Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Joint Development Agreements in Cases of Transboundary Hydrocarbon Deposits

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Law of the Sea

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 30))

  • 1014 Accesses

Abstract

When analysing the overall purpose of joint development and the characteristics of hydrocarbon deposits in Chap. 2, reference was made that achieving resource efficiency constitutes a fundamental aspect of cooperation regarding the common exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon deposits that straddle across a boundary line. It was also mentioned that competitive drilling is contrary to international law and that it leads to the waste of resources, even though States are not legally required to adopt conservation measures, such as unitization, or to engage in cooperative production of common offshore hydrocarbon deposits under the umbrella of a joint development agreement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Churchill/Lowe identified four types of “co-operative arrangements”: (a) before, or (b) after the drawing of a boundary line, and in respect of (c) living, or (d) non-living marine resources. Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 198.

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    See notes 108 in Chap. 6 and 39 in Chap. 7.

  4. 4.

    Supra note 2 in Chap. 4.

  5. 5.

    Article 3 of the Maritime Treaty between Jamaica and the Republic of Colombia, done at Kingston on 12 November 1993 and entered into on 14 March 1994 [online: http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/JAM-COL1993MD.PDF (accessed on August 2013)], reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 3, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Lewis M. Alexander (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, Boston, London, 2004), pp. 2200–2204.

  6. 6.

    Supplementary Agreement to the Treaty Concerning Arrangements for Co-operation in the Ems Estuary (Ems-Dollard Treaty), signed between the Kingdom of The Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany, done at Bennekom on 14 May 1962 and entered into force on 1 August 1963, published at Bundesgesetzblatt 1963 II S. 652 and 509 U.N.T.S. 140. Following the signing of this treaty, the two States entered into an agreement regarding the lateral delimitation of the continental shelf, the Treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the lateral delimitation of the continental shelf in the vicinity of the coast, done at Bonn on 1 December 1964 and entered into force on 18 September 1965, published at 550 U.N.T.S 123, reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 2, supra note 125 in Chap.  3 , pp. 1841–1842; and the Treaty concerning the Delimitation of the Continental shelf Under the North Sea, supra note 3 in Chap. 4.

  7. 7.

    Husain M. Albaharna, “A note on the Kuwait-Saudi Arabia Neutral Zone Agreement of July 7th, 1965, relating to the partition of the zone”, in: 17 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (July: 1968), pp. 730–735.

  8. 8.

    Article 5 of the Agreement between the State of Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Regarding the Submerged Zone Contiguous to the Partitioned Zone, done at Kuwait on 2 July 2000, reproduced in: International Maritime Boundaries, vol. 4, edited by Jonathan I. Charney and Robert W. Smith (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, London, New York, 2002), pp. 2837–2840. Also see the Agreement between the State of Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relating to the partition of the Neutral Zone, done 7 July 1965 and entered into force on 25 July 1966, reproduced in: Fereidun Fesharaki, “Joint development of offshore petroleum resources: the Persian Gulf experience”, in: The South China Sea. Hydrocarbon Potential & Possibilities of Joint Development, edited by Mark J. Valencia (Pergamon Press: Oxford, New York Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt, 1981), pp. 1330–1334; The study of the BIICL considers that this agreement creates a co-ownership, condominium, co-tenancy or resource-sharing in the Neutral Zone, “whereby the sovereignty rights of each State are merged into the new legal structure in exchange for defined rights and obligations” see Fox (et al.), supra note 111 in Chap. 3, p. 48. Also see Isa Huneidi, “The Saudi/Kuwait joint development areas of the neutral zone, onshore and offshore”, in: Joint Development, vol. 2, supra note 70 in Chap. 2, pp. 77–87.

  9. 9.

    Article 77(2) and (4) of UNCLOS.

  10. 10.

    Churchill/Lowe, supra note 68 in Chap. 2, p. 200.

  11. 11.

    Article 77 of UNCLOS.

  12. 12.

