¹ Oceans and the Law of the Sea, GA Res 74/19, UN Doc A/RES/74/19 (20 December 2019) at 4 [GA Res 74/19]; Meeting of States Parties (SPLOS), Report of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/29/9 (8 July 2019) at 17-18, paras 97-101. See also O Hoegh-Guldberg et al, eds, Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018); International Law Commission, “Sea-level Rise in Relation to International Law,” online: <https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/8_9.shtml>; International Law Commission, “Sea-level Rise in Relation to International Law: First Issues Paper by Bogdan Aurescu and Nilüfer Oral, Co-Chairs of the Study Group on Sea-level Rise in Relation to International Law,” UN Doc A/CN.4/740 (28 February 2020), online: <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N20/053/91/PDF/N2005391.pdf?OpenElement>; International Law Association (ILA), “International Law and Sea Level Rise” (2018), online: <www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees>; ILA, “Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise,” Resolution 5/2018, online: <www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees>.

² GA Res 74/19, supra note 1 at para 262.

³ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS]. The “Area” is defined as comprising “the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (art 1(1)(1)) and its “resources” as “all solid, liquid, or gaseous mineral resources in situ in the Area at or beneath the seabed, including polymetallic nodules” (art 133(a)). The Area together with its resources are the common heritage of mankind (art 136).

⁴ GA Res 74/19, supra note 1 at paras 63, 65, 68.

⁵ Julia Guifang Xue & Xiangxin Xu, “Deep Seabed Mining: Environmental Concerns and Improvement of Regulations” in Zou, Keyuan, ed, Global Commons and the Law of the Sea (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2018) 168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Seabed Authority (ISA), Biodiversity, Species Ranges, and Gene Flow in the Abyssal Pacific Nodule Province: Predicting and Managing the Impacts of Deep Seabed Mining, ISA Technical Study No 3 (Kingston, Jamaica: ISA, 2018).

⁶ United Nations University-IAS, “Bioprospecting of Genetic Resources in the Deep Seabed: Scientific, Legal and Policy Aspects” (2005) at 31, online: <www.cbd.int/financial/bensharing/g-absseabed.pdf>.

⁷ UNCLOS, supra note 3, preamble.

⁸ José Luís Jesus, “OLDEPESCA XX Conference of Ministers” (2009), online: <www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/jesus/oldepesca_020909_eng.pdf>. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is not the only forum available to states parties to UNCLOS. They are free to choose one or more of the following fora for the settlement of disputes under UNCLOS: ITLOS, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), an Annex VII arbitral tribunal, or an Annex VIII special arbitral tribunal. If both parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, either of them may submit the dispute to this forum. In the absence of declarations or concurrent choice, the dispute may be submitted only to arbitration (UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 287). Further, note that the tribunal’s jurisdiction is subject to the limitations and exceptions contained in Articles 297 and 298 of UNCLOS.

⁹ See Tafsir Malick Ndiaye, “The International Courts and Tribunals, the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment” (2018) 3 J L & Judicial System 21.

¹⁰ UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 193.

¹¹ Ibid, art 194(1)–(2).

¹² Ibid, art 195.

¹³ Ibid, art 197.

¹⁴ Ibid, art 200.

¹⁵ Ibid, art 204.

¹⁶ Ibid, art 206; see also art 205.

¹⁷ Ibid, art 208(3).

¹⁸ Ibid, art 209(2).

¹⁹ Ibid, art 210(6).

²⁰ Ibid, art 211(5).

²¹ Ibid, art 207(1).

²² Ibid, art 212(1).

²³ Ibid, art 235.

²⁴ Ibid, art 19(2)(h).

²⁵ Ibid, art 21(1)(f).

²⁶ Ibid, art 39(2)(b).

²⁷ Ibid, art 56(1)(b)(iii).

²⁸ Ibid, art 61(2).

²⁹ Ibid, art 61(3).

³⁰ Ibid, art 62(1).

³¹ Ibid, art 79(2).

³² Ibid, art 94(4)(c).

³³ Ibid, art 117.

³⁴ Ibid, art 118.

