Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: The Brazilian Blue Amazon

381 Pages·2020·4.526 MB·English

by  Victor Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura

Victor Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura
Environmental
Jurisdiction
in the Law
of the Sea
The Brazilian Blue Amazon
Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea
Victor Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura
Environmental Jurisdiction
in the Law of the Sea
The Brazilian Blue Amazon
VictorAlencarMayerFeitosaVentura
JoãoPessoa,Brazil
Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Rechtswissenschaft an der Fakultät für
Rechtswissenschaft der Universität Hamburg, Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy Graduate
SchoolofLaw
vorgelegtvonVictorAlencarMayerFeitosaVentura
Erstgutachter:Prof.Dr.iur.StefanOeter
Zweitgutachter:Prof.Dr.iur.HenningJessen
TagdermündlichenPrüfung:29.05.2019
ISBN978-3-030-50542-4 ISBN978-3-030-50543-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicencetoSpringerNatureSwitzerland
AG2020
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Acknowledgements
Abookisneveranindividual’swork.Ihavetothankmyfamily,MarcoandMaria
Luiza,fantasticparents,andmybrothers,DaniloandFelipe,whoencouragedmeto
embarkontheadventureofaPhDabroadandstoodbythatideaatalltimes.
My deepest gratefulness to Valeria, a companion who offered much-needed
backing, especially in the darkest hours. This work, if anything, isthe direct result
of our love, mutual support, and delightful cultural escapades in Hamburg and
Elmshorn.
A special thank you to both my supervisors, Prof. Dr. Stefan Oeter and Prof.
Dr. Henning Jessen, for the patience to dialogue with my ideas and for offering
valuable insights for this work. Also, my appreciation for the constant helpfulness
and efficiency of the staff of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hamburg, in
particularMsClaudiaZavalaandMsDinahCassebaum.
This work would not have been made possible without the support of several
scholarsandinstitutions,whereIhadthetreasuredopportunitytoconductresearch
andcollectfeedback.ThosescholarsareProf.Dr.AnnePetersandtheMaxPlanck
Institute of Comparative Public Law and International Law, for the opportunity to
attend the Institute’s Masterclasses; Prof. Dr. Bjorn Kunoy, the University of the
Faroe Islands, where I concluded the Summer Academy on the Continental Shelf;
Prof.Dr.ErikMolenaar,theNetherlandsInstitutefortheLawoftheSea(NILOS),
University of Utrecht, under whose supervision I carried out a two-month long
research stay; Dr. Jo König and Prof. Dr. Doris König, for setting up the best
summer academy on ocean governance of the world, in Hamburg; and, finally,
Prof. Dr. Clive Schofield, of the Global Ocean Institute, of the World Maritime
University, for welcoming me into the premises of the Institute for a short
researchstay.
I am equally indebted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS),forhavingmeassisttheRegistryduringthe46thSessionoftheTribunal,
and to the wonderful multinational colleagues I met there, with special remark to
Sebastian Gomez, Brigitte Rakatomalala, Julia Ritter, Antje Vorbeck, and Anke
Egert.
v
vi Acknowledgements
InHamburg,thisworkwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthemonthlydebates
inmy belovedPortuguese languageat theBrazilianDebateGroup (GDTB,Grupo
de Discussão de Temas Brasileiros), especially with Emília Castro, Ana Quintão,
Cristina Francisco, and Renata do Val. My particular thanks to the “Brazilian
Directorate,”FernandoMagrãoPreusserdeMattos,RômuloLima,EduardoGresse,
and Júlio de Rizzo. Likewise, my deepest gratitude to Júlia Mandil and Bettina
Zbinden. To my colleagues and friends of the Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy
GraduateSchoolofLaw,oftheUniversityofHamburg,namelyRustamAtadjanov,
Gregor Lamersdorf, Matthias Packeiser, Annalisa Morticelli, Pipitsa Kousoula,
Tomas Restrepo, Giuseppe Bitti, Raoul Veit, Barbara Germann, Reem Harok,
LucasBento,andmanymore.YouallmadethePhDmissiononeworthenjoying.
