中国与国际海底开发制度

1 国际海底及其开发制度 第三次联合国海洋法会议通过的《联合国海洋公约》(以下简称《公约》)提出了一个崭新的概念——国际海底,它是指国家管辖范围以外的海床洋底及其底土。《公约》明确规定,国际海底及其资源是人类共同继承财产,国际海底内的活动应由国际海底管理局代表全人类,根据公约予以安排、进行和控制。在此基础上,公约还建立了一套国际海底开发的法律制度。     

国际海洋立法的重要里程碑

《联合国海洋法公约》全面系统地规定了现今关于海洋的国际法律制度,是国际海洋法发展史上的一个重要的里程碑。 海洋法的发展经历了漫长的演变过程。19世纪,领海制度和公海自由原则得到各国的普遍承认。本世纪以来,海洋法律制度得到迅速的发展。第二次世界大战刚一结束,1945年9月美国总统杜鲁门便发布《关于大陆架的底土和海床自然资源政策的公告》,宣布美国沿岸大陆架资源属于美国,受美国的管辖和控制。1947年,智利     

公海保护区问题初探

公海自由原则是《联合国海洋法公约》确立的重要制度。２０世纪９０年代以后,随着管辖范围以内海域确权的完成及海洋环境与海洋资源问题的不断出现,国家管辖范围以外海洋的保护问题被广泛讨论。公海保护区就是一种全新的公海保护方法。尽管目前在公海建立海洋保护区仍然存在诸多亟待解决的问题,各国关于公海保护区建设的立场也不尽相同,但公海保护区作为一种全新的生物多样性就地保护形式已经付诸国际实践。我国历来重视公海事务,也在公海保护领域做出诸多努力。在公海保护区问题上,我国应当加强公海保护区制度研究,促进公海资源的有效保护与可持续利用,既能履行一个负责任大国在国际海洋事务中应尽的义务,又能最大限度地维护我国在公海的利益。     

海洋命运共同体视域下ABNJ海洋遗传资源的国际治理与中国实践

随着海洋认知加深和海洋生物技术发展,海洋遗传资源已成为全球关注的新兴战略资源,如何开展国家管辖范围以外区域（ABNJ）海洋遗传资源国际治理已经成为国际生物多样性保护领域的热点问题。文章通过梳理国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性（BBNJ）国际谈判中的大国博弈与争议焦点,尝试从海洋命运共同体视域分析中国参与海洋遗传资源国际治理的模式,提出在坚持“原生境自由获取”原则和坚持“公平合理惠益分享”原则下,深度参与BBNJ第四次政府间大会。加强MGRs获取能力和技术研发能力建设;加强MGRs治理的国际合作;加强海洋涉外谈判人才队伍建设做好“后BBNJ时代”海洋治理准备等对策建议。     

第九讲 国际海底的法律制度

国际海底是指国家管辖范围以外的海床洋底,在《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称《公约》)中称为“区域”。《公约》第一条对“区域”下了明确的定义: “‘区域’是指国家管辖范围以外的海床洋底及其底土”。海洋占地球总面积的71％,其中国际海底约占整个海洋面积的65％,其水深一般在3000米以上。深海大洋底最初引起人们的注意是在一百多年前,当时英国的海洋考察船“挑战者”号于1872—1876年进行环球考察时,在水深5000—20000英尺的洋底采集到像土豆或垒球大小的黑色矿球,即现在通称为锰结核或多金属结核的矿石,在人类历史     

国家管辖范围外海洋生物多样性养护与可持续利用国际协定重点问题评析与中国应对策略

近年来,各国持续关注国家管辖范围外海洋生物多样性保护和可持续利用国际协定(The Convention on Marine Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Utilization beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction,以下简称BBNJ国际协定)谈判问题。文章从BBNJ国际协定谈判发展历程,分析海洋遗传资源惠益分享、区域管理工具、环境影响评价、能力建设和技术转让等重点问题,探讨了制定BBNJ国际协定需要考虑的因素,指出我国应加强海洋事务法律及相关政策的研究,提高我国参与国家管辖外海域治理能力的应对策略。     

第十五讲 《联合国海洋公约》和我国的海洋管理公约讲座

本刊的《联合国海洋法公约》讲座到此就要结束了。在最后一讲里,我们谈谈海洋公约和我国的海洋管理问题。二者之间的关系,概括起来说就是:海洋法公约是我国加强海洋管理、维护国家海洋权益的重要依据,同时也为海洋管理提出了新的任务和问题。一、扩大了管辖海域沿海国家实施海洋管理,首先要确定管辖的范围。确定一个国家的管辖范围,一是     

财富取自海洋 危险亦来自海上──21世纪中国海洋战略研究(续)

三、21世纪中国海洋战略构想1世纪之交的海洋形势随着前苏联解体、冷战结束,美苏两个超级大国主宰世界海洋的局面一去不复返了。第三世界国家在国际海洋事务中的作用大大增强。1994年11月16fi,酝酿已久的《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）正式生效,标志着世界海洋新时代的到来。《公约》关于领海和专属经济区的规定,引发了全球范围的’“蓝色圈地运动”。据估计,各国依照《公约》而合法扩大的海域,占去了原属公海的I3亿千米’的面积,使地球表面约36％的海面变成了沿海国的管辖海域。可以说《公约》使人类在历史上第一次通过…     

21世纪经略海洋国土报告

《联合国海洋法公约》生效后,沿海国的国土构成发生了巨大的变化,国家管辖范围扩大,国土资源开发管理的权利和任务加重。因此,沿海国纷纷调整本国国土及其资源开发和管理的政策,重新规划安排国土资源的开发和管理成为近十几年来的基本趋势。按《公约》的有关规定和我国的主张,划归我国的国家管辖海域总面积约为300万千米2,这是国家陆地国土的扩大和延伸。从广义上说,我国的“海洋国土”包括：（l）拥有完全主权的内水和领海,约38万千米2;（2）拥有海域管辖权和资源主权权利的毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架,约300万千米‘。《公约》…     

世界海洋划界的经典著作——荐《世界海洋政治边界》(中译本)

<正>《联合国海洋法公约》的生效,尤其是专属经济区概念的引入,使沿海国的海洋管辖范围扩大,全球约30%的海洋被划入沿海国管辖海域。沿海国的海洋扩张产生了"新的"潜在的海上政治边界。海洋划界问题涉及国家之间重大海洋权益的划分,沿海国单方面划定的管辖海域边界之间存在着不同程度的重叠,海洋划界无疑是一个非常敏感而复杂的世界性难题。我国与邻国之间存在的海洋划     

Marine genetic resources: A review of scientific and commercial interest

Marine genetic resources both within and beyond national jurisdiction have been the focus of international negotiations in a range of forums in recent years. One recurrent theme throughout these discussions has been the absence of detailed information upon which policy responses to the emerging issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine genetic resources (especially in areas beyond national jurisdiction) could be based. In an effort to address some of these knowledge gaps, this article examines the level and nature of scientific and commercial interest in marine genetic resources, including in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It also examines the changing perspectives of the scientific community in relation to the potential of marine genetic resources.     

The negotiations for a binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction

The conservation of marine biological diversity has been identified as a crucial issue in need of legal regulation. The UNCLOS does not sufficiently address all issues relevant to viably conserve biological diversity. Legal developments concerning marine genetic resources, area-based management tools such as marine protected areas, environmental impact assessment and capacity building are being discussed as elements of a new implementing agreement. In particular, more precise legal rules concerning marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction are needed to supplement the frame left by UNCLOS. As concerns the issue of access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits the UNCLOS regime has gaps because the relevant activities had not been foreseen at the time of the convention's adoption. Divergent views exist as to whether the concept of the common heritage of mankind should be extended to genetic resources.     

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction: Bridging the gaps between science and policy

Marine genetic resources are a subject of a growing body of research and development activities, as demonstrated by the abundance of marine patented genes reported in GenBank. Given the lack of a comprehensive legal regime for the management of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the General Assembly of the United Nations met in 2006 to discuss whether there are regulatory or governance gaps and how to address them. Besides the crystallization of the different political positions, the process is now advancing towards making a decision about whether to develop an international instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity, within which the regulation of access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits from their utilization has emerged as an in-dissociable issue. In order to propose concrete options to be considered for the establishment of a legal framework addressing these issues, policy-makers need to better understand the feasibility, the costs and the modalities of scientific activities undertaken, together with the actual level of commercialization of new products. They also need to be aware of the already advanced practices in place within the scientific community, especially regarding sharing of non-monetary benefits. This paper particularly highlights and discusses practical scenarios to advance in the international process, based on the approaches adopted in other regional and international regimes for the management of genetic resources and on the best practices developed within the scientific community.     

Marine science and technology transfer: Can the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission advance governance of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction?

Marine scientific research is crucial to forge solutions in the development of a new international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . The transfer of marine technology, capacity development and marine genetic resources are key issues. This paper examines how the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), as a competent international organisation for marine scientific research and technology transfer, can inform the development of the instrument. Synergies between marine technology transfer and non-monetary benefit sharing of genetic resources are illustrated. Four key lessons from the IOC are examined: 1. Coordinating international cooperation in marine scientific research; 2. Enabling open access to data and knowledge; 3. Facilitating capacity development through scientific training and education; and 4. Governance of marine scientific research. Realising the potential of the IOC to advance governance solutions for ABNJ will depend on increased political will from Member States and strengthened partnerships to reduce resource constraints and enhance the IOC's capacity at global and regional scales.     

Sharing benefits of the common heritage of mankind – Is the deep seabed mining regime ready?

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea declares the seabed beyond national jurisdiction and its mineral resources as the “common heritage of mankind” (CHM). This article examines the operationalisation of the CHM principle in the international seabed mining regime, with focus placed on the sharing of benefits derived from mining. The article begins by providing an overview of the CHM principle, before examining four modalities provided for in the Convention, both institutional and substantial, and their role in giving effect to the CHM principle: (1) financial benefits; (2) the “Enterprise”; (3) the parallel system of reserved areas; and, (4) marine scientific research. Finally, overarching issues are discussed and some suggestions on ways forward are presented. The article considers that the deep seabed mining regime is not yet ready to effectively share the benefits derived from the common heritage of mankind. In particular, the future of the Enterprise is uncertain and changes to the so-called parallel system that affect the CHM have received minimal discussion. Moreover, a lack of publicly available research data related to seabed mining is hindering current benefits for humankind. However, work is underway at the International Seabed Authority to establish rules and policies with respect to the sharing of financial benefits. While the CHM principle remains largely untested, approaches that are transparent, inclusive, accountable, and equitable are more likely to be successful.     

The Convention on Biological Diversity's Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas: Origins,development, and current status

In 2008, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted seven criteria to identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) “…in need of protection, in open ocean waters and deep sea habitats”. This paper reviews the history of the development of the “EBSA process”, which was originally driven by the commitment to establish marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction, but which has since broadened to encompass the possibility of informing marine spatial planning and other activities, both within and beyond national jurisdiction. Additionally, the paper summarizes ongoing efforts through CBD regional workshops to describe EBSAs and the development of the EBSA Repository, where information on these areas is to be stored. The overlap between the EBSA criteria and biodiversity criteria suites used by various authorities in areas beyond national jurisdiction is illustrated. The EBSA process has reached a critical juncture, whereby a large percentage of the global ocean has been considered by the regional workshops, but the procedure by which these areas can be incorporated into formal management structures has not yet been fully developed. Emerging difficulties regarding the mandate to describe, identify, endorse, or adopt EBSAs, are discussed.     

Should deep seabed mining be allowed?

Commercial interest in deep sea minerals in the area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction has rapidly increased in recent years. The International Seabed Authority has already given out 26 exploration contracts and it is currently in the process of developing the Mining Code for eventual exploitation of the mineral resources. Priority issues have so far been feasibility and profitability of this emerging industry, while relatively little consideration has been given as to how, and to an even lesser extent, whether deep seabed mining should proceed. This article makes a case that the global community should question and scrutinize the underlying assumption that deep seabed mining is going benefit humankind as a whole before commercializing the common heritage of humankind.     

New implementing agreement under UNCLOS: A threat or an opportunity for fisheries governance?

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationship of the proposed new UNCLOS Implementing Agreement concerning the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction with the current legal framework concerning fisheries. It elaborates on selected elements that are under negotiations, namely: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, as well as environmental impact assessments. Each of those elements is analyzed with particular emphasis being laid on the following issues. Firstly, how the current legal status quo in the relevant area looks like. Secondly, how the question of fisheries could be included in a future treaty and, thirdly, what bearing it could have on the current framework of the management of fisheries.The article concludes with the identification of possible fields where the new treaty could bring added value. However, some possible challenges are mentioned as well. They relate in particular to the fact that the mandate of negotiations underscores that they shall not ‘undermine existing legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies’.     

Shaping an international agreement on marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction: Lessons from high seas fisheries

A decade of international discussion on marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (BBNJ) culminated in 2015 with a United Nations General Assembly Resolution to establish an international legally-binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ. Proponents of the new instrument therefore consider it as an opportunity to eliminate gaps in the current legal regime and promote better coordination. As the next step in the negotiations begins, substantial lessons can be drawn from the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), which has faced many of the same challenges related to gaps in scientific knowledge, uneven governance and regulatory capacities, and inherent unpredictability, both ecologically and in terms of anthropogenic drivers of change. For BBNJ, however, such challenges are far more complex due to the diversity of stakeholder communities and the diversity of resources involved, including fish and mineral resources with tangible economic values, marine genetic resources of unknown value, and the culturally-specific values attached to charismatic species and conservation in general. Drawing on lessons from UNFSA, it is argued that the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) under the BBNJ instrument would be particularly well served by a similar regional approach aligned with existing international agreements. In this regard, it is recommended that the capacity building under the new international instrument on BBNJ should focus inter alia on the secretariats of the regional fishery management organizations in order to enhance intra-regional and inter-regional cooperation and sharing of best practices.