1 Introduction
Shipping is the backbone of international trade in goods, carrying over 11 billion tonnes in shipped traded volume, representing over 80 per cent of the volume of world trade in goods and 70 per cent by value.1 International shipping bridges continents across vast sea areas at a cheaper price and with a smaller carbon footprint relative to other means of transport.2 Navigational safety is ensured by the broad selection of routing measures provided by the International Maritime Organizations (imo), which effectively represents an infrastructure of the seas. Passage planning in international shipping is determined based on a complex interaction of factors, where expediency appears to be particularly determinant.3 Consumption and costs of bunker-fuel is also an important consideration, calling for fuel-efficiency.4 In recent years the interest of decreasing emissions has also become underlined by objectives to reduce the climate impact of marine transport.5 The Initial imo strategy on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships calls for a reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions of shipping by at least 50% by 2050.6
In the planning and management of shipping, like other maritime activities in the high seas, little regard has generally been taken to differences in ecological and biological sensitivity across different high seas areas.9 This is not surprising since these vast sea areas, which represent two-thirds of the surface of the world’s oceans, were long thought to be biological deserts.10 As a consequence, these sea areas have hitherto been subject to only limited area-based protection measures. In lack of such regulation, it has been self-evident to strive for the shortest and most direct shipping routes, irrespective of ecological variations across sea areas.
2 Increasing Support for Protecting Sensitive High Seas Areas
In recent decades it has however become recognized that the high seas conceal some of the planet’s most unique ecosystems.11 Marine biodiversity in the high seas is richly patterned, with a high variety of species richness across different areas. Whereas biodiversity is abundant in some parts of the oceans,
To prevent the degradation of the high seas biodiversity hotspots and increase resilience to the effects of climate change, several reports have suggested reducing the pressures represented by shipping and other human activities.17 Proposals on measures to reduce shipping in the most sensitive areas include adjusting shipping lanes and routeing measures, as well as prohibiting types of vessels in certain areas.18 Commonly, such measures are proposed as part of a broader package of restrictions, encompassing different maritime activities, by establishing networks of marine protected areas (mpas).19 There are a range of formal definitions of mpas, but the most widely used is from the World Conservation Union, which defines an mpa as parts of intertidal or subtidal environments, together with their overlying waters, flora and fauna and other features, that have been reserved and protected by law or other
These calls have in recent years met increasing political support. At global level, new objectives have been agreed to protect biodiversity in life below water, most importantly in Goal 14 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs).25 Its indicators (target 14.5) explicitly call for the setting up of marine protected areas and protect marine ecosystem from adverse impacts, declaring that by 2020, at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas should be conserved, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information.26 The objectives under sdg 14 are closely connected to and creates an impetus for developments in international
The Convention on Biological Diversity27 (cbd) already by its entry into force in 1993 imposed an obligation on States to establish systems of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity.28 This objective was further specified in the so-called Aichi targets of 2010,29 which declared in its objective 11 that at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, by 2020 should be conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.
Whereas the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos)30 establishes a general obligation to protect the marine environment and cooperate to that end, it contains no specific obligation to establish mpas.31 Other law of the sea instruments provide rules for applying sectoral restrictions in specific areas based on environmental considerations. But due to the fragmented nature of the legal framework, establishing integrated mpas, which involve restrictions on different uses of the seas for the same area is challenging. In spite of calls for holistic approaches in the preamble of unclos and the increasing recognition of the importance to consider cumulative impacts on the marine environment, different uses of the seas remain regulated and managed in isolation, under individual rules, procedures and institutions, with limited regard
As a result of this perceived gap in unclos regarding, i.a. rules on high seas mpas, negotiation of new law of the sea rules have been initiated and ongoing in different forms for over a decade. The expected new implementing agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction (bbnj) includes, as a central component, the ambition to establish rules for establishing globally recognized mpas in the high seas.34 The negotiation is set to have its fourth and final intergovernmental conference meeting early in 2022.35
3 High Seas Marine Protected Areas under the New bbnj Treaty
How then, will the rules for high seas mpas under the new bbnj agreement be modelled? It is likely that the agreement will not merely establish new multilateral procedures for establishing mpas in the high seas and the Area. Rather, it is expected to attempt to integrate and build on the mandate of pre-existing structures regulating activities carried out in these areas. The draft negotiation text sets as an objective for the treaty to promote a holistic and cross-sectoral approach to ocean management by enhancing cooperation and coordination in the use of area-based management tools, including mpas, among States, relevant legal instruments and frameworks as well as relevant global, regional, sub-regional and sectoral organizations.36 The new treaty thus aims to function as a vehicle for setting up new mpas, but not primarily by establishing new forms for protection, but rather by coordinating and integrating tools under pre-existing structures. This implies a call upon all relevant organizations to make contributions to the mpa objective of the new treaty, by applying rules under their respective mandates relevant for areal protection. In the fragmented system of management under the law of the sea, a broad range of organizations have developed measures which are relevant in this context. For instance, in regional fisheries management organizations, member States have the mandate to make decisions on areas closed for fisheries, including in the high seas.37 In the International Whaling Commission, States can make
Based on its regulatory mandate the imo has the ability to enact global rules for the prevention of marine pollution by ships, including far-reaching measures to prevent the detrimental impact of shipping on sensitive marine areas.39 This role of the imo is not self-imposed, but builds on unclos, which bestows the organization and its instruments with unique possibilities to make exceptions from one of the most central principles of the law of the sea, the freedom of navigation. Of central relevance to the objective of the new bbnj treaty to create integrated and cross-sectoral mpas is that the imo may adopt regulatory measures limiting shipping in certain areas based on environmental considerations.