    See Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, pp. 35, 87, 9, 98. Also see Resolution (UNSC) n. 687/1991, 2981st Meeting, 3 April 1991 (S/RES/687, 1991), para. 16; UN Security Council, Decision taken by the Governing Council of the United Nations, Compensation Commission during its third session at the 18th meeting held on 28 November 1991, as revised at the 24th Meeting, 16 March 1992 (S/AC.26/1991/7/Rev.1, 17 March 1992), Criteria for additional Categories of Claims: United Nations Compensation Commission, Governing Council, Fifth Session, Geneva, 16–20 March 1992, para. 35.

  13. 13.

    Article 2(3), 56(2), 78(2), 138 and 147(1), and 300 of UNCLOS.

  14. 14.

    Article 59 of UNCLOS.

  15. 15.

    Article 78(2) of UNCLOS.

  16. 16.

    Article 5(1) and (7) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

  17. 17.

    Articles 62 to 72 of UNCLOS.

  18. 18.

    Article 87(1) lit. (e) of UNCLOS. Rainer Lagoni, in referring to provisional arrangements pursuant to Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS, underlines the safeguarding of other States’ “long-standing fishery rights” to the disputed maritime area. See supra note 70 in Chap. 2, p. 358.

  19. 19.

    Article 2(2) of UNCLOS.

  20. 20.

    Article 21(1) lit. (b) and (c) of UNCLOS.

  21. 21.

    Article 21(1) lit. (a), (3) and (4), and Article 22(3) lit. (a) of UNCLOS. See IMO resolution A.572(14), 20 November 1985, General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing.

  22. 22.

    Article 60(1) lit. (b) of UNCLOS.

  23. 23.

    Article 56(1) lit. (a) and (b) (i) of UNCLOS.

  24. 24.

    The text of Article 80 of UNCLOS reads: “Article 60 applies mutatis mutandis to artificial islands, installations and structures on the continental shelf”.

  25. 25.

    Articles 56(3) and 77(1) of UNCLOS. Also see Article 81 of UNCLOS.

  26. 26.

    Articles 87(2), 88 and 89, and 137(1) of UNCLOS.

  27. 27.

    Articles 87(1) lit. (c) and (d) of UNCLOS.

  28. 28.

    Article 87(1) lit. (c) and (d), and 112(1) of UNCLOS. Also see Article 79(4) of UNCLOS.

  29. 29.

    Article 147(2) lit. (c) of UNCLOS.

  30. 30.

    Article 5(4) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

  31. 31.

    Article 60(8) ex vi Articles 80 and 87(1) lit. (d), and Article 147(2) lit. (e) of UNCLOS. Also see Article 259 of UNCLOS.

  32. 32.

    The text of Article 246(5) lit. (c) of UNCLOS reads: “Coastal States may however in their discretion withhold their consent to the conduct of a marine scientific research project of another State or competent international organization in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of the coastal State if that project: (…) (c) involves the construction, operation or use of artificial islands, installations and structures referred to in articles 60 and 80.” Also see Articles 87(1) lit. (f) and 143(1) of UNCLOS.

  33. 33.

    Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done in Rome on 10 March 1988 and entered into force on 1 March 1992, published at 1678 U.N.T.S. 304, reproduced in: 27 International Legal Materials 685 (1988).

  34. 34.

    Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at London on 14 October 2005 and entered into force on 28 July 2008, IMO Doc. LEG/CONF.15/22.

  35. 35.

    Articles 90 and 91 of UNCLOS.

  36. 36.

    See Centre for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, vol. 2, edited by Satya N. Nandan and Shabtai Rosenne (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Dordrecht, Boston, London), pp. 570–593.

  37. 37.

    Ibid, p. 584.

  38. 38.

    This is the case, for example, of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil; 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (and 1984, 1992 and 2003 Protocols); 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (and 1987); 1969 International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties Act; 1996 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea.

  39. 39.

    Articles 1(5), 210 and 216 of UNCLOS.

  40. 40.

