DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

Public international law

United nation convention on laws of sea , 1982

SUBMITTED TO:

Mr. Abdullah Nasir

Assistant Professor (public international law)

DR.RMLNLU
Lucknow

SUBMITTED BY:
Sahajveer Singh
210101124
Section B
4th Semester

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I take this opportunity to thank profusely our lecturer Mr. Abdullah Nasir, for providing us with
a platform to express our views on “United nation convention on laws of sea 1982” and to
explore the depths of the topic. Indeed, the experience has been insightful and most often,
thought provoking. A deeper understanding of such an important topic has enriched our
knowledge.

We also wish to express our gratitude to all the library staff for their patience and cooperation in
helping us find the apt research material and being generous with the due dates. Our thanks
further extend to all our other sources of information and of course, to our friends and seniors,
without whose insightful thoughts and relevant criticisms, the project would not have been
complete.

Last but not the least, we wish to thank our parents and the God Almighty for their help and
constant support through various means.

We also hope that we are provided with similar opportunities to work on such other interesting
topics in the future.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION
2. BACKGROUND AND PROVISIONS OF UNCLOS : a brief overview
3. THE CONVENTION
4. SETTING LIMITS
5. NAVIGATION
6. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
7. THREE DECADES OF UNCLOS : A Success Or Failure: conclusion
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

3
 INTRODUCTION

The oceans cover 70 per cent of the earth's surface, and constitute the most extensive and yet the
least understood ecosystem known to mankind. There have been long standing efforts to
conserve this resource and a lot of debate has gone into arriving at a set of comprehensive laws
that govern the exploitation of this invaluable resource. With pollution becoming a major
concern for the modern-day mankind, it has only become increasingly apparent that conservation
of marine living resources present much more complex problems of regulation and management
than hitherto envisaged during the centuries which they have been exploited by humans. As a
result of the years of debate and disagreement among nations over a conclusive law on this
subject, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter UNCLOS), was
adopted and opened for signature in the year 1982. The UNCLOS was the result of an instruction
by the General Assembly Resolution that convened UNCLOS III, to arrive at a single thorough
treaty that deals with the law of the sea, including issues such as fishing and marine scientific
research.

UNCLOS defines the rights and responsibilities of member nations in their use of the world's
oceans, and establishes guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of
marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties
dealing with law of the seas. Much of the Convention is considered to be declaratory of
customary international law. UNCLOS covers a large number of areas that govern our ocean and
marine resources. It provides for a comprehensive definition of pollution of the marine
environment under Article 1. Moreover, it covers issues ranging from freedom of the high seas,
right of innocent passage to provisions for development of laws for conservation and protection
of the marine environment.

However, with almost three decades of this Convention coming into existence, it has become
important to take an account of the achievements as well as the shortcomings that UNCLOS has
presented. One needs to ask, how successful has this convention been in achieving the goals that
it set out to achieve? The aim of the researcher in the present research paper is to look into the
question whether after three decades of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
has the Convention been a success or a failure? There are a large number of provisions in the
Convention and for the purpose of this paper the researcher shall make an analysis as to how
4
successful has the Convention been in tackling environmental issues. The present paper shall
first

5
delve into a brief overview of the Convention and then proceed to some issues of concern in the
Convention and its provisions with special focus on the issue of exclusive economic zones and
the related environmental questions attached to establishment of fisheries in the high seas. The
researcher shall look into some provisions of UNCLOS related to conservation and protection of
the environment and whether these provisions cater to the need of marine resource conservation
or do they need to be amended to meet the modern-day crisis of marine pollution staring
mankind in the face. The researcher shall also make a criticism of the lacunae present in the
UNCLOS that fail to deal with the issue of oceanic degradation and related issues better. The
researcher shall conclude with a final word on the success or failure of the Convention on the
whole.

BACKGROUND AND PROVISIONS OF UNCLOS : A Brief Overview

The Law of the Sea was needed due to the weakness of the older 17th century concept of the
‘freedom of the seas'. Earlier, national rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending
from a nation's coastlines, usually three nautical miles or 6 kilometres. All water beyond national
boundaries was considered international waters - free to all nations but belonging to none of
them.