4 The Freedom of Navigation and the imo
The ability of the imo to restrict shipping in certain areas is based on its unique mandate to impose restrictions on navigational freedoms. In all sea areas save for the territorial sea where the right of innocent passage applies, shipping is legally conducted based on the freedom of navigation. This fundamental principle of the law of the sea, which dates back to Grotius’ Mare Liberum dictum of the early modern period, was reiterated in unclos. It follows from the Convention’s central Article 87 that the freedoms of the high seas comprise, inter alia, freedom of navigation both for coastal and land-locked States.40 The
The detailed technical requirements on environmental standards and performance for ships which are provided by marpol thereby effectively have binding effect on all flag States, and can be considered as global standards. In addition to the generally applicable rules and standards, imo has developed two concepts based on the rules in marpol and solas which enable the setting of stricter environmental standards or even suspend shipping in certain sea areas based on environmental concerns.
5 Area-Based Measures under the imo
Firstly, Special Areas based on marpol Annexes i, ii and v as well as SOx Emission Control Areas (secas) under marpol Annex vi enable the
In spite of the global scope of application, the practical importance of Special Areas has come to decrease over the years, at least in relative terms. Whereas the discharge standards outside Special Areas gradually have been strengthened, no corresponding strengthening of the standards within the Special Areas has occurred. This has led several observers to conclude that the legal significance of the concept has declined.51 If Special Areas arguably
pssas are procedurally less complicated to declare compared to Special Areas.54 Whereas a Special Area requires amending marpol 73/78, it suffices with a decision by the imo Marine Environment Protection Committee (mepc) to declare a pssa. pssas must have a legal basis, but not necessarily in an imo instrument.55 Similarly, the criteria for declaring a pssa are less complicated compared to special areas. A pssa should fulfil either ecological,
Moreover, also from a spatial standpoint pssas are flexible. Although applications for pssas only may be submitted by one or several States having an “interest” in a particular area, there is no geographic limitation such as proximity requirements on what sea areas States can include in a proposal. In order to protect a sensitive area from shipping, specific measures in a pssa may also apply in a connecting buffer zone.57 Since the imo Convention as well as the Revised pssa Guidelines and the marpol Convention with its relevant annexes apply to all maritime zones, there is nothing preventing the imo from declaring pssas in the high seas.58 Out of the current pssas designated by the imo, none however so far incorporates high seas areas.
The specific regulations of a pssa, referred to as Associated Protective Measures (apms) must be identified and submitted within two years of the decision to declare a pssa.59 Once a proposal for a pssa has been approved, the associated protective measures are recorded on charts under the procedures of the International Hydrographic Organization. imo member States are thereafter under obligation to “take all appropriate steps to ensure that vessels flying their flag comply with the associated protective measures adopted to protect the designated pssa”.60 As with any restriction in the high seas,
apms may, inter alia, include ships’ routeing measures, discharge restrictions and prohibited activities, “and should be specifically tailored to meet the need of the area to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the identified vulnerability of the area from international shipping activities”.61 There is thus no direct limitation on what restrictions apms may involve. In spite of the extensive range of possible measures, the ambition to balance environmental protection with shipping interests has resulted in rather modest protection for the pssas which have been adopted.62 Evaluations of imo practice also suggests that the designation of an area as pssa so far has not had any particular effect on routing measures compared to such measures adopted directly under solas.63 Overall, the list of mandatory routing measures so far adopted under pssas is also quite limited.64 Important components of the pssa concept also make clear that environmental interests are not unconditional. States with ships in pssa areas may bring concerns with associated measures to the imo “so that necessary adjustments can be made”.65
In conclusion, only minor parts of the full scale of possible pssa measures so far have been applied. Use of the concept also lacks precedence in the high seas. But based on its potential, pssa appears to be a considerably more flexible and suitable tool than Special Areas for regulating shipping in high seas mpas.
6 Role of Sectoral Organisations under the bbnj Treaty
It has thus been concluded that rather than establishing competing structures, the bbnj treaty will attempt to establish high seas mpas by integrating and coordinating area-based measures of different sectoral instruments. Moreover, the imo has the possibility to declare such measures. In particular, by representing the most dynamic and flexible tool for imposing restrictions on shipping in sensitive areas, declarations of pssas would make a central component
The draft negotiation text of the bbnj treaty indicates that mpa proposals should be submitted by state parties to a secretariat set up under the treaty. The secretariat should then facilitate consultation with States as well as relevant organisations. The draft text does neither suggest that the bbnj conference of parties nor its secretariat should be able to instruct other organisations to use tools or measures at their disposal to promote mpa proposals.66 Rather, according to the draft Article 18(b) on Consultation on and assessments of proposals, relevant organisations should be invited to submit their views regarding “the merits of the proposal” (i) and “information regarding existing measures for the relevant area” (iii) (v) as well as “any aspects of the conservation and management measures identified in the proposal that fall within the competence of that body“ (iv); and “any relevant additional measures that fall within the competence of that instrument, framework or body”. According to this language, there is nothing indicating an ambition to overlap with the mandate of existing organisations, such as the imo. Rather, it appears that the bbnj treaty will leave to imo members to decide on whether or not to contribute to mpa proposals under the new treaty by applying measures under their rules, such as declaring relevant areas as pssas. Similarly, according to the draft Article 19 on Decision-making, the bbnj treaty conference of parties should take decisions on mpas “while respecting [existing] relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies”. Interestingly, however, States have expressed different positions in the negotiations on how to reach out to existing organisations with relevant legal instruments once a mpa has been decided under the bbnj treaty. A first proposal suggests that the bbnj cop should decide whether to recommend to its parties to “promote the adoption of relevant measures through such instruments, frameworks and bodies, in accordance with their respective mandates (and) “Whether to adopt measures complementary to those adopted under such instruments, frameworks and bodies;”. (Article 19 Alt 1 (c) (i–ii)). This suggests that an element of leverage could be exercised in relation to organisations such as the imo based on bbnj conference decisions, and that there even may
A second proposal appears to be more cautious not to conflict with the mandate of other organisations, suggesting that the bbnj conference shall take decisions with respect to “Recommendations relating to the implementation of related management measures, while recognizing the primary authority for the adoption of such measures within the respective mandates of [existing] relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies;” (Article 19 Alt 2 (c)).