    International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, done at London on 30 November 1990 and entered into force on 13 May 1995, published at 1891 U.N.T.S. 51 and 30 International Legal Materials 733 (1990) [OPRC 1990].

  41. 41.

    International Convention for the Preservation of Pollution from Ships, done at London on 2 November 1973 and entered into force on 2 October 1983, as amended by the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, published at 1340 U.N.T.S. 61 [MARPOL 73/78].

  42. 42.

    Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units adopted by IMO resolution A.649(16), 19 October 1989 [1989 MODU Code] and concerns MODUs built after 1 May 1991. The 1989 MODU Code superseded the 1979 MODU Code adopted by IMO resolution A.414(11), 15 November 1979, and was updated and revised by the 2009 MODU Code adopted by IMO resolution A.1023(26) Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. The new Code is expected to apply to units whose construction begins on or after 1 January 2012.

  43. 43.

    Mobile Offshore Unit is a vessel which can be readily relocated and performs an industrial function involving offshore operations other than those traditionally provided by vessels covered by Chapter I of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea [1974 SOLAS]. MODU is a unit capable of engaging in drilling operations for the exploration for, or exploitation of, resources beneath the seabed such as liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, sulphur or salt. See IMO resolution A.891(21), 25 November 1999, Recommendations on Training of Personnel on Mobile Offshore Units (MOUs).

  44. 44.

    Articles 3(2), 4(1) lit. (a) (ii) and lit. (b) (ii), 5(1) lit. (c), 6, 7(3), 8, 9 and 10 of OPREC 1990.

  45. 45.

    Article 2(4) of MARPOL 73/78.

  46. 46.

    IMO resolution MEPC/Circ.406, 10 November 2003, Guidelines for Application of MARPOL Annex I Requirements to FPSOs and FSUs; IMO resolution MEPC.139(53), 22 July 2005, Guidelines for the Application of the Revised MARPOL Annex I Requirements to Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Facilities (FPSOs) and Floating Storage Unites (FSUs); IMO resolution MEPC.142(54), 24 March 2006, Amendments to the Guidelines for the Application of the Revised MARPOL Annex I Requirements to Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Facilities (FPSOs) and Floating Storage Units (FSUs) (Resolution MEPC.139(53). Also see IMO resolution A.765(18), 4 November 1993, Guidelines on the Safety of Towed Ships and Other Floating Objects, including Installations, Structures and Platforms at Sea.

  47. 47.

    Article 2 and Regulation 2 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea, done at London on 1 November 1974 and entered into force on 25 May 1980, published at 1184 U.N.T.S. 3.

  48. 48.

    International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, done at London on 7 July 1978 and entered into force on 28 April 1984, published at 1361 U.N.T.S. 190.

  49. 49.

    International Convention on Load Lines, done at London on 5 April 1966 and entered into force on 21 July 1968, published at 640 U.N.T.S. 133.

  50. 50.

    IMO MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.9, 25 May 2010, Guidance for the Application of Safety, Security and Environmental Protection provisions to FPSOs and FSUs. Also see IMO MSC/Circ. 1111, 7 June 2004, Guidance Relating to the Implementation of SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code.

  51. 51.

    Articles 2(4) and 3(1) lit. (b) and (2), 8(1), 10, 11, 12 and 17 of MARPOL 73/78.

  52. 52.

    Article 60(1) lit. (b) and (c) of UNCLOS. A contrario, coastal States do not have jurisdiction over installations and structures that are not being used for marine scientific research, pursuant to Part XIII of UNCLOS, or for economic purposes, such as military installations, so long as they do not interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in this maritime area.

  53. 53.

    Articles 56(1) lit. (b) (ii), and 246(1) and 258 of UNCLOS.

  54. 54.

    Articles 60(2) and 80, and 21(1) lit. (f) and (h) of UNCLOS. The European Union has adopted two Directives on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in the mineral-extracting industries, which are also applicable to offshore installations and structures. See Council Directives 92/91/EEC, of 3 November 1992, and 92/104/EEC, of 3 December 1992, both amended by Directive 2007/30/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 20 June 2007.

