A fair and effective regime regulating benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources (
Mare Liberum. Freedom of the seas. When Hugo Grotius wrote this piece—one of the foundations of contemporary maritime legal doctrine—in 1609,1 the seas of this world had already been a de facto synonym for freedom for a number of centuries. In the context of naval conflicts in Europe, Grotius thought that the world’s oceans should be freely accessible to all and shared amongst nations. This perspective was in direct response to the Portuguese maritime policy that claimed exclusivity of traffic to the East Indies for trade purposes.2 Grotius’s essay was not well received then. A further example of opposition to the freedom of the seas was provided by John Selden’s Mare Clausum. This gives insight into the British point of view at the time, claiming a monopoly over fishing rights in the North Sea.3
Nevertheless, Grotius’s Mare Liberum left us with a heritage of thoughts tending towards the consideration of the oceans as a common space and common resource to be “free and open to all”.4 Even though coastal states’ creeping jurisdiction has continuously expanded into the ocean over the 20th century,5 40%6 of the planet’s surface (64% of the surface of the oceans) still lies in international areas of the High Seas7 and the Area,8 commonly referred to as areas beyond national jurisdiction (
The Freedom of the High Seas that all sailors knew and cherished slowly became a “relative” freedom as the international community cooperated to regulate certain activities that occur in
In 1982, with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (
Despite appearances, however, Grotius’s heritage has not been slowly erased but rather operationalized. The pillar of his argument for freedom relied on the idea of sharing a common domain: the sea.12 The current tendency to regulate these traditionally unregulated areas is not occurring in a Mare Clausum type of policy, but is rather following the recognition that there is a further need for sharing the resources provided by our planet. This comes with realising the need for international cooperation and regulation in order to put the adequate frameworks in place within which such sharing can happen in a peaceful and harmonised way.
In the context of this ideology of global sharing, the international community is now in the process of negotiating a new international legally binding instrument (
When considering this question and the sharing of benefits in this
Centuries later, the
In recent years, many comprehensive scholarly studies have been written on the topic of
This article first gives an overview of the building blocks of the proposed governance regime. It then lays out the scientific and technical foundations forming the rationale of our proposal. This includes findings based on recent technical analyses on the market value of
The core of this article further develops each building block of the proposed governance regime for
Overview and Scope of the Proposed Building Blocks
The proposed governance regime can be divided into three steps that build on the
In this regime, in situ access to
The main non-monetary benefit is based on the open access (
To safeguard the interests of scientists and of commercial users, limitations to the
- Open Access to
- Embargo period (relatively short);
- Exclusivity subject to payment (extension of the embargo period).
If monetary benefits, additional to the exclusivity fee, would be requested in the
Compliance will be ensured through the centralised system of the
Rationale for Mare Geneticum
The premises of the present proposal are based on the need for a multilateral approach to regulate
Given the absence of national jurisdiction in the geographical area concerned, any regime regulating
A multilateral approach also ensures consistency by not differentiating between the water column (High Seas) and the seabed (Area) in
Advances in science require the availability of research material, samples and data, together with advanced technologies and research capabilities. To facilitate access to
To ensure that regulations arising out of
Scientific and Technical Baseline
Commercial Value of
mgr in abnj
Prior to discussing potential benefit-sharing arrangements related to
Uncertainty has been raised about the actual likelihood of commercialisation following R&D on
At present, there are a number of patents and pending applications based on
Finally, distinguishing new
Gaps in Research Capabilities of States
In order to propose the most widely acceptable options for the
Recent technical analyses showed uneven levels of access to
- The cost of technology to sample in international waters and the deep sea, and the cost of its maintenance.39
- The scientific skills needed to undertake research on marine biodiversity;40
- The cost of and scientific skills needed to undertake molecular screening and biodiversity assessment;41
- The scientific skills needed to analyse the data thereby produced.42
In 1995, only six countries had the technological, financial and human resources to directly access
Another important capability to derive value from marine biodiversity is the specialist scientific skills required to identify species, both those species that are already known and those that are new to science.47 These taxonomic specialists are mostly trained in developed countries with a long history of botanical and zoological scholarship in universities and museums. A recent review of the literature revealed that the majority of publications in the field of marine taxonomy come from relatively few developed countries.48 These specialists are experts in the morphological identification of specimens (classical taxonomy) and, increasingly, the interpretation of
Various scientific approaches to undertake molecular screening and analyse the acquired data, such as microbial metagenomics, also require sophisticated bioinformatics tools and training which are most accessible in developed countries.50 Nevertheless, some capabilities in bioinformatics and genomics exist in developing countries, particularly in the health and agricultural science sectors, and these skills could be adapted and applied for use in the context of
Technological advances are now radically changing life sciences:52 the cost of sequencing has decreased significantly and new technologies have emerged, such as bioinformatics.
