No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
8 - Science Appears before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Abstract
Science, which inevitably underlies environmental disputes, poses significant challenges for the scientifically untrained judges who decide such cases. In addition to disrupting ordinary fact-finding and causal inquiry, science can impact the framing of disputes and the standard of review. Judges must therefore adopt various tools to adjust the level of science allowed to enter their deliberations, which may fundamentally impact the legitimacy of their reasoning. While neglecting or replacing scientific authority can erode the convincing nature of judicial reasoning, the same authority, when treated properly, may lend persuasive force to adjudicatory findings, and buttress the legitimacy of judgments. In this work, Katalin Sulyok surveys the environmental case law of seven major jurisdictions and analyzes framing techniques, evidentiary procedures, causal inquiries and standards of review, offering valuable insight into how judges justify their choices between rival scientific claims in a convincing and legitimate manner.
This article argues that the current approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to evaluating scientific evidence is lacking and hampers its ability to properly handle cases involving questions of science, and particularly environmental cases which are replete with them. It identifies three problem areas in relation to the ECtHR's adjudication of such cases: the evaluation of evidence proving the causation of harm; the extent of the Court's deference to the determinations made by national authorities; and the Court's evaluation of evidence adduced by the respondent State in justifying its conduct as being in line with the standard of due diligence. Several cases that illustrate the recurring problem of the lack of science-based reasoning in the Court's judgments are then identified, highlighting the shortcomings of its approach. Such issues have an impact upon the legitimacy of the ECtHR, and it is therefore imperative that it engages more robustly with scientific evidence. The article suggests the best way to do this would be for the ECtHR to make more use of its power to seek assistance from independent scientific experts in environmental cases.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is key to the robust environmental management of industrial projects; it is used to anticipate, assess and reduce environmental and social risks of a project. It is instrumental in project planning and execution, and often required for financing and regulatory approval to be granted. The International Seabed Authority currently requires an EIA for deep-sea mining (DSM) in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the Area), but the existing regulations present only a portion of a robust EIA process. This article presents an ideal EIA process for DSM, drawing upon the application of EIA from allied industries. It contains screening, scoping and assessment phases, along with the development of an environmental management plan. It also includes external review by experts, stakeholder consultation, and regulatory review. Lessons learned from application of EIA elsewhere are discussed in relation to DSM, including the integration of EIA into UK domestic law, and the reception of EIAs prepared for seabed ore extraction in the Exclusive Economic Zones of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Finally, four main challenges of implementing the EIA process to DSM in the Area are presented: 1) EIA process for DSM needs to incorporate mechanisms to address uncertainty; 2) detailed requirements for the EIA process phases should be made clear; 3) mechanisms are needed to ensure that the EIA influences decision making; and, 4) the EIA process requires substantial input and involvement from the regulator .
On 1 February 2011, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea handed down its first advisory opinion, namely, Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area which concerns the responsibility and obligations of sponsoring states with regard to activities in the Area, i.e., the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Significantly this advisory opinion clarified the obligations of sponsoring states concerning activities in the Area. It will also provide important insights into, inter alia, the inter-relationship between the obligation of due diligence and the precautionary approach, the preferential treatment of developing states, the liability of sponsoring states and obligations erga omnes concerning activities in the Area. Thus the ITLOS advisory opinion is thought to make an important contribution to the development of the deep seabed régime. Focusing on these issues, this contribution will seek to examine the significance of and questions concerning the advisory opinion of 2011.
During the 1990s and beyond, the European Union (EU) and Chile have been engaged in a controversy over highly migratory swordfish stocks in the South Pacific. Following disputes over Cod, Turbot, and Tuna, the Swordfish Case reveals outstanding problems in the international law of fisheries. The Swordfish Case attracts further attention, as it involves proceedings both at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and at the World Trade Organisation, with potentially inconsistent decisions. At the WTO, the EU's assertion of a right to access Chilean ports on the grounds of GATT 1994 freedom of transit provisions bears an impact on the use of ports in countries around the world. At the ITLOS Chamber, the long-standing conflict between distant water fishing nations and coastal states is once again to the fore. Although the parties to the dispute arrived at a provisional agreement, setting out to establish a scientific fisheries program and a conservation framework, the issues involved in the swordfish controversy highlight the tensions among the international maritime, economic, and environmental regimes. The article offers an overall account of the core elements of the swordfish dispute.
U.S. policy is to encourage freedom of marine scientific research (MSR). This article compares the legal regimes governing the conduct of MSR under the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea and the 1982 UN Convention on the’ Law of the Sea, which is approaching universal acceptance, and distinguishes MSR from survey activities. It argues that, notwithstanding the erosion of the physical areas of the ocean in which there is freedom of MSR under the Law of the Sea Convention, it provides mechanisms for states’ parties to obtain compliance by coastal states with their duties to grant consent, in normal circumstances, for MSR projects in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or on the continental shelf, and to establish rules and procedures ensuring that such consent will not be delayed or denied unreasonably. It also suggests establishment of a national marine scientific research program analogous to the U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program.