  55. 55.

    Article 60(5) of UNCLOS. Also see Article 260 of UNCLOS regarding the safety zones around scientific research installations.

  56. 56.

    Article 60(4) to (7) of UNCLOS. See IMO LEG/MISC.6, 10 September 2008, Implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the International Maritime Organization, pp. 7–9.

  57. 57.

    The only reference to the IMO is in Article 2(2) of Annex VIII of UNCLOS. See UNCLOS: A Commentary, supra note 36, p. 577, and pp. 585 and 586 on the same point.

  58. 58.

    Article 5(3) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

  59. 59.

    Yearbook of the International Law Commission, supra note 56 in Chap.  3 , p. 48; Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1956, vol. 2, Documents of the eighth session, including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly, p. 299.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    IMO resolution A.671(16), 19 October 1989, Safety Zones and Safety of Navigation around Offshore Installations and Structures.

  62. 62.

    The text of Article 60(7) of UNCLOS reads: “Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation”.

  63. 63.

    Articles 56(1) lit. (b) (ii), 60(4) and (6), 260 to 262 of UNCLOS.

  64. 64.

    IMO resolution A.671(16), supra note 61; IMO resolution A.572(14), 20 November 1985, General Provisions on Ships’ Routeing.

  65. 65.

    Article 21(3) of UNCLOS. Also see Articles 41, 42 and 45 of UNCLOS regarding straits used for international navigation and Articles 52 to 54 of UNCLOS in respect of passage though archipelagic waters. .

  66. 66.

    Articles 22(1) and (4), and 24(2) of UNCLOS. Also see IMO resolution A.671(16), supra note 61.

  67. 67.

    Article 60(3) of UNCLOS.

  68. 68.

    The text of Article 5(5) of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf reads: “Any installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed.” This provision resulted from a proposal of the United Kingdom see United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, Volume VI: Fourth Committee (Continental Shelf), Summary records of meetings and Annexes, 24 February-27 April 1958, Doc: A/CONF.13/42, p. 4, para. 14.

  69. 69.

    Articles 60(3), 147(2) lit. (a) and 249(1) lit. (g) of UNCLOS. See Edward Duncan Brown, “The significance of a possible EC EEZ for the law relating to artificial islands, installations, and structures, and to cables and pipelines, in the exclusive economic zone”, in: 23 Ocean Development and International Law (1992), pp. 126–132.

  70. 70.

    UNCLOS: A Commentary, supra note 36, p. 582.

  71. 71.

    Paul Peters, Alfred H. A. Soons and Lucie A. Zima, “Removal of installations in the Exclusive Economic Zone”, in: 15 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1984), pp. 167–207. These authors concluded that in the light of State practice since 1958, the rule of removal had not become part of customary international law and therefore would not be binding upon a State not party to the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf see ibid, pp. 192–193.

  72. 72.

    Article 311(1) of UNCLOS.

  73. 73.

    ““Abandonment”, in the legal sense, is more than merely walking away from a thing. It means the voluntary relinquishment of all right, title, claim and possession of a thin, with the intention of not reclaiming it; or giving up of a thing absolutely, without reference to any particular person or purpose, as vacating property with the intention of not returning to it. The term “disuse” is less easy to define in precise terms; however, in this context it is clear that a degree of permanency of non-use is to inferred: an installation disused merely temporarily, e.g. while a well is shut in, cannot have been intended. It will be difficult, therefore, to establish at what precise point in time an installation or device is “abandoned or disused”, i.e. when the obligation to remove is born. Even when a field is “exhausted” and production stops, it may be the intention of the licensee to keep the installation in place, in case oil production can be resumed at a later date on the basis of secondary or tertiary recovery techniques. Even when the license expires, it may not necessarily be assumed that the installation is permanently abandoned.” Peters/Soons/Zima, supra note 71, p. 173.

  74. 74.

