Suchergebnisse

ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE 1970'S AND EARLY 1980'S WAS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR THE THIRD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA. CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT WAS EXTENSIVE AND WAS GENERALLY VIEWED AS BEING SUCCESSFUL. OTTAWA READILY SIGNED THE COMPLETED CONVENTION IN 1982, BUT PARLIAMENT HAS NOT YET RATIFIED THE TREATY, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN IN LEGAL FORCE SINCE NOVEMBER 16, 1994. IN THIS ESSAY, THE AUTHOR ANSWERS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TREATY: WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION? WHAT ISSUES HAVE ARISEN AND HOW HAVE THEY BEEN ADDRESSED SINCE THE CONVENTION WAS OPENED FOR SIGNATURES IN 1982? HOW HAS THE CANADIAN POSITION CHANGED DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE FINAL DRAFTING OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE PRESENT? WHAT FACTORS ARE BEHIND CANADIAN ACTIONS AND WHAT DO THESE ACTIONS SAY ABOUT CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY IN GENERAL?

THE NEW REGIMES IN THE UN CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF THE SEA WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPLICATIONS FOR SHIPPING IN TERMS OF TRANSIT PASSAGE AND ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANE TRAFFIC, BUT TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES MIGHT. THE NEW ANTI-POLLUTION PROVISIONS MAY ALSO PROVIDE PROBLEMS FOR SHIPPING, AND FLAG OF CONVENIENCE SHIPPING WILL BECOME MORE CONTROVERSIAL. THE LOS CONVENTION ESTABLISHES WHERE AND BY WHOM THE PROVISIONS OF CONVENTIONS WILL BE ENFORCED. THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY OUGHT TO TAKE NOTE OF THESE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT NEW FACTORS.

The decision of the United States and 22 other countries not to sign the Law of the Sea Convention in Montego Bay, Jamaica, on December 10, 1982, raises the important question of the legal effects of the. Convention upon nonsignatories (hereinafter referred to as "third states"). Will the latter be entitled to claim and enjoy treaty provisions beneficial to them, such as those pertaining to military or commercial navigation through international straits, including submerged passage and overflight rights, or will these rights be considered as contractual in nature, exercisable only by states parties? Clearly, the question is of critical importance to the regime of the law of the sea. Since there has been to date no systematic legal analysis of this important question in debates surrounding the Law of the Sea Convention, this essentially legal question has been consigned to general policy pronouncements.

It is now 30 years since the conclusion of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil marked the international community's first serious attempt to cope with the increasing scale of marine pollution. Since then, pollution of the seas by oil, chemicals, nuclear waste and the effluent of urban industrial society has continued to grow and to cause ever more serious damage to the living resources and ecology of the marine environment and to the shores of coastal states. The control, reduction and elimination of marine pollution has become one of the major issues in the contemporary law of the sea and it has proved to be a complex task, requiring the creation of a new and growing body of international law. This process, though in certain respects still incomplete, has reached its potentially most significant stage of codification and development through the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982.