With the ushering in of the 20th century, states began to demand sovereignty over the the seas
close to their territories. Their claims of sovereignty included national claim over the mineral
resources, to protect fish stocks and to have the develop methods of controlling pollution of the
oceanic resources. Sadly, protection of marine environment was not given special importance in
the Geneva Conference on Law of the Sea in 1958, and the Geneva Conventions have little to
say on the subject. UNCLOS sets out extensive provisions for conducting marine scientific
research and for marine environment protection, which find applicability for nation states within
and outside their national jurisdiction. Under UNCLOS states can be held liable for all activities
which may affect the marine environment, regardless of where they are conducted, including the
high seas. At the end of the nine years that the Convention took for finalising, there were new
legal concepts that were evolved such as exclusive economic zones (hereinafter EEZs), outer
limit of continental shelfs, scientific research, the special status of the deep-sea bed, settlement of
disputes etc. New institutions such as the International Seabed Authority and International

6
Tribunal on the Law of the Sea were also created as a result of UNCLOS, to regulate the various
aspects of marine resource management.

7
The primary change introduced by UNCLOS was the introduction of EEZs upto the limit of 200
nautical miles. There was a lot of effort put into the negotiations regarding coastal states and the
effective management of their resources. The adoption of the EEZs gave coastal states sovereign
rights over the resources to be found in a 200-mile maritime zone. The concept of the exclusive
economic zone was primarily designed to satisfy the legitimate interests of coastal states in
adjacent maritime areas, establishing clear limits to the sovereign rights of coastal states over the
living resources to be found in the zone. The exclusive economic zone for the fisheries therefore,
removes this zone from the high seas common property regime. There is neither freedom of
fishing for other states or unfettered freedom of scientific research. It also adopts special rules for
certain species of fish and marine mammals. Despite the co-ordinated ecosystem strategies
referred to earlier, UNCLOS does not provide any mechanism for co-ordinating either existing
fisheries commissions or the relationship between fisheries conservation and other conservatory
conventions in general.

With regards to attribution of jurisdiction over conservation and use of marine living resources
this Convention was an important step forward. There are also various aspects related to fisheries
that this convention discusses. Article 3 of UNCLOS established a 12-mile limit for the
territorial sea, over which the coastal state has sovereignty, subject to provisions of UNCLOS
and other principles of international law, including any conservatory conventions which that
member state may be party to. UNCLOS also talks of archipelagic states and gives them the
liberty to draw straight baselines joining the outermost points of their outer islands and reefs. The
enclosed area constitutes the territorial sea of the archipelagic state. Under Article 51 however,
such a state is bound to respect existing agreements with neighbouring states and recognise their
traditional rights related to the sea. Such states however, need to take measures for conservation
of fish in their EEZ, subject to Article 61 of the UNCLOS, which talks about the conservation of
the living resources.

UNCLOS also addresses the issue of preserving marine life in the continental shelf area. A
continental shelf is a relatively shallow area of seabed over which a great deal of marine life is
found. Coastal states bordering this region have sovereign rights over the seabed mineral
resources found in this area. Even though this Convention does not clearly lay down the position
on the sovereignty over the shallow area near the continental shelf, but like the Continental Shelf
Convention of 1958, UNCLOS includes the ‘living organisms belonging to sedentary species'

8
within its definition of the ‘natural resources' of the continental shelf over which the coastal state

9
may exercise its rights. These organisms are defined as ‘organisms which at the harvestable
stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant
physical contact with the seabed or subsoil. However, considering the ambiguity of this
definition, there was doubt concerning which of these resources were excluded from the high
seas definition of the high seas freedom of fishing.

The position regarding continental shelf is such that if continental shelf extends beyond 200
nautical miles, the waters beyond this limit will not be covered under the protective provision of
the EEZ. Moreover, even though the shelf resources will be under the exclusive control of the
coastal state, sedentary species in this furthermost area are removed both from high seas freedom
of fishing and from EEZ requirements for optimum utilisation and access to any surplus stocks.
Where UNCLOS differs from Continental Shelf Convention is that the latter made provisions to
check any ‘unjustifiable interference' to navigation, fishing scientific research, or conservation of
living resources of the sea, whereas the former is relatively much less specific with regard to
conservation matters.

With regard to deep seabed organisms, UNCLOS presents a problem as it does not define clearly
which legal regime is applicable to the varied species of micro-organisms, fish, crustaceans,
molluscs etc, which are found inhabiting the deep seabed and are known to be of great value for
their genetic make and for research purposes. The Convention is silent when it comes to defining
the laws for their use in scientific research or commercial purposes. UNCLOS has spoken only
when it comes to mineral resources in the deep seabed and therefore, has yet again left
considerable vagueness in the provision of law governing the deep seabed organisms. This may
lead to exploitation of these resources and cause damage to the biodiversity in this area.