    “Although there is an amazing variety in the terminology used in the Convention, the lack of consistency can be ascribed to the somewhat unorthodox method of treaty-making that was adopted by UNCLOS-III and one must be hesitant to ascribe too much significance to the choice of expressions used in different contexts. It is clear from the above that, both from a historical and from a systematic interpretation, one must come to the conclusion that pipelines are not included in “installations and structures” in the context of Article 60.3. (…) Thus we maintain the conclusion that no pipelines—whatever their length or purpose—are subject to the provisions of Article 60; neither the removal obligation, nor the provision regarding safety zones accordingly applies to them.” Ibid, p. 191. Also see Brown, supra note 69, p. 138: “There appears to be general agreement that submarine pipelines were not intended to be included among the continental shelf “installations and devices” referred to in Article 5 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf or the installations of the continental shelf and the EEZ referred to in Articles 60 and 80 of the UN Convention. Neither the IMO Guidelines and Standards nor the Oslo Commission Guidelines refer to pipelines. There seems, therefore, to be no specific requirement in international conventional law for their removal after abandonment or disuse”.

  75. 75.

    Rainer Lagoni, “Cables and pipeline survey at sea”, in: Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity, Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, vol. 1, edited by Holger P. Hestermeyer, Doris König, Nele Matz-Lück, Volker Röben, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Peter-Tobias Stoll and Silja Vöneky (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Leiden, Boston, 2012), p. 935. Also see Lagoni, supra note 46 in Chap. 2, p 203.

  76. 76.

    See OSPAR [Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic] Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations, 22–23 July 1998 [online: http://www.ospar.org (accessed on August 2013)].

  77. 77.

    See J. M. MacDonald, “Artificial reef debate: habitat enhancement or waste disposal?”, in: 25–1 Ocean Development and International Law (1994), pp. 87–118. Also see OSPAR Guidelines on Artificial Reefs in relation to Living Marine Resources, 2012; OSPAR Assessment of Construction or Placement of Artificial Reefs, 2009; 2009 London Convention and Protocol/UNEP Guidelines for the Placement of Artificial Reefs, 30th Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 27–31 October 2008, and 3rd Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter on 31 October 2008. These Guidelines define an artificial reef as “a submerged structure deliberately constructed or placed on the seabed to emulate some functions of a natural reef such as protecting, regenerating, concentrating, and/or enhancing populations of living marine resources. Objectives of an artificial reef may also include the protection, restoration and regeneration of aquatic habitats, and the promotion of research, recreational opportunities, and educational use of the area. The term does not include submerged structures deliberately placed to perform functions not related to those of a natural reef—such as breakwaters, mooring, cables, pipelines, marine research devices or platforms—even if they incidentally imitate some functions of a natural reef.” (pp. 4 and 5).

  78. 78.

    Peters/Soons/Zima, supra note 71, p. 173.

  79. 79.

    Brown, supra note 26 in Chap. 3, p. 263.

  80. 80.

    Ibid, pp. 266–267.

  81. 81.

    Ibid, 267.

  82. 82.

    IMO resolution A.672(16), 19 October 1989, Guidelines and Standards for the Removal of Offshore Installations and Structures on the Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone.

  83. 83.

    The IMO Guidelines and Standards refer that: “All abandoned or disused installations and structures emplaced on the seabed on or after 1 January 1998, standing less that 100 m of water and weighing less than 4.000 tonnes in air, excluding the deck and superstructure, should be entirely removed”.

  84. 84.

    For example see UNEP (DEC)/MED IG.15/Inf. 13, 1 October 2003, Guidelines Dumping of Platforms and Other Man-Made Structures at Sea.

  85. 85.

    Convention on Biological Diversity, done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 and entered into force 29 December 1993, published at 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 [Convention on Biological Diversity].

  86. 86.

    Article 22(1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  87. 87.

    Also see Article 3(4) lit. (b) of the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, done at Barcelona on 16 February 1976 and entered into force on 12 February 1978, published at 1102 U.N.T.S. 1, renamed Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea, after the amendments adopted on 10 June 1995, Doc. UNEP(OCA)/MED IG.6/7, not yet in force.

  88. 88.

    Article 210(1) of UNCLOS.

  89. 89.

    Article 194 (3) lit (c) of UNCLOS.

  90. 90.

    IMO LEG/MISC.6, supra note 56, p. 65.

  91. 91.

    Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter, done at London on 29 December 1972 and entered into force on 30 August 1975, published at 1046 U.N.T.S. 120 [1972 London Convention]; Protocol to the 1972 London Convention, done at London on 7 November 1996 and entered into force on 24 March 2006, published at 36 International Legal Materials 1 (1997). Also see Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Platforms or Other Man-made Structures at Sea, adopted at the Twenty-second Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1972 London Convention, from 18–22 September 2000.

  92. 92.

    Article 192 of UNCLOS.

  93. 93.

    ITLOS considered that the term ‘responsibility’ referred “to the primary obligation whereas the term ‘liability’ refers to the secondary obligation, namely, the consequences of a breach of the primary obligation”. See Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber, supra note 77 in Chap.  2 , para. 66. On States’ liability for environmental damage see Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2003), pp. 871–939.

  94. 94.

    See IMO LEG/MISC.6, supra note 56.

  95. 95.

    Articles 56(1) lit. (b) (iii), 194(3) lit. (c), 208(1) and 214 of UNCLOS.

  96. 96.

    Article 209(2) of UNCLOS.

  97. 97.

    Articles 142(3), 209, 215 of UNCLOS.

  98. 98.

    Article 145 of UNCLOS.

  99. 99.

    Article 187 lit. (e) of UNCLOS and Article 22 of Annex III of UNCLOS.

  100. 100.

    Article 8 of UNCLOS. See Military and Paramilitary Activities in und against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, paras. 212, 213, 251.

  101. 101.

    Articles 21(1) lit. (f) and 220(3) of UNCLOS.

  102. 102.

    Articles 42(1) lit. (b) and 43 lit. (b) of UNCLOS.

  103. 103.

    Article 220(3) of UNCLOS.

  104. 104.

    Article 123 lit. (b) of UNCLOS.

  105. 105.

    Articles 237 and 311 of UNCLOS. See Allan Boyle, “Relationship between international environmental law and other branches of international law”, in: The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, edited by Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2007), p. 135.

  106. 106.

    On the national implementation of international environmental law see Catherine Redgwell, “National implementation”, in: The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, edited by Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2007), pp. 929–946. Also see Ibid, “From permission to prohibition: the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and Protection of the Marine Environment”, in: The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects, edited by David Freestone, Richard Barnes, David Ong (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006), pp. 188–189. In referring to pollution by dumping, Catherine Redgwell concludes that UNCLOS “does not set absolute standards but rather adopts a form of international minimum harmonization based on obligation of result (ie national standards shall be ‘no less effective’ than global rules and standards, contained within and without the LOSC, in preventing, reducing and controlling pollution of the marine environment by dumping)”.

  107. 107.

    Articles 235(2) and (3) of UNCLOS.

  108. 108.

    Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber, supra note 77 in Chap.  2 , para. 108.

  109. 109.

    Ibid, paras. 109–110, 177.

  110. 110.

    Ibid, para. 112.

  111. 111.

    Article 194(3) lit. (c) of UNCLOS.

  112. 112.

    Article 204 of UNCLOS.

  113. 113.

    Article 206 of UNCLOS.

  114. 114.

    Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber, supra note 77 in Chap.  2 , paras. 145–149.

  115. 115.

    Article 297(1) lit (c) of UNCLOS.

  116. 116.

    Article 290(1) of UNCLOS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Vasco Becker-Weinberg

Authors
  1. Vasco Becker-Weinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasco Becker-Weinberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Becker-Weinberg, V. (2014). Joint Development Agreements in Cases of Transboundary Hydrocarbon Deposits. In: Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Deposits in the Law of the Sea. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 30. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43570-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation