Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Courts and the Development of International Law pp 425–439Cite as

The Duty of Environmental Impact Assessment in the First ITLOS Chamber’s Advisory Opinion: Towards the Supremacy of the General Rule to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment as a Common Value?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This contribution focuses on the authoritative determination of the content of the obligation of EIA with regard to deep sea mining activities made by the Seabed Dispute Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in its advisory opinion of 1 February 2011. Particular emphasis is given to the recognition by the Chamber of the special role played by the general obligation to protect and preserve the environment when competing interests in a particularly vulnerable area beyond national jurisdiction are at stake.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “EIA means an examination, analysis and assessment of planned activities with a view to ensuring environmentally sound and sustainable development”, UNEP Goals and Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter: UNEP Goals and Principles), Governing Council decision 14/25 (16 January 1987), UN Doc. UNEP/GC/DEC/14/25 (17 June1987), Appendix, para 1.

  2. 2.

    On this gap see Knox 2003, p. 153 ff.

  3. 3.

    See e.g. the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 25 February 1991, entered into force on 10 September 1997); the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Kiev, 21 May 2003, entered into force on 11 July 2010); and the European Union directives concerning the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects (or plans and programmes) on the environment.

  4. 4.

    Entered into force on 14 January 1998.

  5. 5.

    This regime originates from the Antarctic Treaty (Washington, 1 December 1959, entered into force on 23 June 1961), related conventions and recommendations by the so-called Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) adopted under Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.

  6. 6.

    Entered into force on 16 November 1994. On EIA obligations under UNCLOS see Kong 2011.

  7. 7.

    Entered into force on 28 July 1996.

  8. 8.

    The Mining Code (this expression may be found in the Authority’s website) includes the Recommendations for the Guidance of Contractors for the Assessment of the Possible Environmental Impacts arising from Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area (hereinafter the Recommendations), UN Doc. ISBA/7/LTC/1/Rev.1 (13 February 2002); the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area (RPN), UN Doc. ISBA/6/A/18 (13 July 2000); and the Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Sulphides in the Area (RPS), UN Doc. ISBA/16/A/12/Rev.1 (7 May 2010). No specific code for the exploitation of marine minerals has been adopted so far. For a definition of the various phases of deep seabed mining, namely prospecting, exploration and exploitation, see RPN and RPS, Regulation I. On the environmental impact of seabed mining activities in general and in international law in particular, see Treves 1978, Markussen 1994, Lenoble 2000, Treves 2000, Warner 2009. On EIA and the authority see Le Gurun 2008.

  9. 9.

    Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (New York, 19 December, 1966, entered into force on 10 October 1967); Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (New York, 19 December 1967, entered into force on 3 December 1968); Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (New York, 29 November 1971, entered into force on 1st September 1972); Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (New York, 12 November 1974, entered into force on 15 September 1976); Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (New York, 5 December 1979, entered into force on 11 July 1984).

  10. 10.

    Viikari 2008 p. 272.

  11. 11.

    The customary nature of the principle of prevention has been explicitly recognized by the International Court of Justice in 2010, in the Pulp Mills case, ICJ: Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment (20 April 2010), para 101. On EIA obligations and international environmental law see in particular: Bastmeijer and Koivurova 2008, Craik 2008, Birnie et al 2009, Lagshaw 2012, Sands 2012.

  12. 12.

    See Bastmeijer and Koivurova 2008, pp. 355–357.

  13. 13.

    Pulp Mills, supra n. 11, para 101. For a comment see Boyle 2001.

  14. 14.

    ITLOS: Responsibility and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Seabed Dispute Chamber, Advisory Op. (1 February 2011). On the advisory opinion see, in particular: Freestone 2011, French 2011, Plakopkefalos 2011 and Vromman 2012.

  15. 15.

    Pulp Mills, supra n. 11, para 204.

  16. 16.

    Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 148.

  17. 17.

    The allusion to Knox 2002, p. 291 ff. is deliberate.

  18. 18.

    On the notion of “sponsorship”, see Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 74 ff.

  19. 19.

    Espoo Convention, Appendix I.

  20. 20.

    PEPAT, Article 8 and Annex I.

  21. 21.

    Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 149.

  22. 22.

    RPN, Regulation 18.c; RPS, Regulation 20.1.c.

  23. 23.

    Further limitations may be found under RPS, Regulation 2.3.

  24. 24.

    Recommendations, para IV.A.9.

  25. 25.

    Ibidem, para IV.A.10.

  26. 26.

    Pulp Mills, supra n. 11, para 205.

  27. 27.

    Plakopkefalos 2011, p. 7.

  28. 28.

    Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 227 ff.

  29. 29.