Finally, I am appreciative of the Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy Graduate
School of Law and the PIASTA Program, both of the University of Hamburg, as
wellastheBrazilianFoundationfortheDevelopmentofHigherEducationPerson-
nel (CAPES), for having funded different stages of the research that gave life to
thisbook.
Contents
1 Introduction:SettingtheStage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 FactualBackgroundandTheoreticalFramework. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 SubjectMatter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Problemfelder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 ResearchQuestions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5 Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.6 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.7 TerminologicalNotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2 TheGeneralInternationalLegalRegimeoftheContinental
Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1 TheLawoftheSeaasaSpecialLegalRegimeofPublic
InternationalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 UNConventionontheLawoftheSea:Cornerstone
oftheNewLawoftheSea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 DefinitionofContinentalShelfWithinandBeyond200nm. . . . 28
2.4 CorePrinciplesoftheContinentalShelfRegime. . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.1 NaturalProlongationvsDistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4.2 InherentEntitlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4.3 SovereignandExclusiveRights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3 TheContinentalShelfBeyond200nm:InnovationsinArt.76
UNCLOS. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. 47
3.1 EnlargedCoastalStateJurisdictionOvertheContinental
Margin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2 FormulaetoPrecisetheOuterEdgeoftheContinentalMargin
andtheOuterLimitsoftheContinentalShelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
vii
viii Contents
3.3 Delineating:TheCommissionontheLimitsoftheContinental
Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.1 ChallengestotheWorkoftheCommission. . . . . . . . . 59
3.3.2 TheCommission’sArduousWayAhead. . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.2.1 InterpretingtheConvention. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.2.2 CompositionandIntegrityofCLCS
Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.2.3 TransparencyandConfidentiality:
AClassicalTrade-Off. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4 DelimitingandDelineating:TheInternationalTribunal
fortheLawoftheSea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.4.1 MaritimeDelimitationofContinentalShelves
Beyond200nm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.4.2 Delineation:CompulsoryJudicialAccountability
oftheCommission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.5 BenefitsofDelineatingtheOuterLimitsoftheContinental
Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.6 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4 SovereigntyandJurisdictionintheLawoftheSea. . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1 SovereigntyandJurisdictioninInternationalLaw. . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2 FromSovereigntytoJurisdictioninInternationalLaw:Bases
ofJurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2.1 FormsofJurisdiction:Prescriptive,ofEnforcement
andAdjudicative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2.2 ContentofJurisdiction:Civil,Criminaland
Environmental. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3 FromSovereigntytoProgressiveJurisdictionintheNewLaw
oftheSea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.3.1 CoastalStateSovereigntyintheTerritorialSea. . . . . . 99
4.3.2 States’AuthorityintheArea:LimitationsImposed
bytheCommonHeritageofMankindPrinciple. . . . . . 101
4.3.3 ProgressiveandFunctionalJurisdictioninthe
ExclusiveEconomicZoneandContinentalShelf. . . . . 103
4.4 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5 JurisdictionalIntersectionsBetweentheContinentalShelf
andOtherMaritimeSpaces:ExclusiveEconomicZone,
HighSeasandtheArea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.1 TheContinentalShelfandtheEEZ:Parallelism
andIntegration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.2 TheContinentalShelfandtheHighSeas:TheSuperjacent
WatersoftheContinentalShelfBeyond200nm. . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Contents ix
5.3 TheOuterContinentalShelfandtheArea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.3.1 RelationshipBetweentheCommonHeritage
ofMankindPrincipleandtheDefinitionoftheOuter
LimitsoftheContinentalShelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.3.2 ControversiesRegardingtheSizeoftheAreaandthe
EmergenceoftheContinentalShelfbeyond200nm. . . 126
5.3.3 Revenue-SharingMechanismoftheOuterContinental
Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.4 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6 CreepingJurisdictionintheLawoftheSea:ThreattoNavigational
FreedomsorStandAgainst“SpoliativeJurisdiction”?. . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.1 ContextofthePracticeKnownas“CreepingJurisdiction”. . . . . 142
6.2 Definitionof“CreepingJurisdiction”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.3 ReasonsforAlarm?. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. 149
6.3.1 Pre-UNCLOSStatePractice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.3.2 Post-UNCLOSStatePractice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.4 CoastalStates’JurisdictionalExpansionfromanEnvironmental
Perspective:CreepingJurisdictionorValidAttemptatRaising
theBar?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.4.1 AvoidingtheWholesaleUseofthePhrase“Creeping
Jurisdiction”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.4.2 AssertingJurisdictionasaMeansofPushingfor
ChangesintheLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
6.4.3 ExercisingIncreasedPowerstoProtecttheMarine
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6.4.4 ReducingTensionsBetweenMilitarySecurityInterests
andtheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironment. . . . . . . 174
6.5 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7 LegalBasisofCoastalStates’EnvironmentalJurisdiction
ontheContinentalShelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.1 TheRoleofLawinProtectingNature:BirthofanObligation
toProtectandPreservetheMarineEnvironment. . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7.1.1 HistoricalTrackoftheInternationalObligation
toProtectandPreservetheMarineEnvironment. . . . . . 196
7.1.2 MarineEnvironmentalProtectionandtheConsolidation
oftheEcosystemApproach. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. 199
7.2 CoastalStates’EnvironmentalJurisdictionintheLaw
oftheSea:SeeingBeyondPartXIIUNCLOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.2.1 DefinitionofEnvironmentalJurisdictioninInternational
Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
x Contents
7.2.2 EnvironmentalJurisdictionontheContinental
Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.2.3 TheRight-DutytoManagetheContinentalShelf. . . . . 208
7.3 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
8 MaterialExtentofCoastalStates’EnvironmentalJurisdiction
ontheContinentalShelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
8.1 EnvironmentalJurisdictiontoPrescribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
8.1.1 FirstDimension:ConservationofMarineLiving
Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
8.1.1.1 EnvironmentalJurisdictionOverGenetic
ResourcesoftheOuterContinentalShelf. . . 227
8.1.1.2 GeneticResourcesinAreasBeyondNational
Jurisdiction. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 230
8.1.2 SecondDimension:Prevention,Reductionand
ControlofMarinePollution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
8.2 EnvironmentalJurisdictiontoEnforce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
8.3 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9 TheEnvironmentalDimensionofthe“BrazilianBlueAmazon”:
EnvironmentalRightsandDutiesontheContinentalShelf. . . . . . . 247
9.1 MarineEnvironmentalGovernanceinBrazil:Policiesand
Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
9.1.1 NationalMarineEnvironmentalPoliciesattheFederal
Level. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 255
9.1.2 CoreInstitutionalActorsattheFederalLevel. . . . . . . . 262
9.1.3 TheStruggleforCoherenceinDomesticOcean
Policy-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
9.2 TheBrazilianExtendedContinentalShelf:ALargerBlue
Amazon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
9.2.1 TheBrazilianContinentalShelfSurveyPlan:LEPLAC 271
9.2.2 StatusoftheBrazilianSubmissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
9.2.3 TheBrazilianBlueAmazon:APoliticalConceptwith
LegalImplications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
9.2.3.1 SovereigntyandDefenseDimension. . . . . . 281
9.2.3.2 EconomicDimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
9.2.3.3 ScientificandTechnologicalDimension. . . . 286
9.2.3.4 EnvironmentalDimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
9.2.4 BenefitsandRisksofanExtendedBlueAmazon. . . . . 290
9.3 PartialConclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294