Furthermore, under the draft Article 20 on Implementation, which underlines the flag state principle for ensuring compliance and enforcement of treaty measures in line with unclos, State parties are also instructed to promote the adoption of measures within relevant instruments and organizations to support the implementation of mpa measures.
Taken together, setting up networks of mpas is one of the primary objectives of the new bbnj treaty. However, this objective cannot be achieved based on this treaty alone. Rather, it requires cooperation with other organisations which are able to make decisions on necessary area-based measures. Based on the draft text of the bbnj treaty, the relationship to other organisations appears likely to be complex. The exclusive mandate of other instruments is more or less respected. Sectoral organisations are also able to get involved in consultation procedures on new proposals. However, once a proposal to establish a mpa has been approved under the new bbnj treaty, an element of pressure seems to be introduced in relation to other organisations to make contributions to the implementation of the decision by applying measures under their mandate, at least according to one of the text proposals. Considering that shipping is considered a significant stressor on the high seas environment and traffic could be prevented in sensitive areas by declaring pssas, it is likely that calls for cooperation would be particularly forceful in relation to the imo.
How then is the relation and cooperation between the bbnj treaty and the imo likely to unfold? Can we expect a proliferation of restrictions of high seas shipping as the result of the new treaty? In order to assess how the imo would position itself in relation to such requests, it is relevant to study what role the organisation has taken in the bbnj negotiations. It similarly calls for evaluating how previous proposals of pssas have been received, as well as the success of other cases of cooperation between organisations in establishing cross-sectoral mpas in the high seas.
7
The Secretariat of the imo has participated throughout bbnj negotiations, informing on relevant measures including pssas, while underlining that the bbnj treaty ought not to inflict on the imo mandate.67 There also appears to be widespread agreement among States involved that the new treaty should not override the mandate of other organisations. It thus appears that the risk of direct conflict between obligations under the new treaty and the imo mandate should not be exaggerated. In an analysis of the draft treaty text for its member States, the imo secretariat has nevertheless voiced concerns in relation to some of the proposals. The secretariat has also asked imo Member States to ensure that positions at the bbnj Conference are in line with their interests at the imo.68 There is thus no doubt that the imo is cautious to ensure that the bbnj treaty leaves its autonomy to make decisions on pssas intact.
An analysis of previous proposals for pssas indicate that States generally have been reluctant to accept far-reaching and mandatory measures. As previously discussed, the list of decided routing measures under pssas is so far modest. When ambitious proposals have been made, they have been met with reluctance. The proposal for the Baltic pssa included mandatory areas to be avoided.69 In spite of an advanced motivation for the proposal relating to this ecosystem, described as “globally unique and sensitive”, the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation concluded that it did not justify the establishment of mandatory areas to be avoided.70 Instead, only a recommendation was approved.71 This decision has been interpreted as the result of insufficient information and argument for the proposal.72 The opposition could however also reflect a general objection to measures infringing on the freedom of navigation. Similarly,
There is also legal support for opposing proposals for mandatory measures. It follows from the General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing that imo will not adopt a proposed routing measure, unless it is clear that the measure will not impose “unnecessary constraints on shipping”.75 Based on imo practice, it appears that the threshold for not being disqualified as “unnecessary” is set high. Based on the lukewarm reception such proposals so far have been met with, it appears unlikely that imo members would approve proposals for mandatory pssa measures in high seas mpas under the new bbnj treaty. Recommendatory measures may have a better outlook. More indication on the likely role of imo in relation to the new bbnj treaty can be deduced from already existing high seas mpas approved within regional contexts. ospar, the regional seas convention cooperation for the North East Atlantic, established in 2010 a network of mpas amounting to a total of 285,000 km2 which encompasses High seas areas.76 This has been referred to as a pioneering cooperation between States and organisations in protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems beyond national jurisdiction.77 Since much of the preparatory work expected to be required under the new bbnj treaty has already been performed for these ospar mpas, it is likely that these areas will be among the first to be proposed under the bbnj treaty.
The mpa measures established by ospar are based on the mandate in the ospar Convention to decrease different sources of pollution within its
In recent years, the cooperation between ospar and neafc, referred to as collective arrangements, has developed. The collective arrangement is not a legally binding instrument but aims to foster cooperation and coordination in the development of appropriate measures for conservation and management of areas selected by different organisations.86 The arrangement was thus modelled to include all relevant organisations, not dissimilar to the bbnj treaty. imo has accordingly been invited to participate but has so far not actively participated in the arrangement.87
The mpa work of ospar, and the outreach to neafc and imo has apparent similarities with the function of the bbnj treaty, as it is modelled in the draft texts. It may thus provide an indication of how cooperation will be carried out under the new bbnj treaty. Based on the experience of the limited imo involvement in this regional project, it appears far from certain that proposals to apply pssa measures for high seas mpas under the bbnj treaty will gain acceptance by imo members.