With respect to the high seas, it has been known that many species of fish migrate between EEZs
and the high seas and many species of marine mammals spend a considerable part of their lives
there during migrations between feeding and breeding grounds. Part VII of UNCLOS recognises
a state's right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas, subject to existing treaty
obligations and to the rights and duties and interests of the coastal states towards conserving
migratory species of organisms found in these areas, i.e., between the EEZs and the high seas, in
keeping with the provisions of the Convention under Articles 63-67.

10
A special mention should be made of Article 63(2) which obliges coastal states and states fishing
stocks beyond EEZs to seek ‘to agree on the measures necessary to co-ordinate and ensure the
conservation and development of such stocks'. The cause of concern here is that this Article sets
out an either-or provision for conservation, meaning thereby, that state parties under this Article
may take measures for conservation either ‘directly' or through appropriate regional or sub-
regional organisations. This means that the latter is not a compulsion and may be given a pass by
the states. Furthermore, under Article 118, there are provisions set out for cooperation between
states exploiting the same resources in the same area to ‘enter into negotiations for taking
necessary conservation measures'. Then again, there is no express provisions for a concrete body
or institution under which such negotiations can be carried out. Leaving ambiguous provisions
calling for negotiations between states leaves scope for non-compliance of the provision as well
the danger of each state party pursuing their own selfish interest without paying much heed to
conservation. These Articles unlike Article 61 which has been aforementioned, do not call for
ensuring proper means of conservation and management measures and therefore, leave the
oceanic living resources under these regions susceptible to over-exploitation.

These are some general provisions of UNCLOS regarding the various aspects and divisions of
the ocean and its resources. Let us now make an analysis into the success or failure of the
UNCLOS in terms of management of oceanic resources.

The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption
in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva,
representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained
and traded national rights and obligations in the course of the marathon negotiations that
produced the Convention.

THE CONVENTION

Navigational rights, territorial sea limits, economic jurisdiction, legal status of resources on the
seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, passage of ships through narrow straits,
conservation and management of living marine resources, protection of the marine environment,
11
a marine research regime and, a more unique feature, a binding procedure for settlement of
disputes between States - these are among the important features of the treaty. In short, the
Convention is an unprecedented attempt by the international community to regulate all aspects of
the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean, and thus bring a stable order to mankind's very
source of life.

"Possibly the most significant legal instrument of this century" is how the United Nations
Secretary-General described the treaty after its signing. The Convention was adopted as a
"Package deal", to be accepted as a whole in all its parts without reservation on any aspect. The
signature of the Convention by Governments carries the undertaking not to take any action that
might defeat its objects and purposes. Ratification of, or accession to, the Convention expresses
the consent of a State to be bound by its provisions. The Convention came into force on 16
November 1994, one year after Guyana became the 60th State to adhere to it.

Across the globe, Governments have taken steps to bring their extended areas of adjacent ocean
within their jurisdiction. They are taking steps to exercise their rights over neighbouring seas, to
assess the resources of their waters and on the floor of the continental shelf. The practice of
States has in nearly all respects been carried out in a manner consistent with the Convention,
particularly after its entry into force and its rapid acceptance by the international community as
the basis for all actions dealing with the oceans and the law of the sea.

The definition of the territorial sea has brought relief from conflicting claims. Navigation
through the territorial sea and narrow straits is now based on legal principles. Coastal States are
already reaping the benefits of provisions giving them extensive economic rights over a 200-mile
wide zone along their shores. The right of landlocked countries of access to and from the sea is
now stipulated unequivocally. The right to conduct marine scientific research is now based on
accepted principles and cannot be unreasonably denied. Already established and functioning are
the International Seabed Authority, which organize and control activities in the deep seabed
beyond national jurisdiction with a view to administering its resources; as well as the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which has competence to settle ocean related
disputes arising from the application or interpretation of the Convention.

