Suchergebnisse

The distribution of legal authority to protect biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) has been a contentious issue. In practice, main responsibility has been allocated to LOSC, under which a new implementing agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is currently being negotiated. CBD was allocated responsibility for providing scientific information and advice on marine biodiversity, which has resulted in the identification and description of 321 Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) worldwide, within and beyond national jurisdiction. These could provide important scientific backing for a coming BBNJ instrument under LOSC, especially as regards the designation of marine protected areas and the conduct of environmental impact assessments in ABNJ. However, the process of modifying EBSAs and identifying new ones has recently been challenged by the CBD Conference of the Parties, harking back to previous disputes over the legal mandate and thereby threatening the entire mechanism that has been established. In the context of international environmental law and law of the sea, this article discusses the potential importance of EBSAs for the expected BBNJ instrument, using the Central Arctic Ocean EBSA as an example.

Negotiations are ongoing to develop an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). If adopted, the ILBI will likely apply to parts of the Arctic Ocean where the Arctic Council has played an important role for ocean governance. This begs the question of what role the Arctic Council will play vis-à-vis a future ILBI, which is envisioned to "not undermine existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies" (UN General Assembly Resolution 72/249). Against this backdrop, this article reflects on the future relationship between the Arctic Council and the ILBI. In so doing, the article initially discusses possible meanings of the notion of not undermining and, more broadly, how the ILBI will likely determine its institutional relationship with relevant bodies for BBNJ. Based on that, the article provides a short overview of the role of the Arctic Council in Arctic Ocean governance and explores whether the Arctic Council would qualify as a relevant regional body that shall not be undermined by the future ILBI.