8
The bbnj treaty is expected to provide a legal basis for establishing high seas mpas, which already is called for under sdg 14 as well as the cbd Aichi targets. It is difficult to foresee if the adoption of the treaty will influence the imo to adopt a more positive stance on applying pssa measures as contribution to high seas mpas than what has been shown in previous cases. One way to promote a more inclusive approach and foster cooperation could be to complement the approach whereby proposals for mpas hitherto have been brought.
In previous and existing mpa proposals, focus in preparatory material has been limited to assessments of biological aspects. Analysis and reflection on broader implications of suggested measures have with limited exceptions been lacking. Considerations of important elements for shipping, such as how proposed mpa-related routing measures would influence voyage times, are not called for in relevant guidelines and have so far been missing in descriptions of proposals. This is evident in the Guidelines for mpas under ospar, which set out detailed criteria which may appear comprehensive, but lack calls for assessing the impact on affected sectors.88 It is even more noteworthy that pssa proposals in the imo context have not included analysis on consequences for the shipping sector of suggested restrictions.89
Both routing measures such as deep-water routes and areas to be avoided, as well as general restrictions for certain sea areas typically result in longer shipping routes. Evaluating what general economic impact such measures would have, in particular on fuel-consumption and voyage times, would not
Complementing preparatory material of high seas marine protected area proposals with such information would have several advantages. For the shipping sector it would provide reassurances on potential costs involved and enable a less speculative discussion on the implications. In many of the previous proposals discussed, suggested pssa measures would have involved only limited increases in distances. Nevertheless, they have been considered controversial by some States. It is possible that accurate cost-estimates could alleviate such fears.
Moreover, economic assessment of proposed measures would provide valuable information also in other contexts. It could cast light on potential conflicts between goals relating on the one hand to the protection of ecologically sensitive marine areas and, on the other hand, to reducing the climate impact of shipping as called for by the Initial imo strategy on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships. So far, emission increases resulting from obligations for shipping to circumvent protected areas have been little considered and ought similarly to be better explored in order to facilitate more nuanced and efficient approaches.
unctad, Review of Maritime Transport 2019, United Nations, Geneva.
Ralph Sims, Roberto Schaeffer, Transport, Chapter 8 in ipcc, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group iii to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (cup, 2014); Jacques Leonardi, Michael Browne, A method for assessing the carbon footprint of maritime freight transport: European case study and results, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 13(5) (2010), 349–358.
Traditionally, passage decisions have been made on the basis of speed-optimization theory, Harilaos N Psaraftis, Christos A Kontovas, Ship speed optimization: Concepts, models and combined speed-routing scenarios, Transportation Research, Volume 44, July 2014, Pages 52–69.
Roar Adland, Kristoffer Thomassen, Erland Østensen, Environmental management in shipping Theory and practice of energy-efficient ship operation in Photis M Panayides, The Routledge Handbook of Maritime Management (Routledge 2019).
Patrizia Serra and Gianfranco Fancello, Towards the IMO’s GHG Goals: A Critical Overview of the Perspectives and Challenges of the Main Options for Decarbonizing International Shipping, Sustainability, 12/8 (2020), 3220.
imo mepc Resolution 304(72), Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (adopted on 13 April 2018).
Georgios Papatzanakis, Apostolos Papanikolaou, and Shukui Liu, Optimization of Routing Considering Uncertainties, Journal of Marine Science and Application, 11/1 (2012), 10–17. Martin Stopford (ed.), Maritime Economics, Corporation Ebooks (3rd ed. Taylor & Francis, 2009), 347–384.
Under the law of the sea, the high seas are negatively defined, i. e. as the marine areas which are not internal waters or territorial seas of coastal States, or declared as exclusive economic zones (eez). In most cases, the high seas thus lie beyond the maximum 200 nautical mile limit of the exclusive economic zones. However, in places where States have refrained from declaring eez, the marine waters beyond the 12 nautical mile zone of the territorial sea is considered as high seas.
Natalie C Ban and others, Systematic Conservation Planning: A Better Recipe for Managing the High Seas for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use’, Conservation Letters, 7/1 (2014), 41–54.
Jesse H Ausubel, Darlene T Crist, and Paul E Waggoner, First Census of Marine Life 2010: Highlights of a Decade of Discovery (2010).
Roberto Danovaro, Paul VR Snelgrove, and Paul Tyler, Challenging the Paradigms of Deep-Sea Ecology, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29/8 (2014), 465–75; Eva Ramirez-Llodra and others, Deep, Diverse and Definitely Different: Unique Attributes of the World’s Largest Ecosystem, Biogeosciences, 7/9 (2010), 2851.
William Cheung and others, Patterns of species richness in the high seas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series no. 20 (2005).
Bethan O’Leary and others, Options for managing human threats to high seas biodiversity. Ocean & Coastal Management, 187 (2020), 105110.
Benjamin Halpern and others, Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci. Rep. 9 (2019), 11609; Andrew Merrie and others, An ocean of surprises – trends in human use, unexpected dynamics and governance challenges in areas beyond national jurisdiction (2014). Glob. Environ. Chang. 27, 19–31.
Bethan O’Leary and others. (n 13); Benjamin Halpern and others, Recent Pace of Change in Human Impact on the World’s Ocean, Scientific reports, 9/1 (2019), 11609; unep, Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas. unep Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 178. unep/ iucn, (Switzerland 2006).
Christine Erbe and others, Editorial: Impacts of Shipping on Marine Fauna, Frontiers in Marine Science, 7 (2020).
Bethan O’Leary and others. (no 13), 105110.
See, for instance Ameer Abdulla, Olof Linden, Maritime traffic effects on biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea: Review of impacts, priority areas and mitigation measures (Malaga, Spain: 2008); Ban (n 8).
Kelleher, G (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. iucn, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv, 107.
iucn World Commission on Protected Areas (iucn-wcpa) (2008). Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks – Making It Happen. Washington, D.C.: iucn-wcpa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy.
Petra Drankier, Marine Protected Areas in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(2) (2012), 291–350.
Erik Molenaar, & Alex Oude Elferink, Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction The pioneering efforts under the OSPAR Convention. Utrecht Law Review, 5(1) (2009), 5–20.
Bethan O’Leary and others (n 13) 598–605; Karen Scott, Integrated Oceans Management. In Donald Rothwell and others (eds). The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, (uop, 2015).
David Freestone, The limits of sectoral and regional efforts to designate high seas marine protected areas. Am. J. Int. Law 112 (2018), 129–133; Karen Scott, Conservation on the High Seas: Developing the Concept of the High Seas Marine Protected Areas. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(4) (2012), 849–857.
sdg 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.
See primarily indicator 14.5 “By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information.” Indicator 14.2 is also relevant in this context “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.”, Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July (2017a/res/71/313).
Convention on Biological Diversity, done in Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993, 1760 unts 79. (cbd).
See Art 7 on identification and monitoring and Art 8 on in-situ conservation for the protection of biological diversity of the cbd.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for 2020 (Montreal 2010). Available at: <
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (adopted December 10, 1982 entered into force November 16, 1994) 1833 unts 397 (unclos).
Part xii of unclos establishes, inter alia, general obligations for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Art 192 provides that ‘States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.’ Art 194(5) prescribes that ‘The measures taken in accordance with this Part shall include those necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.’ Art 197 provides that ’States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.’
Although the convention sets out in its preamble that ‘the problems of ocean space are closely inter-related and need to be considered as a whole’, the convention provides little support for adopting integrated approaches across different maritime sectors. Richard Barnes, The Law of the Sea Convention and the Integrated Regulation of the Oceans. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(4) (2012), 859–866. See also Alex Oude Elferink, Governance Principles for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(2) (2012), 205–259.
Drankier (n 21) 291–350.
unga Res. A/75/L.96 of 19 January 2018, 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. The draft but not yet agreed negotiation text sets out as an objective in Art 14(d) to “Establish a system of ecologically representative marine protected areas that are connected (and effectively and equitably managed)”, “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”, (a/conf.232/2020/3, 18 November 2019), available at: <
unga Res. A/75/L.96 of 9 June 2021, Intergovernmental conference on 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.
Art 14(a) of the proposed treaty text sets out as an objective to “Enhance cooperation and coordination in the use of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, among States, relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies, which will also promote a holistic and cross-sectoral approach to (ocean management) (conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction)”.
See, for instance Art 5 of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, adopted in London 18 November 1980 (neafc Convention), which enables the organization to make recommendations by qualified majority concerning fisheries conducted beyond the areas under jurisdiction of Contracting Parties.
See Arts iii and v of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, adopted in Washington, 2 December 1946, unts Volume Number 161 (p.72), which similarly enables the decision of whale sanctuaries by qualified majority.
The purposes of the imo, as stated in Art 1(a) of the imo Convention, are “to provide machinery for cooperation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade; to encourage and facilitate the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships”, Convention on the International Maritime Organization Geneva, 6 March 1948, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 289, p. 3, and vol. 1520, p. 297.
According to Art 58 this freedom applies not only in the international waters of the High Seas, but also mutatis mutandis in the Exclusive Economic Zones (eez) of coastal States. unclos provides a regime of duality in the eez, where exclusive coastal State rights to economic resources are balanced with high seas freedoms.
Art 91.
Art 94.
Arts 94 and 211.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Nov. 2, 1973, 34 u.s.t. 3407, 1340 unts. 61.
International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, 1 November 1974, 1184 unts 3.
Annex i: Prevention of pollution by oil; Annex ii: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances; Annex v: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships; Annex vi: Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships. See also Paragraph 2.1 of Resolution A.927(22).
imo, Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, Resolution A.720(17), Adopted 6 November 1991. Available at: <
imo, Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, para. 2.2.
Ingvild Ulrikke Jakobsen, Marine protected areas in international law: an Arctic perspective, Brill Nijhoff (2016), 388; Robin Churchill, The growing establishment of high seas marine protected areas: implications for shipping in Richard Caddell and Rhidian Thomas, Shipping, Law and the Marine Environment in the 21st Century: Emerging Challenges for the Law of the Sea – Legal Implications and Liabilities (United Kingdom: Lawtext Publishing (2013).; An overview of the designated Special Areas is provided by imo, “Special Areas under MARPOL”, Available at: <
Jakobsen (n 49) 388.
Erik Molenaar, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution (The Hagues: Kluwer Law International, 1998) 632, 431; Churchill (n 36) 81.
Drankier (n 21); Helene Lefebvre-Chalain, Fifteen Years of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas: A Concept in Development, Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 13/1 (2007), 59; Markus J Kachel, Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas: The IMO’s Role in Protecting Vulnerable Marine Areas (13; Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008). 97.
See imo Resolution A.720(17), Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, Resolution A.720(17), Adopted 6 November 1991. Available at: <
Further revisions were decided in 2001 by imo Resolution A.927(22). Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under marpol 73/78 and Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Areas, adopted 29 November 2001, available at: <
As observed by Drankier, a considerable legal difference between a pssa and a marpol 73/78 special area is that whereas a pssa may be designated or amended by the imo Assembly, on recommendation of the The Marine Environment Protection Committee (mepc), the designation or amendment of a special area is in effect an amendment to marpol 73/78 itself and its respective annex., Drankier (n 21).
