The System for Exploitation of the “Common Heritage of Mankind” at the Caracas Conference

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. O. Adede
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Exploration And Exploitation ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The Common

The purpose of this article is to examine the work of the First Main Committee of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Caracas, with particular attention to the question of the system of exploration and exploitation of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This is the area which the United Nations General Assembly in 1970 had characterized as constituting, together with its natural resources, the “common heritage of mankind” in the Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil Thereof, Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction.

The United Nations and Antarctica

Polar Record ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 22 (137) ◽  
pp. 137-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Beck
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
System A ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The Common ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe United Nations as a body has hitherto shown little interest or involvement in Antarctica. A recently developed campaign, led by several of the developing nations, now aims to involve the international community more closely in the management of the continent and its resources. Argument that Antarctica should be regarded as part of the common heritage of mankind finds little support among Antarctic Treaty nations, who favour continuing management under the treaty system. A nine-hour discussion in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly during November 1983 resulted in a resolution on ‘the question of Antarctica’ which the General Assembly adopted unanimously on 15 December; the Secretary-General has been asked to report on ‘all aspects of Antarctica’ in time for further discussion in September 1984.

scholarly journals Common Heritage of Mankind and the Deep Seabed Area Beyond National Jurisdiction: Past, Current, and Future Prospects

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 40-52
Author(s):  
Edwin Egede ◽  
Eden Charles
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International Seabed Authority

Abstract The common heritage of mankind (CHM) is of a relatively recent origin. This study examines Arvid Pardo's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1967, in which he urged that body to designate the seabed beyond national control as CHM. The commentary next looks at Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 82, as amended by the 1994 Agreement, which incorporates the CHM as a core principle governing mineral mining in the deep bottom area beyond national jurisdiction. Finally, it discusses CHM's future prospects in relation to the draft International Seabed Authority (ISA) Exploitation Regulations, the Enterprise, an ISA organ that has yet to be operationalized, and ongoing discussions about an international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity under the UNCLOS. The purpose of this study is to highlight the complexity surrounding the CHM, which is a key principle governing deep seabed activities.

The Common Heritage of Mankind

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Lodge
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Legal Meaning

Abstract One of the key features of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is its recognition that the seabed and its resources beyond national jurisdiction are the common heritage of mankind. Part XI of the Convention gives precise legal meaning to this term. The International Seabed Authority is responsible for implementing the common heritage principle. Since the Authority was established in 1994, a comprehensive legal regime for the Area has been established. Despite initial problems, the international machinery for the administration of this regime is functioning well. The Authority has made good progress, on the basis of the evolutionary approach set out in the 1994 Agreement, in elaborating a regulatory regime for access to the resources of the Area. Much more work remains to be done, however; in particular, if the economic benefits of the common heritage are to be realized.

The Regime of the Area: Delineating the Scope of Application of the Common Heritage Principle and Freedom of the High Seas

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Oude Elferink
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Exploration And Exploitation ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Common ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
High Seas

AbstractPart XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a regime for the Area. The regime of the high seas set out in Part VII of the Convention is also applicable to the Area. Neither Part VII nor Part XI of the Convention exhaustively de fines which ocean uses fall within their scope of application. This article analyzes the relevant provisions of the Convention and comments on recent developments that shed further light on the regime of Part XI in relation to the regime of Part VII. It concludes that Part XI's common heritage principle is relevant for all uses of the Area that concern the exploration and exploitation of the Area, including its living resources. Recent developments reveal continued differences of views on the scope of application and implications of the regime set out in Part XI. The provisions of the Convention on marine scientific research and environmental protection would seem to offer sufficient flexibility to frame more detailed rules that do not require the prior resolution of those differences.

scholarly journals China’s stance towards the applicability of the common heritage of mankind governance regime to the Arctic

2018 ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
E. V. Kienko
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Governance Regime ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

Introduction.The article provides an analysis of China’s tough stance towards the applicability of the governance regime of the common heritage of mankind to the Arctic referring to the Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, in the general context of contemporary inter­national law.  Materials and methods.General scien­tific and private scientific methods of cogni­tion constitutes the methodological basis for the study.  Results of the study.In the course of the study the author concludes that China’s current stance towards the governance regime of the International seabed area as the common heritage of mankind and towards the international maritime law as a whole should not have exclusively negative assessments as it was during the period of the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in 1960-1980. Objectively the long-term interests of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Fed­eration in the maintenance of international maritime law are aligned. However, a contemporary legal poli­cy of China differs from the policy stated at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It became more focused on the promotion of China’s national interests in the Arctic, on the creation of the Area of the common heritage of mankind in the Arc­tic Ocean, even though none of the Arctic Coastal State advocate this stance. Conclusions.In this article the author balanc­es China’s arguments in favour of applicability of norms of the international law related to the com­mon heritage of mankind to the Arctic with the Arc­tic Coastal States’ arguments against it according to the doctrine in the sphere of the international law in which the legal concept of the common heritage of mankind is clarified. The author reveals reasons of China’s support of the concept of the common heri­tage of mankind initiated by the USA and China’s effort to broadly interpret it especially towards the Arctic in terms of the Arctic Coastal States’ stance towards this issue contained in the materials of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973 – 1982).

Mining, Protection of the Environment, Scientific Research and Bioprospecting: Some Considerations on the Role of the International Sea-Bed Authority

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Scovazzi
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Legal Condition ◽  
Innovative Concept

AbstractThe innovative concept of the common heritage of mankind is embodied in the 1982 LOSC for the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area). It has been subsequently adapted to meet further political and economic realities. Despite the present uncertain situation, the mandate of the International Seabed Authority (ISBA) is already broader than it is commonly believed. The legal condition of the space (the Area), its being the common heritage of mankind, may have an effect also on matters and activities that (though different from minerals and mining activities) are located in that space. While bioprospecting is not specifically regulated by the UNCLOS, there is an inextricable factual link between the protection of the deep seabed environment (including its biodiversity), marine scientific research and bioprospecting. the ISBA, the principles that it represents, as well as its existing competences and responsibilities, need to be taken into consideration when States decide to fill the legal gap of bioprospecting. The role of the ISBA could be expanded in the future to meet new objectives under commonly agreed cooperative schemes.

Recommendations by Pacem in Maribus V to the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea

1975 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Mann Borgese
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Management ◽  
Marine Ecosystem ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Global System ◽  
Integrated Management System ◽  
Sea Bed ◽  
Present Generation ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Common

Pacem in Maribus once again stressed that an ocean regime must encompass the oceans as a whole and be considered as a sub-system of the entire global system. Jurisdictional decisions, including those affecting the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), must reflect that paramount concern. It is not a matter of geographical realignment or of partition; marine ecosystem do not correspond to political demarcations. Nor is mankind, for which the concept of the common heritage is prescribed, confined to coastal states or to the present generation.In its discussions and studies, Pacem in Maribus has consistently stressed the significance of rapid scientific and technological developments which have radically changed the nature of many conventional uses of the sea and call for management as the only alternative to conflict and possible disasters. In its commitment to an Ocean Space Authority rather than to an International Sea-bed Authority, Pacem in Maribus contends that activities on the sea-bed cannot be dissociated from activities in the water-column, at the surface, and at the atmospheric interface; that the sea-bed must become part of an integrated management system for ocean space; and that claims to national jurisdiction carry a surrogate responsibility in that management.Pacem in Maribus contends that any Law of the Sea which does not respect and embody these overriding considerations will prove to be ineffective if not inoperable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document