Unclos Implementing Agreements

Therefore, the ICN continued to seek absolute clarity that the new UN Agreement is not intended to regulate activities already falling within the mandate of other UN specialised agencies or relevant legal instruments. In any case, the most important thing is that IMO, on the basis of its experience and expertise in the implementation of these measures, determines the modalities and adequacy of all measures that could be developed for application to navigation, for example in marine protected areas on the high seas. At the beginning of the twentieth century, some nations expressed their desire to expand their national ambitions: to integrate mineral resources, protect fish stocks and provide the means to enforce pollution controls. (The League of Nations convened a conference in The Hague in 1930, but no agreement was reached. [6]) President Harry S. Truman extended U.S. control to all of his continent`s natural resources in 1945, applying the principle of peoples` use of a nation`s right to protect its natural resources. Other nations soon followed. Between 1946 and 1950, Chile, Peru and Ecuador extended their rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) to cover their fishing grounds in the Humboldtstrom Torrent.

Other nations have extended their coastal seas to 12 nautical miles (22 km). [7] and implemented by the legal, political and institutional framework, the ocean Not only is compliance with IMO rules monitored by a strict system of enforcement by flag States, but also under the supervision of a sophisticated system of port State control, coordinated by regional agreements within the overall IMO framework. But the regulatory regulations applicable to other maritime industries are not as well developed as those of commercial shipping. After several years of discussions in response to growing concern over ocean degradation, a high-level diplomatic conference was convened by the United Nations in New York in 2018. The aim is to adopt an implementing agreement which, within the framework of the existing Convention on the Law of the Sea, will allow the development of future rules on the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in marine areas outside national jurisdiction (BBNJ), i.e. rules applicable to the high seas. In 1960, the United Nations held the Second Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCS II); However, the Geneva conference, which was held for six weeks, did not result in any new agreement. [12] In general, developing and third world countries participated only as clients, allies or members of the United States or the Soviet Union, with no significant separate voice.

[14] Konrad Jan Marciniak, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the Legal and Contractual Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland; He also teaches at the University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski in Warsaw. All views set out in the document remain the sole responsibility of the author and cannot be attributed to any of the institutions to which it may be linked. In the informal consultations of 28 and 29 January 1993, participants were generally of the view that a text based on a more operational approach should be developed in a form that could form the basis of an agreement. The Convention introduced a number of provisions. The main topics discussed were the setting of limit values, navigation, the status of archipelagos and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), liability for the continental shelf, deep-sea exploitation, exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research and dispute settlement. . . .

Comments are closed.