If the proposed apms “are not already available in an imo instrument, information must be provided with regard to its legal basis and/or steps that the proposing Member Government has taken or will take to establish the legal basis”, see Paragraph 7.5.2.2 of Resolution imo Resolution A.982(24), Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Areas.
The cumulative criteria are oceanographic, ecological, and vessel traffic characteristics. Within these criteria, there are however alternative sub-criteria. The ecological conditions of an area are: Conditions indicating that protection of the area from harmful substances is needed to preserve: (1) depleted, threatened or endangered marine species; (2) areas of high natural productivity (such as fronts, upwelling areas, gyres); (3) spawning, breeding and nursery areas for important marine species and areas representing migratory routes for sea-birds and marine mammals; (4) rare and fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds and wetlands; and (5) critical habitats for marine resources including fish stocks and/or areas of critical importance for the support of large marine ecosystems.
ibid para. 6.3.
ibid para. 4.3, Siân Prior, Aldo Chircop, and Julian Roberts, Area-Based Management on the High Seas: Possible Application of the IMO’s Particularly Sensitive Sea Area Concept, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 25/4 (2010), 483–522. See also Veronica Frank, The European Community and Marine Environmental Protection in the International Law of the Sea: Implementing Global Obligations at the Regional Level (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), 370–371, 370–371; Kristina M Gjerde and Anna Rulska-Domino, Marine Protected Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Some Practical Perspectives for Moving Ahead, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27/2 (2012), 351–73.
See Para. 4.3.4 of Resolution A.885(21); Para. 7.1 of Resolution A.927(22); Para. 1.2 and 7.1 of Resolution A.982(24).
Resolution imo Resolution A.982(24), Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Areas, 4–5.
Para. 7.5.2.4 of Resolution A.982(24).
Lefebvre-Chalain (n 52) 55.
Jakobsen (n 49) 398; Tore Henriksen, Conservation of marine biodiversity and the International Maritime Organization, in Christina Voigt (ed.), Rule of Law for Nature: New Dimensions and Ideas in Environmental Law (2013), 341–342.
Kachel (n 52) 195.
See paragraph 8.4 of imo Resolution A.982(24), Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Areas.
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, (18 November 2019, a/conf.232/2020/3). Available at: <
Update on the UN conference on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), Information session for imo Member States, 21 June 2019. Available at: <
Update on the legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (bbnj). Available at: <
imo mepc Resolution 136(53), Designation of the Baltic Sea Area as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, Adopted 22 July 2005. Available at: <
imo Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation nav 51/19, para. 3.50.
ibid, para. 3.51., Jakobsen (n 49) 399.
Prior and others (n 58) 514.
Robert C Beckman, PSSAs and Transit Passage-Australia’s Pilotage System in the Torres Strait Challenges the IMO and UNCLOS, Ocean Development & International Law, 38/4 (2007), 325–57.
Jakobsen (n 49) 399.
See paras. 3.5.1., 3.5.6–7., imo, Resolution A.572(14), General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing, adopted on 20 November 1985. Available at: <
These are the southern Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone, the Milne Seamount Complex, the Altair, Anitaltair and Josephine Seamounts as well as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores, see ospar recommendation 2003/3 of 27th June 2003. Available at: <
See ospar press notice of 26 June 2008 ospar pioneers the protection of the high seas, ospar on track to meet the new EU marine directive. Available at: <
The definition of the term “maritime area” in Art. 1 (a) OSPAR expressly comprises not only areas under national jurisdiction but also those on the high seas. Contrary to this approach, most other regional treaties on marine environmental protection are confined to the territorial seas and the eezs of their States Parties. Beyond some specific obligations to reduce land-based pollution of the sea and pollution by dumping, incineration and from offshore sources in Arts. 3–5 ospar, Art. 2 (1) of the ospar Convention generally requires parties to preserve and restore the “maritime area”., Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the ‘ospar Convention’) unts. 2354, Available at: <
Nele Matz-Lück and Johannes Fuchs, The Impact of Ospar on Protected Area Management Beyond National Jurisdiction: Effective Regional Cooperation or a Network of Paper Parks?, Marine policy, 49 (2014), 155–66, ibid.
The ospar document whereby it discusses its mandate lists in para. 2.23 ”scientific research, cable laying, dumping (and) construction of installations and artificial islands, and deep-sea tourism as the only examples”, see ospar Commission. ospar’s regulatory regime for establishing Marine Protected Areas (mpas) in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (abnj) of the ospar maritime area. In: meeting of the ospar Commission Brussels: 22–26 June 2009. Summary record 2009 ospar 09/22/1-E, Annex 6. (Ref. §6.13c). Available at: <
In principle nothing under general international law prevents States from restricting the activities of their vessels or natural and legal persons in certain abnj or the maritime zones of other Sates. This follows from the general principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt (a treaty binds the parties and only the parties; it does not create obligations for a third State).
ospar Agreement 2003–18, Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Available at: <
See Arts 4(1–2) of Annex v of the ospar Convention.
Available at: <
ospar Agreement 2008–04, Memorandum of understanding between the OSPAR Commission and NEAFC, Adopted 5 September, 2008. Available at: <
Danielle Smith and Julia Jabour, MPAs in ABNJ: Lessons from Two High Seas Regimes, ices Journal of Marine Science, 75/1 (2018), 417–25.