³⁵ Ibid, art 119(1).

³⁶ Ibid, art 123(a)–(b).

³⁷ Ibid, art 142(3).

³⁸ See ibid, art 153.

³⁹ Ibid, art 145(b).

⁴⁰ Ibid, art 246(5)(b).

⁴¹ Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Annex VI to UNCLOS, supra note 3), art 21, online: <www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/basic_texts/statute_en.pdf> [ITLOS Statute]; ITLOS, Rules of the Tribunal, Doc ITLOS/8 (25 September 2018), art 138, online: <www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/basic_texts/Itlos_8_E_25.09.18.pdf> [Rules of the Tribunal].

⁴² UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 288(1); ITLOS Statute, supra note 41, arts 21–22.

⁴³ ITLOS, “International Agreements Conferring Jurisdiction on the Tribunal”, online: <www.itlos.org/en/jurisdiction/international-agreements-conferring-jurisdiction-on-the-tribunal/>.

⁴⁴ United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 4 August 1995, 2167 UNTS 3 (entered into force 11 December 2001) [UNFSA].

⁴⁵ Ibid, art 30(1)–(2).

⁴⁶ UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 73(2)–(3).

⁴⁷ Ibid, arts 220(6)–(7), 226(1)(b).

⁴⁸ Ibid, art 292(1).

⁴⁹ Ibid, art 290(1); ITLOS Statute, supra note 41, art 25(1); see also UNFSA, supra note 44, art 31(2).

⁵⁰ See Rüdiger Wolfrum, “Provisional Measures: International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS),” Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (2019) at paras 11–13, online: <https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3507.013.3507/law-mpeipro-e3507>.

⁵¹ UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 290(5).

⁵² Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Cases No 3 & 4, Provisional Measures, [1999] ITLOS Rep 280 at para 74.

⁵³ Ibid at para 70.

⁵⁴ Ibid at para 77.

⁵⁵ Ibid at 299.

⁵⁶ MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Case No 10, Provisional Measures, [2001] ITLOS Rep 95 at para 68.

⁵⁷ Ibid at para 82.

⁵⁸ Ibid at para 84.

⁵⁹ Ibid at 211.

⁶⁰ Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v Singapore), Case No 12, Provisional Measures, [2003] ITLOS Rep 10 at para 61.

⁶¹ Ibid at para 96.

⁶² Ibid at para 99.

⁶³ Ibid at para 106.

⁶⁴ Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v Côte d’Ivoire), Case No 23, Provisional Measures, [2015] ITLOS Rep 146 at paras 65–66.

⁶⁵ Ibid at para 67.

⁶⁶ Ibid at para 68.

⁶⁷ Ibid at para 72.

⁶⁸ Ibid at 166.

⁶⁹ See also ITLOS Statute, supra note 41, art 21.

⁷⁰ Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Case No 21, Advisory Opinion, [2015] ITLOS Rep 4 at para 77 [SRFC (Advisory Opinion)].

⁷¹ Ibid at paras 111, 120.

⁷² Ibid at para 124.

⁷³ Ibid at para 120.

⁷⁴ Ibid at para 136.

⁷⁵ Ibid at para 216.

⁷⁶ UNCLOS, supra note 3, Part XI, s 5; ITLOS Statute, supra note 41, art 14.

⁷⁷ Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Case No 17, Advisory Opinion, [2011] ITLOS Rep 10 at para 25 [Responsibilities and Obligations of States (Advisory Opinion)].

⁷⁸ UNCLOS, supra note 3, Annex VI, art 35(1)–(2).

⁷⁹ Ibid, arts 187–90.

⁸⁰ Ibid, art 290; ITLOS Statute, supra note 41, art 25.

⁸¹ See also UNCLOS, supra note 3, art 159(10).

⁸² Responsibilities and Obligations of States (Advisory Opinion), supra note 77 at para 4.

⁸³ David Freestone, “Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area” (2011) 105 Am J Intl L 755 at 759.

⁸⁴ Responsibilities and Obligations of States (Advisory Opinion), supra note 77 at paras 107–16.

⁸⁵ Ibid at para 110.

