|
UN Chronicle
, 1984, pp. 44 ff. See also 25 ILM, 1986, p. 1329 and 26 ILM, 1987,
p. 1725.
379
See Churchill and Lowe,
Law of the Sea
, p. 230.
380
See 21(4)
UN Chronicle
, 1984, pp. 45–7.
381
See LOS/PCN/97–99 (1987). See also the Understanding of 5 September 1986 making
various changes to the rules regarding pioneer operations, including extending the dead-
line by which the $30 million investment had to be made and establishing a Group of
Technical Experts, LOS/PCN/L.41/Rev.1. See also Brown,
International Law of the Sea
,
vol. I, pp. 448–54. An Understanding of 30 August 1990 dealt with training costs, transfer
of technology, expenditure on exploration and the development of a mine site for the
Authority,
ibid.
, pp. 454–5, while an Understanding of 22 February 1991 dealt with the
avoidance of overlapping claims signed by China on the one hand and seven potential
pioneer investor states on the other (Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany,
the UK and the US),
ibid.
, p. 455.
382
Brown,
International Law of the Sea
, vol. I, p. 455.
383
Ibid.
, p. 456. This organisation consisted of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the
Russian Federation and Cuba. See, for the full list of registered pioneer investors,
www.isa.org.jm/en/default.htm. The first fifteen-year contracts for exploration for poly-
metallic nodules in the deep seabed were signed at the headquarters of the International
Seabed Authority in Jamaica in March 2001,
ibid
.
t h e l aw o f t h e s e a
631
been earmarked for the Authority, all on the Clarion–Clipperton Ridge
in the North-Eastern Equatorial Pacific.
The regime for the deep seabed, however, was opposed by the United
States in particular and, as a consequence, it voted against the adoption
of the 1982 Convention. The UK also declared that it would not sign
the Convention until a satisfactory regime for deep seabed mining was
established.
384
Concern was particularly expressed regarding the failure to
provide assured access to seabed minerals, lack of a proportionate voice
in decision-making for countries most affected, and the problems that
would be caused by not permitting the free play of market forces in the
development of seabed resources.
385
The Reciprocating States Regime
As a result of developments in the Conference on the Law of the Sea,
many states began to enact domestic legislation with the aim of establish-
ing an interim framework for exploration and exploitation of the seabed
pending an acceptable international solution. The UK Deep Sea Mining
(Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, for example, provided for the grant-
ing of exploration licences (but not in respect of a period before 1 July
1981) and exploitation licences (but not for a period before 1 January
1988).
386
A 1982 Agreement
387
called for consultations to avoid overlapping
claims under national legislation and for arbitration to resolve any dis-
pute.
388
The Preparatory Commission, however, adopted a declaration
in 1985 stating that any claim, agreement or action regarding the Area
and its resources undertaken outside the Commission itself, which was
384
See e.g.
The Times
, 16 February 1984, p. 4, and 33 HC Deb., col. 404, 2 December 1982.
385
See e.g. the US delegate,
UN Chronicle
, June 1982, p. 16.
386
The Act also provided for a Deep Sea Mining Levy to be paid by the holder of an ex-
ploitation licence into a Deep Sea Mining Fund and for mutual recognition of licences. A
number of countries adopted similar, unilateral legislation, e.g. the US in 1980, 19 ILM,
1980, p. 1003; 20 ILM, 1981, p. 1228 and 21 ILM, 1982, p. 867; West Germany, 20 ILM,
1981, p. 393 and 21 ILM, 1982, p. 832; the USSR, 21 ILM, 1982, p. 551; France, 21 ILM,
1982, p. 808, and Japan, 22 ILM, 1983, p. 102: see Brown,
International Law of the Sea
,
vol. I, pp. 456 ff.
387
The 1982 Agreement Concerning Interim Arrangements Relating to Polymetallic Nodules
of the Deep Seabed (France, Federal Republic of Germany, UK, US), 21 ILM, 1982,
p. 950.
388
See also the Provisional Understanding Regarding Deep Seabed Mining (Belgium, France,
Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, UK, US), 23 ILM, 1984, p. 1354.
632
i n t e r nat i o na l l aw
incompatible with the 1982 Convention and its related resolutions, ‘shall
not be recognised’.
389
The 1994 Agreement on Implementation of the Seabed Provisions of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea
390
Attempts to ensure the universality of the 1982 Convention system and
thus prevent the development of conflicting deep seabed regimes began in
earnest in 1990 in consultations sponsored by the UN Secretary-General,
with more flexibility being shown by states.
391
Eventually, the 1994 Agree-
ment emerged. The states parties undertake in article 1 to implement
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
