In the context of increasing pressure to decisively address the issue of GHG emissions from shipping, this Chapter examines the relevance and fitness for purpose of UNCLOS as a framework for ongoing efforts to tackle this issue. Considering the time when it was negotiated, it should come as no surprise that the Convention makes no express reference to climate change. This does not mean that UNCLOS has no role to play. The Chapter examines the Convention’s definition of ’marine pollution’, general provisions such as Articles 192 and 194 as well as the Convention provisions on flag, coastal and port State jurisdiction. The main conclusion is that UNCLOS is adequately placed to fulfil its designated function as a constitution for the oceans, but its provisions must be complemented by more detailed technical rules. In line with UNCLOS, these measures also need to be systemically integrated with the wider international environmental law framework.

Apart from depleting global marine resources, illegal fishing affects the economies and societies of many developing coastal states. They are often not in a position to police the maritime zones that are under their jurisdiction, such as their exclusive economic zone, and to enforce their fisheries regulations adequately. The persons who organise these illegal fishing operations, such as the operators and owners of vessels, often use flags of convenience and take advantage of the weak legal systems of flag States and coastal States. In this chapter it is argued that, in addition to coastal, port and flag States, the States of which such owners and operators are nationals also have a role to fulfil in the fight against illegal fishing.

The term ‘coastal State’ is not defined under UNCLOS despite being one of the most frequently used terms. In the EEZ, UNCLOS confers upon coastal States both exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction over natural resources and jurisdiction in relation to artificial islands, installations and structure, marine scientific research and environmental protection. However, the scope of these rights and obligations is not always clearly set out in the relevant provisions, requiring further clarification and elaboration. Moreover, due to the new scope of power given to coastal States in the EEZ, the question has arisen as to how coastal States’ rights and obligations in this new maritime zone, as well as coastal States’ rights and obligations in the territorial sea and the high seas, interact with historic claims arising prior to the entry into force of UNCLOS. This chapter analyses the decisions rendered by UNCLOS tribunals addressing the abovementioned issues and assesses the extent to which they have contributed to clarifying relevant rules relating to coastal States’ rights and obligations under the law of the sea.