⁸⁶ Ibid at paras 118–19, 213–17.

⁸⁷ Ibid at para 227.

⁸⁸ Ibid at paras 227–41.

⁸⁹ Ibid at paras 240–41.

⁹⁰ Ibid at paras 121, 123.

⁹¹ Ibid at paras 122, 124–50, 236.

⁹² Ibid at paras 141, 145.

⁹³ Ibid at paras 125–35.

⁹⁴ Ibid at para 135; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 13 June 1992, (1992) 31 ILM 874.

⁹⁵ Responsibilities and Obligations of States (Advisory Opinion), supra note 77 at para 158.

⁹⁶ Ibid at para 161.

⁹⁷ Ibid at para 189.

⁹⁸ Ibid at para 179.

⁹⁹ Ibid at paras 205, 209.

¹⁰⁰ See e.g. Karen N Scott, “Legal Aspects of Climate Change” in Werle, Dirk, Boudreau, Paul R & Brooks, Mary R, eds, The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2018) 169 Google Scholar; Margaret A Young, “Climate Change Law and Regime Interaction” (2011) 2 Carbon & Climate L Rev 147.

¹⁰¹ See Tim Stephens, “See You in Court? A Rising Tide of International Climate Litigation” (2019), online: Lowy Institute <www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/see-you-court-rising-tide-international-climate-litigation>; Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh & Diana Hinge Salili, “Between Negotiations and Litigation: Vanuatu’s Perspective on Loss and Damage from Climate Change” (2020) 20:6 Climate Policy 1; Alan Boyle, “Litigating Climate Change under Part XII of the LOSC” (2019) 34 Intl J Marine & Coastal L 463 at 474–80; Sandrine Maljean-Dubois, “Climate Change Litigation,” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Procedural Law (2019), online: <https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3461.013.3461/law-mpeipro-e3461>; Mayer, Benoit, The International Law on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) at 242–43Google Scholar; Millicent McCreath, “PSIDS Request for an ITLOS Advisory Opinion on the Content of UNCLOS Climate Change Obligations” (ILA Biennial Conference, Sydney, 2018), online: <https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/McCreath-ILA-Presentation.pdf>; Daniel Bodansky, “The Role of the International Court of Justice in Addressing Climate Change: Some Preliminary Reflections” (2017) 49 Arizona State LJ 1; Philippe Sands, “Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future in International Law” (2016) 28 J Envtl L 19 at 33; Lucas Bergkamp, “Adjudicating Scientific Disputes in Climate Science: The Limits of Judicial Competence and the Risks of Taking Sides” (2015) 3 Environmental Liability: Law, Policy and Practice 80; William CG Burns, “Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change Impacts under the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement” (2007) 7:2 Sustainable Development L & Policy 34.

¹⁰² Verheyen, Roda & Zengerling, Cathrin, “International Dispute Settlement” in Gray, Kevin R, Tarasofsky, Richard & Carlarne, Cinnamon, eds, The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 417 at 417, online: <https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199684601.003.0019>.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ibid at 440. Apart from resorting to international courts (in particular, by requesting an advisory opinion), two other options might be considered. One avenue that UNCLOS explicitly provided for would be to amend UNCLOS itself (UNCLOS, supra note 3, arts 312–13). Yet attempting to amend the convention would be like opening Pandora’s box. To make the argument for a formal amendment of the convention is an admittedly difficult path due to the legal and political complexities it may entail (David Freestone & Alex G Oude Elferink, “Flexibility and Innovation in the Law of the Sea: Will the LOS Convention Amendment Procedures Ever Be Used?” in Elferink, Alex G Oude, ed, Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005) 169 at 173–83)Google Scholar. Another option would be to adopt an implementing agreement under UNCLOS on climate change-induced sea-level rise. The risk, however, would be ending up with a watered-down agreement, let alone the length of the negotiations required to reach such an agreement. For further discussion on available options, see Moritaka Hayashi, “Sea-Level Rise and the Law of the Sea: Future Options” in David Vidas & Peter J Schei, eds, The World Ocean in Globalisation: Challenges and Responses (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2011) 187 at 199–205.

