Protecting Marine Biodiversity on the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles

Mossop, Joanna

doi:10.1080/00908320701530474

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when, due to receding ice cover and increased ease of access, it inevitably does, the absence of a legal framework for its conduct will be further complicated by the conflict between coastal State sovereignty over the extended continental shelf and the freedom of scientific research granted to all States in the water column of the high seas, particularly as regards the thorny question of whether the resource extracted constitutes a sedentary species which falls under the jurisdiction of the coastal State. 133 The challenge here is first to even conceive of the issue as applicable to the Arctic Ocean and then to engage both the Arctic and Antarctic States in designing a regulatory regime which adequately protects both their interests and those of the broader international community in access to and benefit sharing of these resources.…”

Section: Issues Relating To the Protection Of Marine Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Melting Moments: The Future of Polar Oceans Governance in a Warming World

Rayfuse

2007

Review of European Community & International Environmental

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change poses significant physical, ecological, social and economic challenges to environmental, human and national security in polar regions. From an oceans governance perspective, increased human access to formerly ice‐covered areas, and the potential for increased activities such as fishing, shipping, tourism, bioprospecting, off‐shore mining, and oil and gas exploration, present significant legal challenges. While the issues are not unique to polar areas, the geopolitical, geographical and physical characteristics of the polar regions provide a unique and demanding framework in which to identify and address jurisdictional issues and issues relating to the protection of polar marine environments. This article attempts to identify the legal challenges ahead and to provide preliminary observations as to how the polar oceans governance regime might develop in the future.

show abstract

Section: Issues Relating To the Protection Of Marine Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Melting Moments: The Future of Polar Oceans Governance in a Warming World

Rayfuse

2007

Review of European Community & International Environmental

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where coastal states have a continental shelf which extends beyond the exclusive economic zone, under article 77 of UNCLOS they also have some sovereignty over natural resources but these only extend to ‘sedentary species’. Mossop (2007) makes the point that: ‘The general rule is that states must have [the relevant] coastal state['s] consent to conduct marine scientific research in the[ir] exclusive economic zone and on the continental shelf. There is an expectation that coastal states will grant consent for marine scientific research conducted for peaceful purposes and to increase the scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of humanity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is an expectation that coastal states will grant consent for marine scientific research conducted for peaceful purposes and to increase the scientific knowledge of the marine environment for the benefit of humanity. If the research is of significance for resource exploitation in the coastal state's jurisdiction, the coastal state may generally withhold consent for the project if it so wishes.’Mossop (2007), citing a number of sources, goes on to raise particular problems associated with the ‘vexed question’ of whether bioprospecting is a scientific or harvesting activity. This has implications in the way the activity is regulated, as coastal states have less power to control marine scientific research on their outer continental shelf under article 246(6) of UNCLOS, than they do to control other commercial activities, so coastal states tend to argue that bioprospecting is a commercial operation on the continental shelf.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The marine biology of law and human health

Appleby

Kinsey²,

Wheeler

et al. 2015

J. Mar. Biol. Ass.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review uses a multidisciplinary approach to investigate legal issues concerning the oceans and human health. It firstly seeks to define the boundaries of oceans and human health research. We use three case studies as examples: biomedical research, marine litter and human well-being. Biomedical research raises complex issues relating to coastal states’ sovereign rights to exploit their marine resources and the patenting processes. Coastal states have differing degrees of control over research at sea. There are differences in EU and US law over the status of genetic discoveries, with the US having stricter criteria to qualify for patent protection. International law sets the standard for bioprospecting in developing countries under the Nagoya Protocol. The cost and complexity of marine biomedical research mean that it cannot be left to commercial exploration and needs some public funding. The second case study highlights the rise in marine plastics pollution using Marine Conservation Society beachwatch data. It details the need to alter product design to avoid marine pollution and records an unsuccessful attempt by academics and an NGO to make contact with the manufacturers of one polluting product. It also introduces the concept that faulty design could amount to a public nuisance. The third case study highlights the potential health benefits from access to the coast and the statutory responsibility which sits with the US and UK authorities in the provision of well-being. It posits that there needs to be greater inter-agency coordination to promote access to the coast for human well-being.

show abstract

“…There is no doubt that the flag state must ensure its vessels comply with the laws Although article 77 does not refer explicitly to 'conservation and management' of continental shelf resources (Mossop, 2007), it would seem a logical step to say that the flag state also has an obligation to comply with coastal state conservation measures enacted in respect of sedentary species. UNCLOS does not enter into similar detail regarding the continental shelf compared to the EEZ.…”

Section: The Rights and Obligations Of Flag States In Relation To Thementioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between the Continental Shelf Regime and a New International Instrument for Protecting Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

Mossop

2017

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

States have acknowledged that the new internationally legally binding instrument (ILBI) for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction must take account of the interests of coastal states in continental shelves that extend beyond 200 nautical miles. This article argues that the ILBI should go beyond repeating the existing legal position as set out in international treaties and customary international law. In particular, the concept of sedentary species is unhelpful in the context of a legal regime governing the use of marine genetic resources. The article makes a number of suggestions for possible inclusions in the ILBI to clarify the relationship between the continental shelf regime and the regime for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

show abstract

Protecting Marine Biodiversity on the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles

Cited by 17 publications

References 7 publications

Melting Moments: The Future of Polar Oceans Governance in a Warming World

Melting Moments: The Future of Polar Oceans Governance in a Warming World

The marine biology of law and human health

The Relationship between the Continental Shelf Regime and a New International Instrument for Protecting Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About