The United Nations General Assembly has recently appealed to all countries to “refrain from taking any action directed at undermining the [law of the Sea] Convention or defeating its objects and purposes”. The Convention on the Law of the Sea made at Montego Bay in September 1982 took nine years to write following five years of preparatory work and covers all the major law of the sea issues; resource exploration and exploitation, navigation and overflight, conservation and pollution, fishing and shipping. The Convention has not yet entered into force and it may be some time before it does so. During that time existing international law will be augmented along the Convention lines by the national legislation of states seeking to safeguard their interests while the Convention remains inchoate. Although the aforementioned Resolution is non-binding and of recommendatory value only, it does appear to stress an existing rule of international law which has something to say about the conduct of states which have signed the Law of the Sea Convention prior to its entry into force. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires that a nation, after signing a treaty, refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty” until such time as the nation indicates its intent not to ratify. The extent of the duties incumbent upon states as a result of this obligation is unclear, but the General Assembly Resolution is perhaps evidence that, as time progresses without the entry into force of the Convention, the obligation shall play a significant role in the regulation of the conduct of signatory states towards the Convention in many of the diverse areas with which it is concerned. The object of this article is to analyse one particular area of the Convention, that of the regime for the mining of the resources of the International Seabed Area under Part XI of the Convention. This throws into relief the problems which signatory states may face as they seek to legislate or take action to secure rights and to comply with duties under a Convention which is not yet in force. It may be that the citation of the duty not to defeat the object and purpose of the Convention is far more problematic in terms of a successful outcome to the negotiations than at first appeared.

International transport treaties generally contain liability limitation clauses which limit the liability of carriers for passenger injuries and cargo damage to fixed amounts of a specified unit of account. Such unit of account serves as the basis for converting the amounts due into the national currency of the forum which is awarding judgment. Traditionally gold served as the original unit of account in these treaties.

On 10 December 1982, 117 States signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea and about forty signatures were later added to this impressive number. However, one should not conclude from this that the Convention will come into force soon, for that would require 60 ratifications. It is certain that the industrialized nations are hesitating as many of them have difficulties with the mining regime for the deep sea-bed, provision for which was made in the Convention. Among those who have not yet signed are the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Netherlands have signed but explicitly stated that a later decision is required whether or not they will also have to ratify the Convention. All attention was understandably focussed on the deep seabed mining regime which should not make one forget that this was only one of the many features of the Convention. With reference to other provisions in the Convention, some of which would appear to be rather important, there is no difference of opinion. When one takes a cursory look at the 320-articles therein, some subjects seem to merit special attention: the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, fishing, the continental shelf, the high seas, the control of pollution of the marine environment, marine scientific research and the settlement of disputes.

In the modern law of obligations the protection of consumers is a phenomenon that is gaining ever increasing importance. It has also penetrated the realm of private international law (p.i.l.). Rules on the subject primarily deal with obligations arising out of contract; in this field specific p.i.l. rules envisage contracts concluded by consumers. In the field of non-contractual obligations no such specific rules have been framed as yet. However p.i.1. rules relating to products liability, although as a rule not limited to consumers but also including non-consumers, largely affect the first-mentioned class of persons and cannot be neglected in a paper dealing with consumer protection. In the present paper, therefore, attention will be focussed on p.i.l. rules relating to consumer contracts, and this will be followed by a brief account of p.i.l. rules on products liability as far as these are of importance for the protection of consumers.

China is one of the eighteen privileged states whose continental shelf extends more than 200 miles beyond the base line from which the territorial sea is measured. According to the Law of the Sea Convention, states have a right to a continental shelf with its boundary positioned at a maximum width of 350 nautical miles, measured from the base line. It is in China's interests to safeguard its continental shelf rights because the report drawn up in 1968 by the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East revealed that there were probably extremely rich resources of oil beneath the continental shelf of the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. However, China is not the only state in that area to lay claim to the continental shelf of the East China Sea. Taiwan, South and North Korea and Japan have also made claims on part of this area. The claims of the various states overlap and the delimitation of the area is therefore necessary.