¹⁰⁴ See e.g. SRFC (Advisory Opinion), supra note 70, Written Statement of Australia, China, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Thailand and the United Kingdom, online: <www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-21/>; see also SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/287 (13 July 2015) at 6, para 23.

¹⁰⁵ Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS 15, art 96 (entered into force 24 October 1945); Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, Can TS 1945 No 7, arts 65–68 (entered into force 24 October 1945).

¹⁰⁶ See Tafsir Malick Ndiaye, “The Advisory Function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea” (2010) 9 Chinese J Intl L 565.

¹⁰⁷ See e.g. Rüdiger Wolfrum, “Advisory Opinions: Are They a Suitable Alternative for the Settlement of International Disputes?” in Wolfrum, Rüdiger & Gätzschmann, Ina, eds, International Dispute Settlement: Room for Innovations? (Heidelberg: Springer, 2013) 35 at 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ndiaye, supra note 106 at 583; José Luis Jesus, “Article 138” in P Chandrasekhara Rao & Philippe Gautier, eds, The Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006) 393 at 394.

¹⁰⁸ Convention on the Determination of the Minimal Conditions for Access and Exploitation of Marine Resources within the Maritime Areas under Jurisdiction of the Member States of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, 8 June 2012, art 33 (entered into force 16 September 2012), online: <http://spcsrp.org/spcsrp/sites/default/files/csrp/documents/csrp2012/csrp-CMA_version_originale_juin_2012_fr.pdf>.

¹⁰⁹ Wolfrum, supra note 107; Jesus, supra note 107. See, however, Ndiaye, supra note 106 at 584.

¹¹⁰ See e.g. Philippe Gautier, “Comments on Procedural Issues Relating to the Establishment of Rights over the Continental Shelf” in Gao, Zhiguo et al, eds, Technical and Legal Aspects of the Regimes of the Continental Shelf and the Area (Beijing: China Ocean Press, 2011) 194 at 202Google Scholar; P Chandrasekhara Rao, “ITLOS: The First Six Years” (2002) 6 Max Planck YB UN L 183 at 211–12.

¹¹¹ Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/2/Rev.4 (24 January 2005), Rule 52(1) [SPLOS Rules of Procedure].

¹¹² Ibid, Rule 53.

¹¹³ SRFC (Advisory Opinion), supra note 70 at para 68.

¹¹⁴ Ibid.

¹¹⁵ Ibid, citing Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, [1996] ICJ Rep 66 at para 22 [Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion)].

¹¹⁶ Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), supra note 115 at paras 20–26.

¹¹⁷ That the SPLOS should limit itself to consideration of financial and administrative matters relating to the bodies established by the Convention has been repeatedly noted by some delegations. See e.g. SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/29/9 (8 July 2019) at 19, paras 107–08; SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/303 (2 August 2016) at 16, para 92 [SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting]; see also SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/287 (13 July 2015) at para 81; SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Doc SPLOS/277 (14 July 2014) at 19, para 118. See also SPLOS Rules of Procedure, supra note 111, Rules 70–75; Ndiaye, supra note 106 at 584, 586.

¹¹⁸ Rules of the Tribunal, supra note 41, art 138(1).

¹¹⁹ Responsibilities and Obligations of States (Advisory Opinion), supra note 77 at 25, para 39.

¹²⁰ See SRFC (Advisory Opinion), supra note 70 at paras 65–66. The questions could potentially be framed as follows: “What are the legal obligations of states with respect to the preservation and protection of the marine environment in the case of climate change? What are the legal consequences arising from sea-level rise with respect to baselines, the outer limits of maritime zones, and coastal states’ entitlements to maritime spaces?”

¹²¹ See e.g. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, [2010] ICJ Rep 403 at 423, para 50 [Kosovo (Advisory Opinion)].

¹²² ISA Council, Proposal to Seek an Advisory Opinion from the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Matters Regarding Sponsoring State Responsibility and Liability Submitted by the Delegation of Nauru, Doc ISBA/16/C/6 (5 March 2010); ISA Council, Decision of the Council of the International Seabed Authority Requesting an Advisory Opinion pursuant to Article 191 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Doc ISBA/16/C/13 (6 May 2020).