Wider understanding of the Convention will bring yet wider application. Stability promises
order and harmonious development. However, Part XI, which deals with mining of minerals
lying on the deep ocean floor outside of nationally regulated ocean areas, in what is commonly
12
known as

13
the international seabed area, had raised many concerns especially from industrialized States.
The Secretary-General, in an attempt to achieve universal participation in the Convention,
initiated a series of informal consultations among States in order to resolve those areas of
concern. The consultations successfully achieved, in July 1998, an Agreement Related to the
Implementation of Part XI of the Convention. The Agreement, which is part of the Convention,
is now deemed to have paved the way for all States to become parties to the Convention.

SETTING LIMITS

The dispute over who controls the oceans probably dates back to the days when the Egyptians
first plied the Mediterranean in papyrus rafts. Over the years and centuries, countries large and
small, possessing vast ocean-going fleets or small fishing flotillas, husbanding rich fishing
grounds close to shore or eyeing distant harvests, have all vied for the right to call long stretches
of oceans and seas their own.

Conflicting claims, even extravagant ones, over the oceans were not new. In 1494, two years
after Christopher Columbus' first expedition to America, Pope Alexander VI met with
representatives of two of the great maritime Powers of the day - Spain and Portugal - and neatly
divided the Atlantic Ocean between them. A Papal Bull gave Spain everything west of the line
the Pope drew down the Atlantic and Portugal everything east of it. On that basis, the Pacific and
the Gulf of Mexico were acknowledged as Spain's, while Portugal was given the South Atlantic
and the Indian Ocean.

Before the Convention on the Law of the Sea could address the exploitation of the riches
underneath the high seas, navigation rights, economic jurisdiction, or any other pressing matter,
it had to face one major and primary issue - the setting of limits. Everything else would depend
on clearly defining the line separating national and international waters. Though the right of a
coastal State to complete control over a belt of water along its shoreline - the territorial sea - had
long been recognized in international law, up until the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea, States could not see eye to eye on how narrow or wide this belt should be.

At the start of the Conference, the States that maintained the traditional claims to a three-mile
territorial sea had numbered a mere 25. Sixty-six countries had by then claimed a 12-mile
territorial
14
sea limit. Fifteen others claimed between 4 and 10 miles, and one remaining major group of
eight States claimed 200 nautical miles.

In addition to their right to enforce any law within their territorial seas, coastal States are also
empowered to implement certain rights in an area beyond the territorial sea, extending for 24
nautical miles from their shores, for the purpose of preventing certain violations and enforcing
police powers. This area, known as the "contiguous zone", may be used by a coast guard or its
naval equivalent to pursue and, if necessary, arrest and detain suspected drug smugglers, illegal
immigrants and customs or tax evaders violating the laws of the coastal State within its territory
or the territorial sea.

The Convention also contains a new feature in international law, which is the regime for
archipelagic States (States such as the Philippines and Indonesia, which are made up of a group
of closely spaced islands). For those States, the territorial sea is a 12-mile zone extending from a
line drawn joining the outermost points of the outermost islands of the group that are in close
proximity to each other. The waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters, where
ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage. In those waters, States may establish sea
lanes and air routes where all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of expeditious and unobstructed
passage.

Navigation
Perhaps no other issue was considered as vital or presented the negotiators of the Convention
on the Law of the Sea with as much difficulty as that of navigational rights.

Countries have generally claimed some part of the seas beyond their shores as part of their
territory, as a zone of protection to be patrolled against smugglers, warships and other intruders.
At its origin, the basis of the claim of coastal States to a belt of the sea was the principle of
protection; during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries another principle gradually evolved:
that the extent of this belt should be measured by the power of the littoral sovereign to control
the area.

In the eighteenth century, the so-called "cannon-shot" rule gained wide acceptance in Europe.
Coastal States were to exercise dominion over their territorial seas as far as projectiles could be
fired from a cannon based on the shore. According to some scholars, in the eighteenth century
the range of land-based cannons was approximately one marine league, or three nautical miles.
It
15
is believed that on the basis of this formula developed the traditional three-mile territorial sea
limit.

By the late 1960s, a trend to a 12-mile territorial sea had gradually emerged throughout the
world, with a great majority of nations claiming sovereignty out to that seaward limit. However,
the major maritime and naval Powers clung to a three-mile limit on territorial seas, primarily
because a 12-mile limit would effectively close off and place under national sovereignty more
than 100 straits used for international navigation.