To sum up, as underlined by the First Assessment of the Ocean made by the United Nations, the current uneven research capabilities across the globe are the primary source of inequity amongst states,55 more than disparities in accessing the resources in situ (authors’ emphasis). This requires efforts in capacity development related to
Mare Geneticum: Balancing Open Access and Commercial Interests
Facilitated but Conditional Access
In situ access to
As strongly advocated by the scientific community,60 in designing and implementing any
Notification Procedure: Obligatory Prior Electronic Notification (
The facilitated procedure to access
- Information about the collector and the corresponding contact point;
- Geographical area(s) of sampling;
- Period of sampling;
- Complete description of the research project and participating research entities. This may be based on the cruise plan that is often provided with funding applications;
- Expected nature of what will be collected—this should be done by sample type, for instance: pelagic vertebrate, benthic invertebrate, sediment, core sample, plankton, water, etc.;
- Description of the targeted
- The commitment to release the collected samples or data in an openly accessible biorepository, with or without exceptional conditions depending on the intent of use (see infra);
- The commitment to update the
openinformation at certain milestones. This is critical to ensure compliance and monitoring.
A unique alphanumeric identifier will be associated with each
A chosen institution should manage the secure internet tool capable of collecting this information through a centralised mechanism, or coordinate a decentralised system. Whether a new organisation is established by the
In cases of in silico access a notification in the
In the field of in silico access, GenBank64 operates under the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (
Authorisation Procedure in the Case of Environmental Impact Assessment
Sampling at sea does not usually produce significant environmental disturbance, therefore no environmental impact assessment (
Another trigger for
Balancing Facilitated Research while Securing Future Commercial Ventures: Sharing Conditions and Exceptions
Bearing in mind the main disparity between countries as previously explained, it must be stressed that promoting or facilitating access to ex situ and in silico
To this end, one must differentiate access from utilisation: access, the acquisition of samples or data, does not constitute utilisation. There is no direct and immediate commercial value at the access point, hence there should be no need for authorisation, and no discrimination, in this facilitated access procedure. No procedural distinction should be made between public and private entities, or between basic research and commercially driven research, as long as the users respect the set of conditions based on the
In practice, these conditions will need to be encoded into legal obligations: at the moment the
As a limitation to the obligation to share raw data and accessed materials, the grant of an initial embargo period should be left as an option for the users, to allow them to capitalise on their research material. The embargo period should be reasonable but fairly short, considering that only the raw data are to be released and not the detailed research results. It will nevertheless be possible to extend the embargo period by payment of an exclusivity fee. These possibilities should be clearly stated at the time of granting the
The first benefit to be shared under Mare Geneticum is enabling and facilitating access to
There is, however, no guarantee of monetary benefits arising out of the utilisation of
Given the above, non-monetary benefits are considered the most practical and immediately valuable aspect of
Even though the
Non-monetary Benefits: the
oa Principle as the Core Benefit
Considering the above, non-monetary benefits will create direct, quasi-immediate benefits compared to monetary benefit-sharing. Moreover. they contribute to building capacity, creating opportunities, and promoting R&D in all countries.76 Non-monetary benefits include training of scientists, transfer of research results and scientific information, transfer of technology, and access to ex situ collections and in silico data. As most of these advantages emanate from research practice, the scientific community is one of the main stakeholders to be listened to when drafting a benefit-sharing regime for
Part xiii of the
These provisions constitute the legal basis for further development of a comprehensive and coherent non-monetary benefit-sharing scheme for
Many scientific codes of conduct and guidelines84 are already raising awareness and building up best practice in the
In 1996, leaders of the scientific community advocated the immediate release of
What all these data policies have in common is the implementation of the
In addition, many journals currently require unique material included in publications to be made available. The journal Nature’s policy states that:
A condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make unique materials promptly available to others without undue qualifications. It is acceptable to request reasonable payment to cover costs of distribution and reagents may be made available via commercial or non-commercial third party providers.98
Such a strong statement from a top international peer-reviewed journal sends a message that sharing of material is essential for a productive global research enterprise, although compliance with this requirement may still need to improve.99 This trend has resulted in best practice in open science, technological advances and the ever-growing practice of digitalisation of genetic data and other information, which has enabled more global accessibility than ever before.100 Therefore, enabling and increasing access to relevant scientific data, publications and software to analyse these data is undoubtedly an important component of non-monetary benefit sharing.101 However, the moderate optimism brought by new opportunities thereby created cannot obscure the reality faced by some researchers and users from developing countries, whose institutions do not always have the necessary licenses for access to journals, or the necessary internet access and bandwidth and other necessary resources. In this respect, the contribution fund to be established by the
The present section deals with the potential obligation to require monetary payments at different stages of the research pipeline. There could be two milestones at which monetary payments may be foreseen.
openentails payment of an exclusivity fee early in the biodiscovery process, when the user wants to extend the embargo period on releasing the mgrcollected in abnjto the public domain. When the exclusivity option is exercised, payment of the exclusivity fee is compulsory and should be transferred to the contribution fund to be established by the ilbi. The exclusivity fee’s amount could be determined by a sliding scale, depending on various factors: the duration of the extension period, the mgrconcerned by the embargo, the level of research funding employed to date, and the user’s financial capacity.
- If the
ilbiwould require monetary benefits linked to the utilisation of the genetic resource as such, we suggest this second payment step to be triggered by the commercialisation of a product developed on the basis of mgrfrom abnj. This form of royalty should be paid to the same international fund set up by the ilbito manage exclusivity fees. The percentage of revenue to be shared should be predetermined and fixed, possibly by consultation with representative organisations and stakeholders of several biotechnology sectors, in order to provide for legal certainty, predictability and equity amongst players. It should also be consistent with the market levels payable under absregimes already in place within national jurisdictions (e.g., Brazil) and under development at regional levels, to avoid creating any perverse incentives.
Considering that it may take over 20 years to release a product onto the market, having the possibility to pay an exclusivity fee at an early stage of the research not only guarantees continuous investments in blue biodiscovery, but also secures early incoming monetary resources for the
With these governance principles, Mare Geneticum seeks to achieve the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of utilisation of
Enforcement and Compliance: Centralised Tracking System
Ensuring compliance with and enforcement of benefit-sharing obligations is not an easy task, especially within a multilateral context. To this end, the
Effective compliance starts with the obligation to report activities to the institution that will be mandated or established by the
Low impact, cost-effective monitoring is advisable. Trust should be placed in researchers to report sample collection along with findings and transfers. Ocean scientists must be meticulous about recording when and where samples are collected in situ because it is an indispensable part of research methodology and protocols, hence it is unlikely to put any additional burden on researchers.104 Moreover, as previously mentioned, most funding agencies and scientific journal editors require researchers to deposit genetic and proteomic data in publicly accessible archives where they are openly accessible. Reporting standards should be simple, consistent and interoperable.
Further along the research chain, potential R&D users of
With today’s powerful tools such as computer programmes and the Internet, setting up a centralised tracking system is not only possible but also relatively simple to establish and operate. This tracking format has been envisaged by the 2015 Brazilian legislation on access to and use of its genetic resources,105 whereby users have to submit similar information to an
- A global data-sharing platform and data clearing-house mechanism for marine taxonomic, genetic, biodiversity and associated data in all ocean basins, including
- A mechanism for international cooperation in
msr, coordination in global ocean observation, and development of standards, manuals and guidelines and codes of conduct in msrand data-sharing protocols;
- A global network of regional centres to enhance capacity, by training the next generation of scientists and area managers in applying international standards and best practices.106
Although States are responsible for the implementation of international treaties, the centralised system for
Towards an Implementing Agreement
The governing principles and implementing mechanisms put forward in this article are intended to lay the basis for a new governance regime in the high and the deep seas that are, by nature and by law, international. Based on the idea that the utilisation of
Now, as there are some things which every man enjoys in common with all other men, and there are other things which are distinctly his and belong to no one else, just so has nature willed that some of the things which she has created for the use of mankind remain common to all, and that others through the industry and labor of each man become his own.107
The international community has engaged in the process of developing an implementing agreement to the
- Open access to raw data and samples;
- Enhanced international research coordination and cooperation;
- Targeted training and sharing of expertise, methodology, guidelines and best practices;
- Standardised data management, taxonomy and species identification;
- Marine spatial planning in
abnj, including protected areas;
- Ecosystem-based management;
- Development of marine conservation policies.
Indeed, because Mare Geneticum is not a stand-alone approach but part of a four-component package, sharing the benefits arising out of
H Grotius, Freedom of the Seas, or, the right which belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade (Oxford University Press, New York, 1916).
MB Vieira, ‘Mare Liberum vs. Mare Clausum: Grotius, Freitas, and Selden’s debate on dominion over the seas’ (2003) 64(3) Journal of the History of Ideas 361–377, at p. 361.
Ibid., at p. 362.
H Grotius (n 1), at p. 32.
E Franckx, ‘The 200-Mile Limit: Between Creeping Jurisdiction and Creeping Common Heritage? Some Law of the Sea Considerations from Professor Louis Sohn’s Former LL.M. Student’ (2007) 39(3) The George Washington International Law Review 467–498, at p. 469 et seq.
See the Global Environmental Facility, available at http://www.thegef.org/topics/areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction; accessed 18 January 2017.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994), 1833
Ibid., Art. 1(1).
Convention on the High Seas (Geneva, 29 April 1958, in force 30 September 1962), 450
Ibid., Art. 136.
Grotius (n 1), at p. 22 et seq.
Ibid., para. 2.
Report of the Preparatory Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 69/292: Development of an international legally binding instrument 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,
Grotius (n 1), at p. 28.
For a comprehensive description of access to
A Broggiato, S Arnaud-Haond, C Chiarolla, and T Greiber, ‘Fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction: Bridging the gaps between science and policy’ (2014) 49 Marine Policy 176–185, at pp. 179–181.
Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993), 1760
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 181; T Greiber, ‘Common pools for marine genetic resources: a possible instrument for a future multilateral agreement addressing marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction’, in EC Kamau and G Winter (eds.), Common Pools of Genetic Resources—Equity and Innovation in International Biodiversity Law (Routledge, London and New York, 2013), 399–414, at pp. 407–411; G Wright, J Rochette and T Greiber, ‘Sustainable Development of the Oceans: Closing the Gaps in the International Legal Framework’ in V Mauerhofer (ed.), Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016) 549–564, at p. 556.
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 183.
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Preparing for the PrepCom, Report of the
H Harden-Davies, ‘The regulation of marine scientific research: addressing challenges, advancing knowledge’ in RM Warner and SB Kaye (eds), Routledge Handbook of Maritime Regulation and Enforcement (Routledge, Abingdon, 2016) 212–230, at p. 216.
Harden-Davies (n 25), at p. 228; P Oldham, S Hall, C Barnes, C Oldham, AM Cutter, N Burns, and L Kindness, Valuing the Deep: Marine Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (Defra, London, 2014) 1–241, at p. 18.
A Broggiato, ‘Exchange of information on research programs regarding marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction’ in
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 176.
DK Leary and SK Juniper, ‘Addressing the marine genetic resources issue: Is the debate heading in the wrong direction?’ in C Schofield, S Lee and MS Kwon (eds), The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2014) 769–785, at p. 773; and D Leary, M Vierros, G Hamon, S Arico, and C Monagle, ‘Marine Genetic Resources: A Review of Scientific and Commercial Interest’ (2009) 33 Marine Policy 183–194, at p. 187.
Leary and Juniper (n 30), at p. 773; SK Juniper, ‘Technological, Environmental, Social and Economic Aspects of Marine Genetic Resources’ in
Oldham et al. (n 28), at p. 197.
Juniper (n 31), at p. 19.
Ibid.; Oldham et al. (n 28), at p. 182.
L Glowka, ‘Evolving Perspectives on the International Seabed Area’s Genetic Resources: Fifteen Years after the Deepest of Ironies’ in D Vidas (ed.), Law, Technology and Science for Oceans in Globalisation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2010) 397–419, at p. 415.
M Vierros, C Salpin, C Chiarolla and SM Arico, ‘Emerging and unresolved issues: The example of seabed and open ocean genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction’ in SM Arico (ed), Ocean sustainability in the 21st century (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015) 198–232, at p. 212.
MarinLit is a database dedicated to marine natural products research. http://pubs.rsc.org/marinlit/.
Glowka (n 35), at pp. 411–412.
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 177; Juniper (n 31), at pp. 15–17; K Juniper, ‘Use of Marine Genetic Resources’ in M Banks, C Bissada and PE Araghi (eds), The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment World Ocean Assessment I under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly and its Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socioeconomic Aspects (
Juniper (n 39), at p. 9; Juniper (n 31), at pp. 16–17.
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 179.
Juniper (n 39), at p. 7; G Shimmield, ‘Extent and Types of Research, Uses and Applications’ in
Glowka (n 35), at p. 412.
Glowka (n 33), at p. 412.
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 179; Juniper (n 31) at p. 15–16; Juniper (n 39), at p. 6.
IE Hendriks and CM Duarte, ‘Allocation of effort and imbalances in biodiversity research’ (2008) 360(1) Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 15–20, at p. 17; Juniper (n 39), at p. 7.
Ibid. Hendriks and Duarte, at p. 18.
Available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/162/162.pdf; accessed 18 January 2017.
Juniper (n 39), at p. 8; Shimmield (n 42), at p. 13.
Juniper (n 31), at p. 17; Juniper (n 39), at p. 8; Shimmield (n 42), at p. 17.
Glowka (n 35), at p. 408; Juniper (n 31), at p. 22; Leary and Juniper (n 30), at p. 777.
Glowka (n 35), at p. 415.
Juniper (n 39), at p. 8.
Juniper (n 31), at p. 21.
Juniper (n 31), at p. 18.
Wright et al. (n 21), at p. 557.
Deep-sea marine scientific research and genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction:
The internationally recognized certificate of compliance (
GenBank ® is the
Available at http://www.ciesm.org/forums/index.php?post/2013/03/14/CIESM-Charter-on-ABS; accessed 17 March 2017.
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 181; Greiber (n 21), at p. 407–411; Wright et al. (n 21) at p. 556.
This would have to be delocalised as no single collection can do this. Using a virtual system can collate all the available data and perhaps even lead to reduction in the oversampling of certain deep-sea areas, such as the Mariana Trench.
T Greiber, ‘Types of benefits and benefit sharing’ in
FO Glöckner, LJ Stal, RA Sandaa, JM Gasol, F O’Gara,F Hernandez, M Labrenz, E Stoica, MM Varela, A Bordalo, and P Pitta, ‘Marine Microbial Diversity and its role in Ecosystem Functioning and Environmental Change’ in JB Calewaert and N McDonough (eds), Marine Microbial Diversity and Its Role in Ecosystem Functioning and Environmental Change, Marine Board Position Paper 17 (Marine Board-
Greiber (n 70), at p. 32; Juniper (n 31), at pp. 19–20.
Eisai Annual Report 2014, available at http://www.eisai.com/pdf/eannual/epdf2014an.pdf; accessed 18 January 2017.
Broggiato et al. (n 19), at p. 181. Greiber (n 69), at p. 44.
Glowka (n 35), at p. 9; Greiber (n 70), at p. 32.
Vierros et al. (n 36), at p. 212; Oldham (n 28), at p. 2.
Wright et al. (n 21), at p. 556.
Greiber (n 70), at p. 35.
Broggiato, (n 19), 176–185, at p. 182; Greiber (n 70), at p. 35.
A Broggiato, T Dedeurwaerdere, F Batur ansd B Coolsaet, ‘Introduction. Access and Benefit-Sharing and the Nagoya Protocol: The Confluence of Abiding Legal Doctrines’ in B Coolsaet, F Batur, A Broggiato, J Pitseys, T Dedeurwaerdere (eds), Implementing the Nagoya Protocol—Comparing Access and Benefit-sharing Regimes in Europe (Brill/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2015) 1–29, at p. 11.
United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea—Office of Legal Affairs, Marine Scientific Research: A Revised Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations, New York, 2010) para 116.
See for example the InterRidge statement of commitment to responsible research practices at deep-sea hydrothermal vents; available at https://www.interridge.org/IRStatement, accessed 18 January 2017; and the
Broggiato (n 19), at pp. 176–185.
Patent pools are consortia of entities agreeing to cross-license patents relating to a particular technology in order to save time and money, to mitigate patent-related risks, and to create collective benefits.
EJ Tirpak, Practices of States in the Fields of Marine Scientific Research and Transfer of Marine Technology: An Update of the 2005 Analysis of Member State Responses to Questionnaire No. 3,
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission,
For a summary of the principles agreed at the first international strategy meeting on human genome sequencing (commonly referred to as Bermuda Principles of 1996), see http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/bermuda.shtml, accessed 17 March 2017. For a historical analysis of the principles, see Eliot Marshall, ‘Bermuda Rules: Community Spirit, with Teeth’ (2001) 291 (5507) Science 1192.
See Oldham et al. (n 28), at p. 77.
Available at https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11060/nsf11060.pdf; accessed 17 March 2017.
Commission Recommendation of 17.7.2012 on access to and preservation of scientific information. C(2012) 4890 final. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/recommendation-access-and-preservation-scientific-information_en.pdf; accessed 17 March 2017.
Available at http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/antragstellung/forschungsdaten/guidelines_research_data.pdf; accessed 17 March 2017.
See the InterRidge Code of Conduct (n 68).
Available at http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html; accessed 18 January 2017.
D Cyranoski, ‘Research materials: Share and share alike?’ (2002) 420 Nature 602–604, at p. 604.
GM Garrity, LM Thompson, DW Ussery, N Paskin, D Baker, P Desmeth, DE Schindel and PS Ong, Study on the Identification, Tracking and Monitoring of Genetic Resources,
Greiber (n 70), at p. 35.
M Jaspars, D De Pascale, JH Andersen, F Reyes, AD Crawford and A Ianora, ‘The Marine Biodiscovery Pipeline and Ocean Medicines of Tomorrow’ (2016) 96(1) Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 151–158.
Vierros et al. (n 36), at p. 212.
Brazilian Biodiversity Law, Federal Act No. 13.123/2015, 20 May 2015 ; Decree No. 8.772/2016, 11 May 2016.
Grotius (n 1), at p. 2.
J-S Fritz, ‘Deep Sea Anarchy: Mining at the Frontiers of International Law’ (2015) 30 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 445–476.