¹²³ SRFC (Advisory Opinion), supra note 70 at para 71.

¹²⁴ Ibid at para 74.

¹²⁵ Ibid at paras 71, 78.

¹²⁶ Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, [2019] ICJ Rep 95 at 113, para 64 [Chagos Archipelago (Advisory Opinion)].

¹²⁷ Ibid at 114–15, paras 69–74.

¹²⁸ Kosovo (Advisory Opinion), supra note 121 at 416–17, paras 32–33.

¹²⁹ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] ICJ Rep 136 at 162–63, paras 59–62 [Construction of a Wall (Advisory Opinion)].

¹³⁰ Ibid at 159–60, paras 51–53.

¹³¹ Ibid at 136, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins.

¹³² See ibid at 454, Declaration of Vice-President Tomka; at 482, Separate Opinion of Judge Keith; at 500, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bennouna; at 515, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Skotnikov.

¹³³ The ICJ in Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), supra note 115, refused to give an advisory opinion based upon the lack of jurisdiction rather than the question of its discretionary power.

¹³⁴ SRFC (Advisory Opinion), supra note 70 at 25–26, para 75.

¹³⁵ Ibid at 26, para 76; at 74, para 9, Declaration of Judge Cot.

¹³⁶ Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, [1975] ICJ Rep 12 at para 33 [Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion)].

¹³⁷ See e.g. Chagos Archipelago (Advisory Opinion), supra note 126 at 22–23, paras 83–90; Construction of a Wall (Advisory Opinion), supra note 129 at 157–58, para 47; Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), supra note 136 at 24–25, paras 31–33; Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion [1950] ICJ Rep 65 at 71–72. See also Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion, [1923] PCIJ (Ser B) No 5 at 27 (where the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) exercised its discretion to refuse a request due to lack of consent). See generally Philip Burton, “Searching for the Eastern Carelia Principle,” ESIL Reflections (2019), online: <https://esil-sedi.eu/fr/esil-reflection-searching-for-the-eastern-carelia-principle-copy/>.

¹³⁸ SRFC (Advisory Opinion), supra note 70 at para 76.

¹³⁹ Ibid.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid at para 77.

¹⁴¹ See e.g. Seokwoo Lee & Lowell Bautista, “Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Duty to Mitigate against Climate Change: Making Out a Claim, Causation, and Related Issues” (2018) 45 Ecology L Quarterly 129 at 152, 154. See also SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting, supra note 117 at 5, para 25.

¹⁴² Some advisory opinions have been proposed but not effectively requested. For instance, in 2011, Palau initiated a campaign for the UNGA to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ on whether countries have a legal responsibility to ensure that any activities on their territory that emit greenhouse gases do not harm other states. “Palau Seeks UN World Court Opinion on Damage Caused by Greenhouse Gases,” UN News (2011), online: <https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/09/388202>. In 2016, it was proposed that clarification could be obtained by means of a request for an advisory opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber (SDC) under UNCLOS art 191 on the issues associated with the conduct of marine scientific research in exploration areas (ISA Council, Issues Associated with the Conduct of Marine Scientific Research in Exploration Areas, Report of the Secretary-General, Doc ISBA/22/C/3* (12 May 2016)). Yet many delegations indicated that it was premature to seek such an advisory opinion (ISA Council, Summary Report of the President of the Council of the International Seabed Authority on the Work of the Council during Its Twenty-Second Session, Doc ISBA/22/C/30 (29 July 2016) at 6–7, para 25).

¹⁴³ Michael Wood, “Advisory Jurisdiction: Lessons from Recent Practice” in Holger P Hestermeyer et al, eds, Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012) 1833 at 1849. Furthermore, the fact that the exercise of advisory jurisdiction by the full tribunal in Case no. 21 was criticized by many states also demonstrates that requesting advisory opinions is “no light matter.”