A 12-mile territorial sea would place under national jurisdiction of riparian States strategic
passages such as the Strait of Gibraltar (8 miles wide and the only open access to the
Mediterranean), the Strait of Malacca (20 miles wide and the main sea route between the Pacific
and Indian Oceans), the Strait of Hormuz (21 miles wide and the only passage to the oil-
producing areas of Gulf States) and Bab el Mandeb (14 miles wide, connecting the Indian Ocean
with the Red Sea.

Exclusive Economic Zone

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is one of the most revolutionary features of the
Convention, and one which already has had a profound impact on the management and
conservation of the resources of the oceans. Simply put, it recognizes the right of coastal States
to jurisdiction over the resources of some 38 million square nautical miles of ocean space. To the
coastal State falls the right to exploit, develop, manage and conserve all resources - fish or oil,
gas or gravel, nodules or sulphur - to be found in the waters, on the ocean floor and in the subsoil
of an area extending 200 miles from its shore.

The EEZs are a generous endowment indeed. About 87 per cent of all known and estimated
hydrocarbon reserves under the sea fall under some national jurisdiction as a result. So too will
almost all known and potential offshore mineral resources, excluding the mineral resources
(mainly manganese nodules and metallic crusts) of the deep ocean floor beyond national limits.
And whatever the value of the nodules, it is the other non-living resources, such as hydrocarbons,
that represent the presently attainable and readily exploitable wealth.

The special interest of coastal States in the conservation and management of fisheries in adjacent
waters was first recognized in the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living
Resources of the High Seas. That Convention allowed coastal States to take "unilateral
measures"
16
of conservation on what was then the high seas adjacent to their territorial waters. It required that
if six months of prior negotiations with foreign fishing nations had failed to find a formula for
sharing, the coastal State could impose terms. But still the rules were disorderly, procedures
undefined, and rights and obligations a web of confusion. On the whole, these rules were never
implemented.

The claim for 200-mile offshore sovereignty made by Peru, Chile and Ecuador in the late 1940s
and early 1950s was sparked by their desire to protect from foreign fishermen the rich waters of
the Humboldt Current (more or less coinciding with the 200-mile offshore belt. This limit was
incorporated in the Santiago Declaration of 1952 and reaffirmed by other Latin American States
joining the three in the Montevideo and Lima Declarations of 1970. The idea of sovereignty over
coastal-area resources continued to gain ground.

Today, the benefits brought by the EEZs are more clearly evident. Already 86 coastal States
have economic jurisdiction up to the 200-mile limit. As a result, almost 99 per cent of the world's
fisheries now fall under some nation's jurisdiction. Also, a large percentage of world oil and gas
production is offshore. Many other marine resources also fall within coastal-State control. This
provides a long-needed opportunity for rational, well-managed exploitation under an assured
authority.

It is evident that it is archipelagic States and large nations endowed with long coastlines that
naturally acquire the greatest areas under the EEZ regime. Among the major beneficiaries of the
EEZ regime are the United States, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia and the Russian
Federation.

Coastal States have certain other obligations, including the adoption of measures to prevent
and limit pollution and to facilitate marine scientific research in their EEZs.

CONCLUSION
Three Decades Of Unclos : A Success Or Failure?

UNCLOS makes extensive provisions regarding conduct of marine scientific research and
marine environmental protection. Other international instruments further complement, enhance
and implement the marine environmental protection provisions of UNCLOS and are
continually
17
evolving in response to our growing understanding of the ocean and the effects of our activities
on it. Evolution of principles such as the precautionary and polluter-pays principles as well as
ecosystem-based management are examples of efforts taken in this regard. However, the marine
scientific research provisions have not been developed equally well under UNCLOS. To ensure
that the right to obtain potentially commercially valuable information on resources within its
marine jurisdiction remains with the coastal state, the MSR regime and state practice effectively
remove over one-third of the ocean from scientific examination. This situation hampers the
global community's ability to identify, investigate and assess the effects of the community's
activities on the global marine environment, and to develop scientifically robust policies for its
sustainable use.

One can also sense a disjunction between marine scientific research and environment protection
regimes, especially in case of experimental activities that intentionally introduce perturbations
into the marine environment and these activities are only increasing everyday with more and
more technological developments. Such experiments conducted in the ocean to obtain important
scientific data enhances our knowledge of the ocean and contributes valuable information on the
marine environment. However, such work may also have significant environmental effects,
which may even become synergistic or additive, with unknown consequences for the marine
environment.

