Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Informal Panel 1

 on Law of the Sea (PM)

IMPORTANCE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF MARITIME BOUNDARIES

HIGHLIGHTED IN PANEL DISCUSSION ON LAW OF SEA

Continuing today’s commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the opening for signature of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, begun this morning in the General Assembly, two informal panels this afternoon took up the theme “The Dynamism of the Convention:  Challenges for the present and solutions for the future”.

The first such panel, convened in the Trusteeship Chamber, considered the following sub-themes:  the International Seabed Authority:  an institution to manage the common heritage of mankind; limits in the seas:  the need to establish secure maritime boundaries; and the settlement of disputes:  a linchpin of the Convention.  Comprised of 138 parties, including the European Union, the Convention established, for the first time, one set of rules for the oceans.  The treaty covers all ocean space with all its uses, including navigation and overflight, all uses of all resources, marine environment protection, and basic law and order. 

Having declared the seabed the “common heritage of mankind”, or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, the Convention established three international bodies:  the International Seabed Authority, to organize and control relevant activities; the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, to settle disputes; and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, to facilitate implementation of the Convention with respect to the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. 

Opening the discussion, which included a question-and-answer session, Chairman Cristián Maquieira (Chile) suggested that the Convention stood firm and ready to face the new challenges.  He introduced the panellists:  Nii Oduntu (Ghana), Deputy Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority; Rolf Fife (Norway),  Director-General, Department for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Shabtai Rosen (Israel), retired Ambassador and visiting professor.

Concerning the settlement of disputes, Mr. Rosen hailed the Convention’s settlement regime as an important step in the development of international law.  Indeed, the treaty’s most important contribution had been the strengthening of the rule of law in international affairs, by declaring that any dispute could be submitted at the request of any party to arbitration.  The treaty had served as a model for the creation of other judicial bodies in step with globalization, the transformation of international society and the emergence of new actors, and the

growth and expansion of international law.  By identifying the right of States to

make use of a plurality of options to settle their disputes, the Convention had been one of the three major legal accomplishments of the twentieth century, he said.

Mr. Fife, speaking on the need to establish secure maritime boundaries, reaffirmed the Convention’s fundamental importance for international peace and security, as well as for the sustainable development of the oceans and seas.  He paid tribute to those who negotiated that major breakthrough in international law.  Twenty years later, it was fitting to reflect on the key role played by jurisprudence, as well as the enormous scientific insights.   He discussed two key aspects of ocean law:  maritime boundaries between adjacent States, and the outer limits of the continental shelf.  With respect to maritime delineation, legal and political clarity was essential, as that would reduce tension and promote international stability.  Predictability, which was provided by jurisdictional clarity, was also helpful.  The Convention was very specific about the outer limits of the continental shelf and the problem of exploitation.

Updating participants on the activities of the International Seabed Authority, Mr. Oduntu reiterated that the resources of the sea were the common heritage of mankind and that benefits derived from the sea should, therefore, be distributed to humankind as a whole.  He drew attention to the development of a regime concerning mineral resources of the deep seabed and to marine research, which had resulted in discussions on biodiversity.  Much work was required to standardize geological findings and data.

Questions-and-answers

This month in Hamburg the representative of Germany had introduced the creation of a foundation comprised of academics and major maritime institutions and industries to bring into focus the work of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.  He said the foundation, which would make use of the outstanding concentration of maritime law expertise provided by the presence in Hamburg of the judges of the Tribunal, intended to promote the research and teaching of international maritime law, with particular emphasis on the Convention.  It would also further the dialogue between the academic world and the judges; promote the knowledge of the law of the sea, particularly in less developed States; and provide scholarships for that purpose.  The foundation would pursue its goals through the establishment of an academy, which would arrange its main activities to coincide with the sessions of the Tribunal.  The foundation sought the cooperation and support of all interested countries. 

The representative of Austria took note of that proposal and said he agreed that it was time to reflect on whether or not the expectations of the drafters of the Convention had been fulfilled.  Regarding the settlement of disputes, he agreed that the Convention represented a major step forward.  He also agreed with the need for secure maritime boundaries, which was a most important feature of the Convention, but acknowledged that it would be some time before the International Seabed Authority received its anticipated revenues from the coastal States.  Concerning the protection of the marine environment, he said that recent developments had shown that further work was required, especially since man-made threats to the marine environment were not sufficiently covered by existing legal rules.  Overall, however, the work of the Convention had come to fruition.

The representative of Cyprus, emphasizing that countries with adjacent coasts could pose potential problems, asked about the state of maritime delimitation 20 years later, and asked whether perhaps the Convention had exceeded its intended role in certain ways.

The representative of Tuvalu announced that his Government this morning had deposited the instruments of ratification of the Convention.  In so doing, however, that small island State realized that the opportunities offered by the Convention could only be realized or exercised to the extent that local capacity allowed.  He appreciated the announcement by the German representative, particularly the setting up of a foundation to assist developing countries.  He asked to what extent the provisions of the treaty could accommodate the needs of States facing climate change and sea level rise.

Offering a historical look back on the formulation of the Convention, the representative of India called for regular, periodic reviews of its effectiveness, leading to rational and equitable solutions.  The representative of Poland asked about overlapping jurisdiction between the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Responding to questions pertaining to coordination between the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the ICJ, Mr. Rosen said he did not think there was any risk of serious complication between them.  To the question about climate change affecting States parties, he drew attention to the fact that countries in Africa had already brought that issue before the Court.  To the question posed by the representative of Cyprus, he said that any ambiguities in the articles of the Convention sprang from ambiguities in geography.  Mr. Fife also responded.

Additional comments were made by Raymond Ranjeva, Judge, International Court of Justice, and Hans Corell, Under-Secretary-General, Office of Legal Affairs. 

* *** *