¹⁴⁴ Michael Lodge, “The Tribunal and the International Seabed Authority: The Future of the Advisory and Contentious Jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber” (Paper delivered at ITLOS at 20: Looking into the Future — Symposium, 18 March 2017) 12 at 16. The relevance of this advisory opinion is recalled annually in the UNGA resolution on the oceans and the law of the sea. See e.g. GA Res 74/19, supra note 1 at 16, para 66.

¹⁴⁵ ISA, “Exploration Contracts,” online: <www.isa.org.jm/deep-seabed-minerals-contractors>.

¹⁴⁶ Lodge, supra note 144 at 15.

¹⁴⁷ See ISA, “Comparative Study of the Existing National Legislation on Deep Seabed Mining,” online: <https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/files/documents/compstudy-nld.pdf>.

¹⁴⁸ See e.g. ISA Council, Decision of the Council of the International Seabed Authority Relating to an Application by the Government of Poland for Approval of a Plan of Work for Exploration for Polymetallic Sulphides, Doc ISBA/23/C/14 (10 August 2017) at 1. The preambular paragraph typically reads as follows: “Taking note of the advisory opinion of 1 February 2011 of the [SDC] of the [ITLOS] on responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area.”

¹⁴⁹ E.g. France (12 December 2017); The Netherlands (15 December 2017); China (20 December 2017); United Kingdom (21 December 2017); Australia (28 September 2018); China (30 September 2018); Singapore (30 September 2018); Kingdom of Tonga (30 September 2018); Jamaica (2 October 2018); Federated States of Micronesia (19 October 2018); Republic of Nauru (19 November 2018). See ISA, Submissions to International Seabed Authority’s Request for Comments. Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area (19 November 2018), online: <https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/documents/EN/Regs/2018/Comments/Comments.pdf>.

¹⁵⁰ Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, “International Judge Presents Keynote in Regional Judicial Symposium to Promote Responsibility in Fisheries” (2019), online: <www.ffa.int/node/2310?fbclid=IwAR2-dJT_gGQnKtXU9oiK6J-2t40FZpd26NtFk2e86U9Nr81EK9yLzVh-JEw>. See also SPLOS, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting, supra note 117 at 5, para 25.

¹⁵¹ See e.g. Loi n° 2015-18 du 13 juillet 2015 portant Code de la pêche maritime du Sénégal, online: <http://spcsrp.org/sites/default/files/Leg-SN_2015-LOI-0018.pdf>.

¹⁵² See generally Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, “News,” online: <http://spcsrp.org/fr/actualites>.

¹⁵³ Esa Paasivirta & André Bouquet, “Resolution of International Fisheries Disputes and Regional Experiences: The Case of European Union” (Paper delivered at ITLOS at 20: Looking into the Future — Symposium, 18 March 2017) 48 at 56.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵⁵ European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Sustainable Management of External Fishing Fleets, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 (2015) at 3, online: <https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-636-EN-F1-1.PDF>.

¹⁵⁶ Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 on the Sustainable Management of External Fishing Fleets, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008, [2017] OJ L347.

¹⁵⁷ Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, supra note 150.

¹⁵⁸ These negotiations are in the framework of the 2001 World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round, as further elaborated by the 2005 negotiating mandate at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. WTO, “Introduction to Fisheries Subsidies in the WTO,” online: <www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/fish_intro_e.htm>. See the Sustainable Development Goal indicators website at <https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/>.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid.

¹⁶⁰ WTO, “Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies,” online: <www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/fish_e.htm>.

¹⁶¹ Bodansky, supra note 101 at 18–19, 21; Sands, supra note 101 at 23–26.

¹⁶² To date, the Authority has issued: Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules (adopted on 13 July 2000, updated on 25 July 2013); Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Sulphides (adopted on 7 May 2010); and Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts (adopted on 27 July 2012). ISA, “Draft Exploitation Regulations,” online: <www.isa.org.jm/mining-code/ongoing-development-regulations-exploitation-mineral-resources-area>.

¹⁶³ Guifang Xue & Xu, supra note 5.

¹⁶⁴ ISA Council, Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area: Prepared by the Legal and Technical Commission, Doc ISBA/25/C/WP.1 (22 March 2019), online: <https://isa.org.jm/files/files/documents/isba_25_c_wp1-e_0.pdf>.

¹⁶⁵ See UNCLOS, supra note 3, arts 187–88.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid, art 187(a). These disputes may be submitted, at the request of the parties to the dispute, to ITLOS’s Special Chamber or, at the request of any party to the dispute, to an ad hoc chamber of the SDC (art 188(1)(a)(b); see also Annex VI, arts 15, 17, 36).

¹⁶⁷ Ibid, art 187(b)(i).

¹⁶⁸ Ibid, art 187(b)(ii); see also art 189.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid, art 187(c)(i). These disputes are to be submitted, at the request of any party to the dispute, to binding commercial arbitration, unless the parties agree otherwise (art 188(2)).

¹⁷⁰ Ibid, art 187(c)(ii).

¹⁷¹ Ibid, art 187(d).

¹⁷² Ibid, art 187(e).

¹⁷³ Ibid, art 187(f).

¹⁷⁴ ISA, “Discussion Paper No 1: Dispute Resolution Considerations Arising under the Proposed New Exploitation Regulations” (2016) at 3–5, online: <https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/documents/EN/Pubs/DPs/DP1.pdf> [ISA Discussion Paper No 1]; Michael Lodge, “The International Seabed Authority and Deep Seabed Disputes,” Max Planck Institute Luxembourg (September 2017), online: <https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/documents/EN/SG-Stats/mpi_sept2017.pdf>.

¹⁷⁵ ISA Discussion Paper No 1, supra note 174 at 5–8.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid at 8, para 5.1.

¹⁷⁷ Ibid at 8–9, paras 5.3–5.4.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid at 9, para 5.5.

¹⁷⁹ Ibid at paras 5.6–5.9.

¹⁸⁰ ISA, Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area, Doc ISBA/23/LTC/CRP.3* (8 August 2017), Draft Regulation 92(2), online: <www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Regs/DraftExpl/ISBA23-LTC-CRP3-Rev.pdf> [Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources].

¹⁸¹ Ibid, Draft Regulation 92(3).

¹⁸² Ibid, Draft Regulation 92(4).

¹⁸³ Ibid, Draft Regulation 92(5).

¹⁸⁴ Ibid, Draft Regulation 92(6).

¹⁸⁵ ISA, “Submissions to International Seabed Authority’s Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area” (2018), online <www.isa.org.jm/files/files/documents/list-1.pdf> [“Submissions to ISA”]. See e.g. submissions of Belgium (20 December 2017) at 9; China (20 December 2017) at 16; Germany (20 December 2017) at 9; Singapore (20 December 2017); the United Kingdom (21 December 2017) at 10; Tonga Offshore Mining (24 November 2017) at 3; UK Seabed Resources (15 December 2017) at 3–4; Ocean Mineral Singapore (20 December 2017) at 5; Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (6 December 2017) at 8; and DeepSea Mining Alliance (15 December 2017) at 6.

¹⁸⁶ See e.g. ibid, submissions of France (12 December 2017) at 2; Tonga (19 December 2017) at para 17; Germany (20 December 2017) at 9; Japan (20 December 2017) at paras 39–40; Singapore (20 December 2017) at paras 9–13; and Algeria (on behalf of the African Group) at 10.

¹⁸⁷ See e.g. ibid, submission of China (20 December 2017) at 4–5.

¹⁸⁸ See e.g. Federated States of Micronesia, “Comments on the Draft Regulations of the International Seabed Authority on the Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area” (19 October 2018) at 8–9, online: <https://ran-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/isa.org.jm/s3fs-public/documents/EN/Regs/2018/Comments/FSM.pdf>.

¹⁸⁹ See e.g. “Submissions to ISA”, supra note 185, submission of Jamaica (2 October 2018) at 32–33.

¹⁹⁰ ITLOS Statute, supra note 41, art 36.

¹⁹¹ See generally Jin-Hyun Paik, “Special Commemorative Session of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority, Convened to Celebrate the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Entry into Force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Establishment of the International Seabed Authority,” ITLOS (25 July 2019) at 3, paras 9–12, online: <www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/paik/ISA_anniversary__Kingston-25_July_2019-Statement-Final.pdf>.

¹⁹² Lodge, supra note 174 at 11–12 (explaining that “[i]t is more likely than not that most of the disputes that will arise in the Area will be of a technical or administrative nature. These might include, for example, appeals against the imposition of administrative sanctions for regulatory breaches, or requests for the review of decisions relating to operational matters. In such cases, it may not be efficient to have such disputes determined by a predominantly legally-trained tribunal such as the Chamber”).

¹⁹³ Thomas A Mensah, “The Dispute Settlement Regime of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (1998) 2 Max Planck YB UN L 307 at 317; AO Adede, The System for Settlement of Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Drafting History and a Commentary (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987) at 195.

¹⁹⁴ See Linlin Sun, “Dispute Settlement relating to Deep Seabed Mining: A Participant’s Perspective” (2017) 73 Melbourne J Intl L 71 at 86–88.

¹⁹⁵ Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources, supra note 180, Draft Regulation 92(6).

¹⁹⁶ Mensah, supra note 193 at 318.

¹⁹⁷ Development of an International Legally Binding Instrument under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, GA Res 69/292, UN Doc A/RES/69/292 (6 July 2015).

¹⁹⁸ See Draft Text of an Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Note by the President, UN Doc A/CONF.232/2019/6 (17 May 2019), online: <https://undocs.org/a/conf.232/2019/6>; Revised Draft Text of an Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Note by the President (advance, unedited version) (27 November 2019), online: <www.un.org/bbnj/sites/www.un.org.bbnj/files/revised_draft_text_a.conf_.232.2020.11_advance_unedited_version.pdf> [Revised Draft Text of an Agreement under UNCLOS]. See also Article-by-Article Compilation of Textual Proposals for Consideration at the Fourth Session Dated 15 April 2020, online: <www.un.org/bbnj/sites/www.un.org.bbnj/files/textual_proposals_compilation_article-by-article_-_15_april_2020.pdf>.

¹⁹⁹ See Joanna Mossop, “Dispute Settlement in the New Treaty on Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction,” NCLOS Blog (2019), online: <https://site.uit.no/nclos/2019/12/23/dispute-settlement-in-the-new-treaty-on-marine-biodiversity-in-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction/>; Jin-Hyun Paik, “Some Thoughts on Dispute Settlement under a New Legal Instrument on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction at the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations,” ITLOS (2019), online: <www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/paik/President_Paik_s_Statement_BBNJ_DS-German_House-NY-June_2019-Final_Corr170919.pdf>; Philippe Gautier, “Le règlement des différends” in de Paiva Toledo, A & Tassin, VJM, eds, Guide to the Navigation of Marine Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction (Rio de Janeiro: Editora D’Plácido, 2018) 665.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ See e.g. Efthymios Papastavridis, “The Negotiations for a New Implementing Agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Concerning Marine Biodiversity” (2020) 69 ICLQ 585.

²⁰¹ Chair’s Non-paper on Elements of a Draft Text of an International Legally-binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (28 February 2017) at 110–11, online: <www.un.org/Depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/Chair_non_paper.pdf>; Supplement to the Chair’s Non-paper (24 March 2017), online: <www.un.org/Depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/Supplement.pdf>; Chair’s Streamlined Non-paper on Elements of a Draft Text of an International Legally-binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (21 July 2017) at 53–54, online: <www.un.org/Depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/Chairs_streamlined_non-paper_to_delegations.pdf>; see also “Summary of the Third Session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction,” Earth Negotiations Bulletin (19–30 August 2019), online: <https://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb25218e.html>; “Summary of the Second Session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction,” Earth Negotiations Bulletin (25 April 2019), online: <https://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb25195e.html>.

²⁰² Mossop, supra note 199.

²⁰³ ITLOS Statute, supra note 41.

²⁰⁴ Revised Draft Text of an Agreement under UNCLOS, supra note 198.

²⁰⁵ “Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document A/CONF.62/WP.9,” UN Doc A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1 (31 March 1976) at para 6.