When countries first came together for the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea in 1974, the developing countries were determined to play a pro-active role in formulating
new and comprehensive laws to manage oceanic resources. They were convinced that freedom of
the seas would have to be regulated in accordance wit and balanced against the needs of all
nations to safeguard their economic interests as well as their national security and sovereignty.
The long- standing laissez faire policy with respect to the high seas had ceased to serve
international justice and was being exploited by few powerful countries to monopolise the
marine resources. UNCLOS tried to change this practice but did not succeed to a large extent.

Through the creation of high seas, and more importantly through the adoption of conflicting
concepts of mare liberum, sovereignty, and resource management, UNCLOS unwittingly has
allowed for the over-exploitation of migratory marine species on the high seas. The
overexploitation has focused on a few developed nations at the detriment of the majority of
developing nations. Attempts to regulate the migratory species through the creation of Regional
18
Fisheries Organizations (hereinafter RFOs) has led to conflict between notions of mare liberum,
or freedom of the high seas, and internationally accepted principles of sovereignty.

A better method for regulating migratory marine species has been shown through unilateral state
action in the form of trade embargos. Further, suggestions to redefine certain areas of the high
seas in an attempt to create strong management controls without destroying notions of mare
liberum and sovereignty have been suggested. One of these proposed solutions seems to focus on
the power of developed nations, and it is questionable whether developing nations will benefit
from the protection of resources on the high seas.

It should however, be kept in mind that UNCLOS has not entirely failed. Compared to the 44
countries and the 86 and 88 participants in the 1930, 1958 and 1960 Conferences, respectively,
UNCLOS III started with 137 participating countries in 1974 and then this number rose to 156 in
1976. Also, even during the third conference, with the large number of participants, there was a
lot of discord among the countries and yet credit should be given to the nations for evolving a
largely comprehensive law at the end of the conference. We have already discussed how a large
number of regulatory bodies were established under the aegis of UNCLOS such as those
regulating the seabed, and International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, etc. Even though it is
still not very well-defined, UNCLOS also has tried to regulate and streamline scientific research.
Furthermore, it has tried largely to lay down provisions for protection of environment and
marine resources.

Therefore, if one were to make a final judgment on the success or failure of the UNCLOS after
three decades of its existence, one would have to say that the answer would be midway between
success and failure. There is no hard and fast judgment that one can make on the achievement of
the Convention, as we have seen that certain negatives as well as positives have both been
thrown in due course of this paper. Professor Vezijl, a noted scholar who was present at the 1958
Conference can be quoted to describe the UNCLOS after three decades to be “as a whole, it has
been a success”. As for the failures of the Convention, one can only hope that the shortcomings
and the lacunae existent in the UNCLOS can be amended and steps can be taken to improve
upon the provisions which fall short on meeting their desired goals. One will truly see a just and
fair regulation of the marine resources and will be able to take adequate measures to save our
precious oceans and all the resources it had to offer.

19
20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Anand, Ram Prakash, 1982, ‘Origin and Development of the Law of the Sea: History of
International Law', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands, available online at
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=UcGG8UIkEsoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=development+of
+law+of+the+sea&source=bl&ots=aku5JC_OM_&sig=lZ5OtJLOXmkJ0wIKvZr-
joSWZ5s&hl=en&ei=XMa6S5nDB8qprAf58oW7Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=one
page&q&f=false, last visited on March 31, 2010

Birnie, P.W. and A.E. Boyle, 2002, ‘International Law and the Environment', Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 2nd Edition

Sands, Philippe and Paolo Galizzi (eds.), 2004, ‘Documents in International Environmental Law',
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Journals Articles:

Freestone, David, ‘A Decade of the Law of the Sea Convention: Is it a success?', 39 Geo. Wash.
Int'l L. Rev. 499 2007

McDorman, Ted L., ‘The 1982 Law of The Sea Convention: The First Year', 15 J. Mar. L. & Com.
211 1984

Online Sources:

Anonymous, ‘Unclos And The High Seas: Problems and Suggested Solutions to the Creation of
a Common Pool Resource on an International Scale', available online at
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=chad_mcguire, last visited
on April 2, 2010

Verlaan, Philomene, ‘The marine scientific research and marine environmental protection
provisions of UNCLOS: implications for experimental activities that intentionally perturb the
marine environment', available online at
www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS05Folder/VerlaanAbstract.pdf, last visited on March 30,
2010.

21