    Ibidem, para 230.

  30. 30.

    Ibidem, para 97.

  31. 31.

    Ibidem, paras 94–97.

  32. 32.

    Ibidem, para 127.

  33. 33.

    Perplexity has been expressed as the ICJ considers the EIA obligation exclusively with regard to the principle of prevention and not as a requirement of precaution; see e.g. Kerbrat and Maljean-Dubois 2011, p. 67.

  34. 34.

    Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, p. 72 and para 125 ff.

  35. 35.

    Ibidem, p. 72.

  36. 36.

    Ibidem.

  37. 37.

    See e.g. Boisson de Chazournes 2002, p. 82.

  38. 38.

    See e.g. Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 163.

  39. 39.

    See Bastmeijer and Koivurova 2008, p. 380 ss.

  40. 40.

    See e.g. Wood 2003.

  41. 41.

    Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 161.

  42. 42.

    Ibidem, para 159.

  43. 43.

    Ibidem, pp. 74–75.

  44. 44.

    Ibidem, para 110.

  45. 45.

    Ibidem, p. 73.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem.

  47. 47.

    For further considerations see Handl 2011, p. 211 ff. For a general survey on international instruments regulating compensation for damage resulting from activities of exploration and exploitation of mineral resources located in the seabed falling under national jurisdiction, see Scovazzi 2012.

  48. 48.

    RPN, Regulation 12.5.c and 12.7.c and RPS, Regulation 13.4.c and 13.6.c.

  49. 49.

    “The submission of a proposed activity to EIA does not in itself exempt from responsibility for harm alone or civil liability if the assessed impact exceeds the limit judged acceptable. EIA may require that a specific guarantee be given for adequate compensation should the case arise”. www.idi-iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/1997_str_03_en.PDF. Accessed 3 February 2012.

  50. 50.

    Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (13 December 2011), on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (Codification), Article 7, hereinafter EIA directive.

  51. 51.

    In principle, binding instruments are silent about the rights of potentially affected third States. However, both the UNEP Goals and Principles and the Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 (UN Doc. 56/10), broadly refer to any State which is likely to be significantly affected by a proposed activity (UNEP Goals and Principles, Principle 12; ILC Draft Articles, Article 2.e).

  52. 52.

    See Lake Lanoux arbitration (France v. Spain), Award (16 November 1957). International Law Reports 24: 139.

  53. 53.

    PEPAT, Annex I, Article 3.4.

  54. 54.

    Ibidem, Preamble, para 5.

  55. 55.

    Ibidem, Article 22.2 and Antarctic Treaty, Article XIII.1.

  56. 56.

    www.ats.aq. Accessed 15 February 2012. Comments of other Parties can be drawn from the official documents of the Antarctic Treaty consultative meetings and the Committee on Environmental Protection.

  57. 57.

    Craik 2008, p. 145.

  58. 58.

    Activities in the Area, supra n. 14, para 148.

  59. 59.

    Ibidem, para 124.

  60. 60.

    Ibidem, para 142.

  61. 61.

    Ibidem, para 143.

  62. 62.

    Ibidem, para 180.

  63. 63.

    Woodliffe 2002, p. 145. Positive evolutions are expected by three pending cases before the International Court of Justice: Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); and Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia).

  64. 64.

    See e.g. Declaration of Principles Governing the Seabed and Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil thereof, beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, General Assembly Resolution 2749 (XXV) (17 December 1970), para 11. See also: Kiss 1982, Dupuy 1983, Mahmoudi 2000, Brunnée 2007, Warner 2009, Tanaka 2011.

  65. 65.

    The peremptory character of certain norms of international environmental law is controversial; nevertheless, a positive development in this direction cannot be ruled out. See Orakhelashvili 2006, p. 65.

  66. 66.

    See Draft Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Cobalt-rich Ferromanganese Crusts in the Area, Doc. ISBA/18/C/WP.1 (24 October 2011). On the efforts of the Authority to ensure a comprehensive regulatory framework for the protection of the marine environment see Scovazzi 2009, p. 349 ff.

  67. 67.

    Oceans and the Law of the Sea. Report of the Secretary-General, Doc. A/66/70/Add.2 (29 August 2011), para 177.

  68. 68.

    See e.g., Knox 2003, p. 660 ff.

References

  • Bastmeijer K, Koivurova T (eds) (2008) Theory and practice of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden-Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnie P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law and the environment, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 164–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisson de Chazournes L (2002) Le principe de précaution: nature, contenu et limites. In: Leben C, Verhoeven L (eds) Le principe de précaution. Aspects de Droit international et communautaire. Ed. Panthéon Assas, Paris, pp 65–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A (2011) Developments in the international law of environmental impact assessment and their relation to the Espoo Convention. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 20:227–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée J (2007) Common areas, common heritage, and common concern. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 550–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik N (2008) The international law of environmental impact assessment. Process, substance and integration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy R-J (1983) The notion of common heritage of mankind applied to the seabed. In: Rozakis C, Stephanou C (eds) The new law of the sea. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 199–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Freestone D (2011) Advisory opinion of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on "Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the area". Am Soc Int Law Insights 15(7)

    Google Scholar 

  • French D (2011) From the depths: rich pickings of principles of sustainable development and general international law on the ocean floor – the Seabed Disputes Chamber's 2011 advisory opinion. Int J Mar Coast Law 26:525–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Handl G (2011) Responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the area: The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea’s recent contribution to international environmental law. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 20:208–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerbrat Y, Maljean-Dubois S (2011) La Cour Internationale de Justice face aux enjeux de protection de l’environnement: réflexions critiques sur l’arrêt du 20 avril 2010, Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay). Revue générale de droit international public 115:39–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss A (1982) La notion de patrimoine commun de l’humanité. Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit international 175:99–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox JH (2002) The myth and reality of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Am J Int Law 96:291–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox JH (2003) Assessing the candidates for a global treaty on transboundary environmental impact assessment. N Y Univ Environ Law J 12:153–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong L (2011) Environmental impact assessment under the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. Chin J Law 10:651–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagshaw A (2012) Giving substance to form: moving towards an integrated governance model of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Nordic J Int Law 81:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Gurun G (2008) Environmental impact assessment and the international seabed authority. In: Bastmeijer K, Koivurova T (eds) Theory and practice of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden-Boston, pp 221–263

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lenoble J-P (2000) Les conséquences possible de l’exploitation des nodules polymétalliques sur l’environnement marin. In: Beurier J-P, Kiss A, Mahmoudi S (eds) New technologies and the law of the marine environment. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 95–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi S (2000) Common heritage of mankind, common concern of humanity. In: Beurier J-P, Kiss A, Mahmoudi S (eds) New technologies and the law of the marine environment. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 215–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Markussen JM (1994) Deep seabed mining and the environment: consequences, perceptions and regulations. In: Bergesen HO, Parmann G (eds) Green globe yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Plakopkefalos I (2011) Analysis. Seabed disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Responsibilities and obligations of states sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the area. Advisory opinion. J Environ Law:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2012) Principles of international environmental law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 601–622

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi T (2009) Deep seabed and ocean floor. Yearb Int Environ Law 20:349–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi T (2012) Maritime accidents with particular emphasis on liability and compensation for damage from the exploitation of mineral resources of the seabed. In: De Guttry A, Gestri M, Venturini G (eds) International disaster response law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 287–320

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2011) Protection of community interests in international law: the case of the law of the sea. Max Planck Yearb UN Law 15:329–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (1978) La pollution résultant de l’exploration et de l’exploitation des fonds marins en droit international. Annuaire français de droit international 24:827–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2000) Les nodules polymétalliques et le droit. In: Beurier J-P, Kiss A, Mahmoudi S (eds) New technologies and the law of the marine environment. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 111–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Viikari L (2008) Environmental impact assessment in the space sector. In: Bastmeijer K, Koivurova T (eds) Theory and practice of transboundary environmental impact assessment. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 265–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vromman P (2012) Responsibilities and obligations of sponsoring states. ITLOS advisory opinion. Environ Policy Law 42:90–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner R (2009) Protecting the oceans beyond national jurisdiction. Strengthening the international law framework. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden-Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood C (2003) Environmental impact assessment in developing countries: an overview, School of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester. www.sed.man.ac.uk/research/iarc/ediais/pdf/Wood.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2012

  • Woodliffe J (2002) Environmental damage and environmental impact assessment. In: Bowman M, Boyle A (eds) Environmental damage in international and comparative law. Problems of definition and valuation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 133–147

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of International Law, Department of Law, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Laura Pineschi

Authors
  1. Laura Pineschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Pineschi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Nerina Boschiero

  2. Bicocca University, Dipartimento giuridico, University of Milan, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milan, 20126, Italy

    Tullio Scovazzi

  3. , Dipartimento di Diritto,, University of Parma, Via Università 12, Parma, 43121, Italy

    Cesare Pitea

  4. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Chiara Ragni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pineschi, L. (2013). The Duty of Environmental Impact Assessment in the First ITLOS Chamber’s Advisory Opinion: Towards the Supremacy of the General Rule to Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment as a Common Value?. In: Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-894-1_32

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation