No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Evaluation of Proposals for a Regime for the Deep Sea-Bed in the Light of National Experience
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Extract
Committee I of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is charged with responsibility for devising treaty provisions to govern the sea-bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and in particular, for devising a regime for the management of the resources of this area. In addition, the committee has the task of preparing articles to provide for the equitable sharing by all states in the benefits derived from the international area, bearing in mind the special interests and needs of developing countries and having due regard to the rights and legitimate interests of states which may be affected by activities in the area. The committee is to be concerned, therefore, with the possible adverse effects on the economies of those developing countries which are land-based producers of the minerals likely to be derived from the international sea-bed area.
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 13 , 1976 , pp. 281 - 294
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1976
References
1 For a detailed discussion of the earlier history, see Paget, D., “Towards a Regime for the Sea-Bed: An Examination of Official Proposals,” 4 Queen’s L.J. 484 (1972)Google Scholar. For more recent accounts of the discussions in Committee I at the Caracas session in 1974, see Amerasinghe, C. F., “Basic Principles Relating to the International Regime of the Oceans at the Caracas session of the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference,” 6 J. Maritime Law and Commerce 213 (1975)Google Scholar, and Buzan, , Barry, , “Seabed Issues at the Law of the Sea Conference: The Caracas Session,” 12 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 222 (1974).Google Scholar
2 The assertion that the international sea-bed and its resources are “the common heritage of mankind” was confirmed unanimously by the General Assembly in 1970: U.N. Doc. A/RES/2749 (XXV). Voting was 108 for, none against, with 14 abstensions.
3 On 18 December 1967, the General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution which first established the principle that “the exploration and use of the sea-bed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof.… should be conducted in accordance with the principles and purposes of the Charter, and in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and for the benefit of mankind”: U.N. Doc. A/RES/2340 (XXII).
4 The position of some developed countries has altered more than that of others, with the result that the “developed” bloc is far from being a coherent group. For example, the United States, Japan, and France, inter alia, continue to support a licensing approach while Canada and Australia have more recently suggested compromises which allow direct participation by the Authority, as well as other entities, in exploration and exploitation.
5 The Group of 77 is the caucus of all the developing countries, now numbering in excess of one hundred.
6 Report of the Australian Delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Third session, Geneva; Canberra, Department of Foreign Affairs, 1975.
7 A/CONF. 62/WP. 8/Part I, 7 May 1975; Article 22.
8 Ibid., Annex I.
9 A detailed comparison of the regimes in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia is contained in Crommelin, Michael, , “Offshore Oil and Gas Rights: A Comparative Study,” 14 Natural Resources J. 457 (1974)Google Scholar. The Norwegian and United Kingdom systems are described in Dam, Kenneth W., “The Evolution of the North Sea Licensing Policy in Britain and Norway,” 17 J. Law & Econ. 213 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Dam, Kenneth W., “Oil and Gas Licensing in the North Sea,” 8 J. Law & Econ. 51 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 A corporation with many affiliates may arrange the pricing of goods and services supplied to the operating company and the prices paid to that operating company for its product, in order to minimize the profits earned by the operating company (which are subject to taxation) and increase the profits of affiliates.
12 This approach has also received strong support in recent years in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. In Canada the federal government owns 45 per cent of Panarctic Oils Limited, a company with extensive exploration permits in the Arctic region, and has recently formed Petroleum Canada Limited, a statutory corporation with power to participate directly in exploration and production. Otherwise, however, little action has been taken in response to the Norwegian example.
13 Agreement relating to the Exploration for, and the Exploitation of, the Petroleum Resources, and certain other Resources, of the Continental Shelf of Australia and of Certain Territories of the Commonwealth and of certain other submerged land, executed 16 October 1967, published in the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources, Canberra, Commonwealth Government Printing Office, 1971, Appendix A.
14 Subject to constitutional constraints (which are of greatest significance in the United States) the governments may also legislate to alter private rights acquired under a resource management regime, provided that the intent of the legislation is clear and unambiguous, but this course has so far been avoided on political grounds.