Julien Rochette and others, The Regional Approach to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, Marine policy, 49/C (2014), 109–17.
In the ospar guidelines for mpas which outlines the steps to be followed in identifying potential new sites and the criteria which should be met. This includes an elaborate list of ecological and practical criteria to be considered. Whereas “potential damage to the area by human activities” is a central criterion, there appears to be no need to conversely consider the impact of proposed measures on human activities. See ospar, Guidance for the development and management of the OSPAR network available at: <
See, for the Baltic Sea pssa, imo, mepc Resolution 136(53), Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, Adopted on 22 July 2005. Available at: <
See, for an inventory of relevant approaches, Marielle Christiansen and others, Ship Routing and Scheduling in the New Millennium, European journal of operational research, 228/3 (2013), 467–83.
Table of Authorities
International Treaties
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (adopted 2 December 1946, entered into force 10 November 1948) 161 unts 72.
Convention on the International Maritime Organization as amended (imo Convention) (adopted 6 March 1948, entered into force 17 March 1958) 9 ust 621, 289 unts 48.
Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries (neafc Convention) (adopted 18 November 1980, entered into force 17 March 1982) 1285 unts 129.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 1 November, 1994) 1833 unts 397.
Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) unts1760 unts 79.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for 2020 (adopted 2010). Available at: <www.cbd.int/sp> accessed 26 August 2020.
Decisions
Development of an international legally binding instrument underuncloson the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2015 (unga 69/292).
Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July (2017a/res/71/313).
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, adopted by the General Assembly on 24 December 2017 (unga A/72/677)
The outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 to 22 June 2012 (Rio + 20), entitled “The future we want”, adopted by the General Assembly 27 July 2012 (unga 66/288).
imo
imo Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation nav 51/19.
mepc Resolution 136(53), Designation of the Baltic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, Adopted on 22 July 2005. Available <www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofimoResolutions/Marine-Environment-Protection-Committee-%28MEPC%29/Documents/MEPC.136%2853%29.pdf>accessed 10 September 2020
mepc Resolution 133(53) Designation of the Torres Strait as an extension of the Great Barrier Reef Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, Adopted on 22 July 2005. Availableat: </www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofimoResolutions/Marine-Environment-Protection-Committee-%28MEPC%29/Documents/MEPC.133%2853%29.pdf>accessed 10 September 2020.
mepc Resolution 304(72), Initial imo Strategy on Reduction of ghg Emissions from Ships (adopted on 13 April 2018). Available at: <www.cdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Resolution%20MEPC.304(72)_E.pdf>accessed 10 September 2020.
Resolution A.572(14), General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing, adopted on 20 November 1985. Available at: <www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofimoResolutions/Assembly/Documents/A.572(14).pdf> accessed 10 September 2020.
Resolution A.720(17), Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, Resolution A.720(17), adopted 6 November 1991. Available at: <www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=22581&filename=A720(17).pdf>accessed 10 September 2020.
Resolution A.885(21), Procedures for the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and the Adoption of Associated Protective Measures and Amendments to the Guidelines Contained in Resolution A.720(17), adopted 25 November 1999, available at:<www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=24275&filename=885(21).PDF> accessed 10 September 2020.
Resolution A.927(22), Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas under marpol 73/78 and Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Areas, adopted 29 November 2001, available at: <www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofimoResolutions/Assembly/Documents/A.927(22).pdf> accessed 10 September 2020.
Resolution A.982(24), Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Areas, adopted 1 December 2005, available at: <www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PSSAs/Documents/A24-Res.982.pdf> accessed 10 September 2020.
ospar
Guidance for the development and management of the ospar network available at: <www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/marine-protected-areas/guidance-for-the-development-and-management-of-the-ospar-network> accessed 10 September 2020.
ospar Agreement 2003–18, Guidelines for the Management of Marine Protected Areas in the ospar Maritime Area. Available at: <www.ospar.org/documents?d=32690> accessed 10 September 2020.
ospar Agreement 2008–04, Memorandum of understanding between the ospar Commission and neafc, Adopted 5 September, 2008. Available at: <www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/mou_neafc_ospar.pdf> accessed 10 September 2020.
ospar’s regulatory regime for establishing Marine Protected Areas (mpas) in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (abnj) of the ospar maritime area. In: meeting of the ospar Commission Brussels: 22–26 June 2009. Summary record 2009 ospar 09/22/1-E, Annex 6. (Ref. §6.13c). Available at: <www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/33747/annex06_jl_advice_on_abnj.doc> accessed 10 September 2020.
ospar press notice of 26 June 2008 ospar pioneers the protection of the high seas, ospar on track to meet the new EU marine directive. Available at: <www.ospar.org/news/ospar-pioneers-the-protection-of-the-high-seas-ospar-on-track-to-meet-the-new-eu-marine-directive> accessed 10 September 2020.
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”, (18 November 2019, a/conf.232/2020/3). Available at: <undocs.org/en/a/conf.232/2020/3> accessed 10 September 2020.
Update on the legally binding instrument under unclos on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (bbnj)”. Available at: <www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/Documents/Presentation%20at%20A%2031%20December%202019.pptx> accessed 10 September 2020.
Update on the UN conference on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (bbnj)”, Information session for imo Member States, 21 June 2019. Available at: <www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/Documents/Presentation%20-%20information%20session%20BBNJ%20-%2021-06-19.pptx> accessed 27 August 27 2020).
Bibliography
Books and Book Chapters
Abdualla A and Linden O, Maritime traffic effects on biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea: Review of impacts, priority areas and mitigation measures (Spain: Switzerland: iucn, 2008).
