United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Logo of the Convention
Signed	10 December 1982
Location	Montego Bay, Jamaica
Effective	16 November 1994[1]
Condition	60 ratifications
Signatories	157[2]
Parties	170[2][3]
Depositary	Secretary-General of the United Nations
Languages	Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish
Full text
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at Wikisource

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea Treaty, is an international treaty that establishes a legal framework for all marine and maritime activities. As of October 2024^[update], 169 sovereign states and the European Union are parties.^[4]

The convention resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. UNCLOS replaced the four treaties of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify the treaty.^[1] In 2023, agreement was reached on a High Seas Treaty to be added as an instrument of the convention, to protect ocean life in international waters. This would provide measures including Marine Protected Areas and environmental impact assessments.

While the secretary-general of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the convention, the United Nations Secretariat has no direct operational role in the implementation of the convention. A UN specialized agency, the International Maritime Organization, does play a role, however, as do other bodies such as the International Whaling Commission and the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which was established by the convention itself.

Background

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea replaces the older "freedom of the seas" concept, dating from the 17th century. According to this concept, national rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 3.5 mi) (three-mile limit), according to the "cannon shot" rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek.^[5] All waters beyond national boundaries were considered international waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare liberum principle propounded by Hugo Grotius).^[6]

In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to extend national claims: to include mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the means to enforce pollution controls. The League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no agreements resulted.^[7] Using the customary international-law principle of a nation's right to protect its natural resources, President Harry S. Truman in 1945 extended United States control to all the natural resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were quick to follow suit. Between 1946 and 1950, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) to cover their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi).^[8]

By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old three nautical mile limit,^[9] while 66 nations had set a 12-nautical-mile (22 km) territorial limit^[10] and eight had set a 200-nautical-mile (370 km) limit. As of 15 July 2011^[update], only Jordan still uses the 3-mile (4.8 km) limit.^[11] That limit is also used in certain Australian islands, an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua New Guinea, and a few British Overseas Territories, such as Gibraltar.^[12]

UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty, as that field is governed by rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory.^[13][14]

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 has a target regarding conservative and sustainable use of oceans and their resources in line with UNCLOS legal framework.^[15]

UNCLOS I

Territorial waters claims by coastal states in 1960^[16]

Breadth claim	Number of states
3-mile limit	26
4-mile limit	3
5-mile limit	1
6-mile limit	16
9-mile limit	1
10-mile limit	2
12-mile limit	34
More than 12-miles	9
Unspecified	11

In 1958, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I^[17] resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958:

• Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into force: 10 September 1964
• Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964
• Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962
• Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entry into force: 20 March 1966

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of territorial waters.^[16]

UNCLOS II

In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS II"); however, the six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new agreements.^[16] Generally speaking, developing nations and third world countries participated only as clients, allies, or dependents of the United States or the Soviet Union, with no significant voice of their own.^[9]

UNCLOS III

Sea areas in international rights (top view)

The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea convened in New York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The resulting convention came into force on 16 November 1994, one year after the 60th state, Guyana, ratified the treaty.

The convention introduced a number of provisions. The most significant issues covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of disputes.

The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows:

• Internal waters: Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters. A vessel in the high seas assumes jurisdiction under the internal laws of its flag state.
• Archipelagic waters: The convention set the definition of "Archipelagic States" in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated "Archipelagic Waters". The state has sovereignty over these waters to the extent it has over internal waters, but subject to existing rights including traditional fishing rights of immediately adjacent states.^[18] Foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, but archipelagic states may limit innocent passage to designated sea lanes.
• Territorial sea: Up to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate the use, and use any resource; in essence, the coastal State enjoys Sovereign rights and sovereign jurisdiction within its territorial sea. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial sea, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in the territorial sea. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial sea, if doing so is essential for the protection of their security.
• Contiguous zone: Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone. Here a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas (customs, taxation, immigration, and pollution) if the infringement started or is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters.^[19] This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.
• Exclusive economic zones (EEZs): These extend 200 nmi (370 km; 230 mi) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.
• Continental shelf: The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nmi (650 km; 400 mi) from the baseline; nor may it exceed 100 nmi (190 km; 120 mi) beyond the 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2 500 m). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of their continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

The area outside these areas is referred to as the "high seas" or simply "the Area".^[20][21]

Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention establishes general obligations for safeguarding the marine environment and protecting freedom of scientific research on the high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an International Seabed Authority and the common heritage of mankind principle.^[22]

The convention also established the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany.^[23]

Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states.^[24]

Part XI and the 1994 Agreement

Part XI of the convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or exclusive economic zones (EEZ). It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty.

The United States objected to the provisions of Part XI of the convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests. Due to Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the convention.

From 1982 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law, while attempting to establish an alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations and licenses were granted to four international consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to prepare for the eventual coming into force of the convention-recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the convention. Overlaps between the two groups were resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of communism in the late 1980s removed much of the support for some of the more contentious Part XI provisions.^{[citation needed]}

In 1990, consultations began between signatories and non-signatories (including the United States) over the possibility of modifying the convention to allow the industrialized countries to join the convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was adopted as a binding international convention. It mandated that key articles, including those on limitation of seabed production and mandatory technology transfer, would not be applied, that the United States, if it became a member, would be guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be done in groups, with each group able to block decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement also established a Finance Committee that would originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to which the largest donors would automatically be members and in which decisions would be made by consensus.

On 1 February 2011, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion concerning the legal responsibilities and obligations of states parties to the convention with respect to the sponsorship of activities in the area in accordance with Part XI of the convention and the 1994 agreement.^[25] The advisory opinion was issued in response to a formal request made by the International Seabed Authority following two prior applications the authority's Legal and Technical Commission had received from the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga regarding proposed activities (a plan of work to explore for polymetallic nodules) to be undertaken in the area by two state-sponsored contractors – Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (sponsored by the Republic of Nauru) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (sponsored by the Kingdom of Tonga). The advisory opinion set forth the international legal responsibilities and obligations of sponsoring states and the authority to ensure that sponsored activities do not harm the marine environment, consistent with the applicable provisions of UNCLOS Part XI, Authority regulations, ITLOS case law, other international environmental treaties, and Principle 15 of the UN Rio Declaration.^[26]

Part XII – Protecting the marine environment

Part XII of UNCLOS contains special provisions for the protection of the marine environment, obligating all states to collaborate in this matter, as well as placing special obligations on flag states to ensure that ships under their flags adhere to international environmental regulations, often adopted by the IMO. The MARPOL convention is an example of such regulation. Part XII also bestows coastal and port states with broadened jurisdictional rights for enforcing international environmental regulation within their territory and on the high seas.^[27]

High Seas Treaty

See also: High seas fisheries management § Agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Treaty)

BBNJ Agreement

Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction
Type	International legally binding instrument
Drafted	4 March 2023
Signed	20 September 2023
Location	New York
Condition	Ratification by 60 states
Signatories	91 countries [28]
Parties	(8) Belize, Chile, Cuba, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Palau, Seychelles

This section is an excerpt from High Seas Treaty.[edit]

The United Nations agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction or BBNJ Agreement, also referred to by some stakeholders as the High Seas Treaty or Global Ocean Treaty,^[29] is a legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.^[30] There is some controversy over the popularized name of the agreement.^[31] It is an agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).^[32] The text was finalised during an intergovernmental conference at the UN on 4 March 2023 and adopted on 19 June 2023.^[33] Both states and regional economic integration organizations can become parties to the treaty.^[34]

In 2017, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) had voted to convene an intergovernmental conference (IGC) to consider establishing an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). This was considered necessary because UNCLOS did not provide a framework for areas beyond national jurisdiction.^[35] There was a particular concern for marine biodiversity and the impact of overfishing on global fish stocks and ecosystem stability.^[35]

The treaty addresses four themes:^[36][37] (1) marine genetic resources (MGRs) and their Digital sequence information, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits; (2) area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs); (3) environmental impact assessments (EIAs); and (4) capacity building and transfer of marine technology (CB&TMT). The area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments relate mainly to conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, while the marine genetic resources and capacity building and transfer of marine technology include issues of economic justice and equity.^[38]

Greenpeace called it "the biggest conservation victory ever".^[39] The main achievement is the new possibility to create marine protected areas in international waters. By doing so the agreement now makes it possible to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030 (part of the 30 by 30 target).^[40][39] Though the agreement does not directly address climate change, it also serves as a step towards protecting the ecosystems that store carbon in sediments.^[41]

The treaty has 75 articles and its main purpose is "to take stewardship of the world’s oceans for present and future generations, care for and protect the marine environment and ensure its responsible use, maintain the integrity of undersea ecosystems and conserve marine biological diversity’s inherent value". The treaty recognizes traditional knowledge. It has articles regarding the "polluter-pays" principle, and different impacts of human activities including areas beyond the national jurisdiction of the countries making those activities. The agreement was adopted by the 193 United Nations Member States.^[42]

Before the treaty can enter into force, it needs to be ratified by at least 60 UN member states. This process is likely to take some time. The former treaty, UNCLOS, was adopted in 1982 and entered into force in 1994. As of October 2024,^[update] UNCLOS has 170 parties.^[43] The European Union pledged financial support for the process of ratification and implementation of the treaty.^[44]

