed in Principle," Fairplay, 8 April 2004, 6.
16. "Comments made by the Division for Ocean Aff airs and the Law of the Sea of the United Nations (DOALOS) in connection with Issues Raised in Document LEG 87/16/1," IMO LEG 87/WP 3, 13 October 2003 [hereafter DOALOS Comments].
17. "Additional Information for the Designation of Malpelo Island as a 'Particularly Sensitive Sea Area'," IMO/MEPC 46/6/3, 16 February 2001 [hereafter Malpelo Island Submission].
18. "Designation of the Marine Area around the Florida Keys as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by the United States, IMO/MEPC 46/6/2, 19 January 2001 [hereafter Florida Keys Submission].
19. "Designation of the Marine Area of the Paracas National Reserve as a 'Particularly Sensitive Sea Area'," Submitted by Peru, IMO/MEPC 48/7, 18 April 2002.
20. "Designation of the Wadden Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by Denmark, Germany and Th e Netherlands, IMO/MEPC 48/7/2, 28 June 2002.
21. "Designation of the Waters of the Canary Islands as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Proposal Submitted by Spain, IMO/MEPC 51/8, 24 October 2003; "Designation of the Galapagos Archipelago as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by Ecuador, IMO/MEPC 51/8/2, 24 December 2003 [hereafter Galapagos Submission]; Designation of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, IMO Doc. MEPC 56/8, 5 April 2007.
22. "Designation of the Baltic Sea Area as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden, IMO/ MEPC 51/8/1, 19 December 2003. See Ylva Uggla, "Environmental Protection and the Freedom of the High Seas: Th e Baltic Sea as a PSSA from a Swedish Perspective," Marine Policy 31 (2007): 251-257.
23. "Designation of a Western European Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by Belgium, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, IMO/MEPC 49/8/1, 11 April 2003 [hereafter Western European Submission]. See also, J. Roberts, M. Tsamenyi, T. Workman and L. Johnson, "Th e Western European PSSA Proposal: A 'Politically Sensitive Sea Area'," Marine Policy 29 (2005): 431-440; Markus Detjen, "Th e Western European PSSA - Testing a Unique International Concept to Protect Imperilled Marine Ecosystems," Marine Policy 30 (2006): 442-453.
24. "Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Fifty-First Session," IMO MEPC 51/22, 22 April 2004 [hereafter MEPC 51 Report], pp. 34-35 and Annex 8.
25. "Designation of a Western European Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by Liberia, Panama, the Russian Federation, BIMCO, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and IPTA, IMO/LEG 87/16/1, 12 September 2003.
26. "Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Western European Particularly Sensitive Sea Area," Submitted by Belgium, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, IMO/NAV 50/3/6, 2 April 2004.
27. See "IMO Saves Face and EU Claims Victory," Fairplay, 11 December 2003, 4.
28. "Torres Strait PSSA Associated Protective Measure - Compulsory Pilotage," Submitted by Australia and Papua New Guinea, IMO/MEPC/NAV 50/3, 22 March 2004. See also, "Results of a Safety of Navigation Assessment Conducted for the Torres Strait," Submitted by Australia, IMO/NAV 50/INF 2, 2 April 2004.
29. For a detailed elaboration of that approach see especially, D. M. Johnston, Th e Th eory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988), Part III, pp. 223-284.
30. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, [1985] I.C.J. Reports, 13.
31. See, e.g., M. D. Evans, "Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Where Do We Go From Here?" in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong, eds, Th e Law of the Sea; Progress and Prospects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 137-160, at p. 160
32. Y. Tanaka, "Refl ections on Maritime Delimitation in the Cameroon/Nigeria Case," International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53 (2004): 369-406, at p. 405.
33. For a further discussion see, e.g., C. Chinkin, Th ird Parties in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 147-149.
34. See also, E. Jouannet "L'impossible protection des droits du tiers par la Cour Internationale de Justice dans les aff aires de délimitation maritime," in V. Coussirat-Coustère, Y. Daudet, P.-M. Dupuy, P. M. Eisemann, and M. Voelckel, eds, La mer et son droit: mélanges off erts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec (Paris: Éditions A. Pedone, 2003), pp. 315-341, at pp. 315 and 322.
35. R. Kolb, Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and Commentaries (Th e Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003), p. 101
36. L. Lucchini and M. Voelckel, Droit de la Mer; Tome 2 Volume 1 Délimitation (Paris: Éditions A. Pedone, 1996), p. 278.
37. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, [1992] I.C.J. Reports, p. 240.
38. See also, N. Marques Antunes, Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003), p. 371.
39. See further infra for the approach of the International Court in the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf Case and of the Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration.
40. See E. D. Brown, Sea-bed Energy and Minerals: Th e International Legal Regime (Th e Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992), pp. 124-126.
41. P. Weil, Th e Law of Maritime Delimitation: Refl ections (Cambridge: Grotius Publications, 1989), pp. 253-254.
42. See L. D. M. Nelson, "Th e Roles of Equity in Maritime Delimitation," American Journal of International Law 84 (1990): 837-859, at p. 858.
43. Separate Opinion of Judges Ruda, Bedjaoui and Jiménez de Aréchaga, [1985] I.C.J. Reports, p. 76.
44. See also, B. Conforti, "L'arrêt de la cour internationale de justice dans l'aff aire de la délimitation du plateau continental entre la Libye et Malte" Revue générale de droit international public 90 (1986): 313-343, at pp. 331-332.