Ausubel JH and others, First Census of Marine Life 2010: Highlights of a Decade of Discovery (2010).
Caddell R and Thomas R, Shipping, Law and the Marine Environment in the 21st Century: Emerging Challenges for the Law of the Sea – Legal Implications and Liabilities (United Kingdom: Lawtext Publishing (2013).
Cheung W and others, Patterns of species richness in the high seas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series no. 20 (2005).
Danovaro R and others, Challenging the Paradigms of Deep-Sea Ecology, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29/8 (2014).
Frank V, The European Community and marine environmental protection in the international law of the sea: implementing global obligations at the regional level (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007).
Halpern B and others, Recent Pace of Change in Human Impact on the World’s Ocean, Scientific reports, 9/1 (2019).
Henriksen T, Conservation of marine biodiversity and the International Maritime Organization, in Voigt C (ed.), Rule of Law for Nature: New Dimensions and Ideas in Environmental Law (2013).
ipcc ,Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groupiiito the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (cup, 2014).
Jakobsen IU, Marine protected areas in international law: an Arctic perspective, Brill Nijhoff (2016).
Kachel M, Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas: Theimo’s Role in Protecting Vulnerable Marine Areas (Theimo’s Role in Protecting Vulnerable Marine Areas), 13: Berlin, Heidelberg (2008).
Merrie A and others, An ocean of surprises – trends in human use, unexpected dynamics and governance challenges in areas beyond national jurisdiction (2014).
Molenaar E, Coastal State Jurisdiction Over Vessel-Source Pollution (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998).
Molenaar E and Oude Elferink AG, Marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction The pioneering efforts under the OSPAR Convention, Utrecht Law Review, 5/1 (2009).
Panayides PM, The Routledge Handbook of Maritime Management (Routledge 2019).
Psaraftis HN, Kontovas CA, Ship speed optimization: Concepts, models and combined speed-routing scenarios, Transportation Research, Volume 44, (July 2014).
Ramirez-Llodra E and others, Deep, Diverse and Definitely Different: Unique Attributes of the World’s Largest Ecosystem, Biogeosciences, 7/9 (2010), 2851.
Rhidian T, Shipping, Law and the Marine Environment in the 21st Century: Emerging Challenges for the Law of the Sea – Legal Implications and Liabilities (United Kingdom: Lawtext Publishing, 2013).
Scott K, Integrated Oceans Management. In Rothwell D and others (eds). The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (oup 2015).
Serra P and Fancello G, Towards theimo’s GHG Goals: A Critical Overview of the Perspectives and Challenges of the Main Options for Decarbonizing International Shipping, Sustainability, 12/8 (2020).
Stopford S (ed.), Maritime Economics, Corporation Ebooks (3rd ed. Taylor & Francis, 2009).
Official Documentation
iucn World Commission on Protected Areas (iucn-wcpa) (2008). Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks – Making It Happen .Washington, D.C.: iucn-wcpa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy.
unctad, 2019 Review of Maritime Transport (United Nations, Geneva 2019).
unep, Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies” No. 178. unep/ iucn, (Switzerland 2006).
Journal Articles
Ban NC and others, Systematic Conservation Planning: A Better Recipe for Managing the High Seas for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use, Conservation Letters, 7/1 (2014).
Barnes R, The Law of the Sea Convention and the Integrated Regulation of the Oceans. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(4) (2012).
Beckman RC, PSSAs and Transit Passage-Australia’s Pilotage System in the Torres Strait Challenges the imo and unclos, Ocean Development & International Law, 38/4 (2007).
Christiansen M and others, Ship routing and scheduling in the new millennium, European journal of operational research, 228/3 (2013).
Drankier P, Marine Protected Areas in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27/2 (2012).
Erbe C and others, Editorial: Impacts of Shipping on Marine Fauna, Frontiers in Marine Science, 7 (2020).
Freestone D, The limits of sectoral and regional efforts to designate high seas marine protected areas. Am. J. Int. Law 112 (2018).
Gjerde KM and Rulska-Domino A, Marine Protected Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Some Practical Perspectives for Moving Ahead, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27/2 (2012).
Lefebvre-Chalain H, Fifteen years of particularly sensitive sea areas: a concept in development, Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 13/1 (2007), 69.
Leonardi J, Browne M, A method for assessing the carbon footprint of maritime freight transport: European case study and results, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 13(5) (2010).
Matz-Lück N and Fuchs J, The impact of OSPAR on protected area management beyond national jurisdiction: Effective regional cooperation or a network of paper parks?, Marine policy, 49 (2014), 155–66.
O’Leary B and others, The first network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas: The process, the challenges and where next, Marine policy, 36/3 (2012).
O’Leary B and others, Options for Managing Human Threats to High Seas Biodiversity, Ocean & coastal management, 187 (2020).
Oude Elferink A, Governance Principles for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(2) (2012).
Papatzanakis G, Papanikolaou A, Liu S, Optimization of routing considering uncertainties, Journal of Marine Science and Application, 11/1 (2012).
Prior S, Chircop A and Roberts J, Area-based Management on the High Seas: Possible Application of the imo’s Particularly Sensitive Sea Area Concept, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 25/4 (2010), 483–522.
Psaraftis HN, Kontovas, CA, Ship speed optimization: Concepts, models and combined speed-routing scenarios, Transportation Research, Volume 44, (July 2014).
Rochette J and others, The regional approach to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, Marine policy, 49/C (2014), 109–17.
Smith D and Jabour J, MPAs in ABNJ: lessons from two high seas regimes, ices Journal of Marine Science, 75/1 (2018).