Parties

Main article: List of parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

  Parties

  Parties, dually represented by the European Union

  Signatories

  Non-parties

The convention was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994 upon deposition of the 60th instrument of ratification.^[1] The convention has been ratified by 170 parties, which includes 166 UN member states, 1 UN Observer state (Palestine), two non-member states (the Cook Islands and Niue) and the European Union.^[2]

Role

The significance of UNCLOS stems from the fact that it systemizes and codifies the standards and principles of international maritime law, which are based on centuries of maritime experience and are expressed to a great extent in the United Nations Charter and current international maritime law norms, such as the Geneva Conventions of 1958. A large portion of these requirements were further strengthened and expanded.^[45]

See also

• Admiralty law – Law of the oceans and their use
• Automatic identification system – Tracking system using transceivers on ships
• Dispute over the extended continental shelf in the Southern Zone Sea between Argentina and Chile – Argentina and Chile sea border dispute
• European Union submarine internet cables – Issues around EU cable infrastructure
• Fisheries management – Regulation of fishing
• Freedom of navigation – International maritime legal concept
• International Seabed Authority – Intergovernmental body to regulate mineral-related activities on the seabed
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – Intergovernmental organization
• Law of the sea – International law concerning maritime environments
• Law of salvage – Principle of maritime law
• Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid – Evaluation of action by Israeli navy
• List of territories governed by the United Nations
• Maritime Security Regimes – Security portions of customary maritime law
• Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits – 1936 agreement on the Turkish Straits
• Operation Sharp Guard – Naval blockade of Adriatic, 1993–96
• Seabed Arms Control Treaty – 1971 international agreement limiting nuclear weapons on the sea floor
• Territorial disputes in the South China Sea
• Territorial waters – Coastal waters that are part of a sovereign state's sovereign territory
• United Nations General Assembly resolution
• United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – American involvement in drafting but non-ratification
• US/USSR Joint Statement on Uniform Acceptance of Rules of International Law Governing Innocent Passage – 1989 statement of common understanding
• Virginia Commentary – Literary work on international law

Further reading

• Enyew, Endalew Lijalem (2022). "Sailing with TWAIL: A Historical Inquiry into Third World Perspectives on the Law of the Sea". 21(3) Chinese Journal of International Law.
• Sara McLaughlin Mitchell and Andrew P. Owsiak (2021). "Judicialization of the Sea: Bargaining in the Shadow of UNCLOS." American Journal of International Law.

References

1. "The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective)". United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. Archived from the original on 15 September 2022. Retrieved 30 April 2009.
2. "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea". United Nations Treaty Series. Archived from the original on 18 May 2021. Retrieved 1 December 2013.
3. "Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements". United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. 8 January 2010. Archived from the original on 14 April 2009. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
4. "United Nations Treaty Collection". treaties.un.org. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
5. Akashi, Kinji (2 October 1998). Cornelius Van Bynkershoek: His Role in the History of International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-9041105998. Archived from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
6. "The Freedom of the Seas (Latin and English version, Magoffin trans.) – Online Library of Liberty". oll.libertyfund.org. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2017.
7. "Chapter 1: International Law, Adoption of the Law of the Sea Convention – Law of the Sea". Law of the Sea: A Policy Primer. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
8. Marley, David (2011). Modern piracy : a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-59884-434-4. OCLC 699488885. Archived from the original on 20 May 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
9. "Three Mile Limit". www.offshoreradiomuseum.co.uk. Archived from the original on 4 November 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
10. "Three mile limit". Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
11. IILSS (25 April 2021). "Table of claims to maritime jurisdiction (as at 15 July 2011)/maritime spaces of countries". IILSS-International institute for Law of the Sea Studies. Archived from the original on 6 October 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2022.
12. Alexander, Lewis M. (2017). "transit regions of the world". In Roach, J. Ashley (ed.). Navigational Restrictions within the New LOS Context. pp. 143–173. doi:10.1163/9789004327115_006. ISBN 9789004327108. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2020.
13. "Chagos: A boundary dispute tips over a sovereignty ruling". www.lowyinstitute.org. Archived from the original on 10 October 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
14. "Professor Robert Beckman on the Role of UNCLOS in Maritime Disputes". Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 6 May 2021. Archived from the original on 10 October 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
15. "Goal 14 targets". UNDP. Archived from the original on 30 September 2020. Retrieved 24 September 2020.
16. Major Thomas E. Behuniak (Fall 1978). "The Seizure and Recovery of the S.S. Mayaguez: Legal Analysis of United States Claims, Part 1" (PDF). Military Law Review. 82. Department of the Army: 114–121. ISSN 0026-4040. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 December 2016. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
17. "UNCLOS I". Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 16 October 2013.
18. "UNCLOS 3 Article 51". United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea. Archived from the original on 21 April 2021. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
19. "SECTION 4. CONTIGUOUS ZONE, Article 33". UNCLOS PART II – TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE. United Nations. Archived from the original on 23 May 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
20. "Documents and Publications". International Seabed Authority. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008.
21. Jon Copley (7 November 2020). "Deep-sea mining is making the seabed the hottest real estate on Earth". New Scientist. Archived from the original on 28 April 2021. Retrieved 8 November 2020.
22. Jennifer Frakes, The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and the Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica: Will Developed and Developing Nations Reach a Compromise? Wisconsin International Law Journal. 2003; 21:409
23. "International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: The Tribunal". www.itlos.org. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
24. This principle was developed in the Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States.
25. Case No. 17 – Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities With Respect to Activities in the Area – Advisory Opinion Archived 27 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1 February 2011)
26. International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea Finally Renders Advisory Opinion Establishing that the Precautionary Principle is Incorporated Within UNCLOS Law Archived 17 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine, ITSSD Journal on the UN Law of the Sea Convention (22 March 2011)
27. Jesper Jarl Fanø (2019). Enforcing International Maritime Legislation on Air Pollution through UNCLOS. Hart Publishing.
28. "Status of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction - list of signatories". United Nations. Retrieved 7 December 2023.
29. House of Commons Library. Ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty. By Nuala Burnett, Nikki Sutherland. Debate Pack, 25 April 2024. Number CDP 2024/0079
30. "Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction |". www.un.org. Retrieved 29 May 2023.
31. "'High Seas Treaty' name is inaccurate and should center biodiversity (commentary)". Mongabay Environmental News. 19 February 2024. Retrieved 8 March 2024.
32. "Protecting the ocean, time for action". oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu. 4 March 2023. Retrieved 29 May 2023.
33. "Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General - on Int'l Legally Binding Instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea | United Nations Secretary-General". www.un.org. Retrieved 29 May 2023.
34. High Seas Treaty. Draft agreement. Part XII, article 66
35. "Governing areas beyond national jurisdiction". IUCN. 29 March 2019. Archived from the original on 18 March 2022. Retrieved 2 June 2022.
36. Tessnow-von Wysocki, Ina; Vadrot, Alice B. M. (23 December 2020). "The Voice of Science on Marine Biodiversity Negotiations: A Systematic Literature Review". Frontiers in Marine Science. 7. Bibcode:2020FrMaS...714282T. doi:10.3389/fmars.2020.614282. ISSN 2296-7745.
37. High Seas Treaty. Draft Agreement. Part II, III, IV and V
38. Tiller, Rachel; Mendenhall, Elizabeth; De Santo, Elizabeth; Nyman, Elizabeth (1 February 2023). "Shake it Off: Negotiations suspended, but hope simmering, after a lack of consensus at the fifth intergovernmental conference on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction". Marine Policy. 148: 105457. Bibcode:2023MarPo.14805457T. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105457. hdl:11250/3132690. ISSN 0308-597X. S2CID 255023969.
39. Flores, Gaby. "How people power helped protect the oceans". Greenpeace. Retrieved 9 March 2023.
40. Kim, Juliana; Treisman, Rachel. "What to know about the new U.N. high seas treaty – and the next steps for the accord". NPR. Retrieved 9 March 2023.
41. Dryfoos, Delaney; Berwyn, Bob (14 March 2023). "Can the New High Seas Treaty Help Limit Global Warming?". Inside Climate News. Retrieved 22 July 2023.
42. Hemingway Jaynes, Cristen (20 June 2023). "Newly Adopted UN High Seas Treaty Gives Ocean a 'Fighting Chance'". Ecowatch. Retrieved 23 June 2023.
43. "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea". United Nations Treaty Series. Retrieved 4 October 2024.
44. "UN states agree 'historic' deal to protect high seas". France 24. 5 March 2023. Archived from the original on 5 March 2023. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
45. capt. Enchev, V. (2012), Fundamentals of Maritime Law ISBN 978-954-8991-69-8

External links

• Text of the treaty (pdf)
• List of countries that have ratified Law of the Sea Conventions
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• Permanent Court of Arbitration – Past and Pending Cases
• Decisions of the World Court Relevant to the UNCLOS (2010) and Contents & Indexes^{[permanent dead link‍]}
• United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
• UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
• "Technical aspects of the UN Law of the Sea" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2011. (4.89 MB)
• UNEP Shelf Programme, UN organisation set up to assist States in delineating their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (370 km)^{[permanent dead link‍]}
• UNCLOS Italian Database
• EEZ/CS Boundaries Canadian Database
• Digital Map of the World's Exclusive Economic Zones
• SOPAC Maritime Boundaries Database^{[permanent dead link‍]}
• Introductory note by Tullio Treves, procedural history note and audiovisual material on the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
• Introductory note by Tullio Treves, procedural history note and audiovisual material on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law