Abstract
Overall interest in marine geoengineering (MGE) techniques and in their potential to mitigate the effects of climate change, as well as the multiple interests driving urgency for deployment, have intensified. This article considers the scientific, measured, transparent, and robust approach taken by the joint-meetings of the Governing Bodies of the 1972 London Convention and the 1996 London Protocol and the regulatory framework they are developing in response, with a particular focus on the regulation and guidelines for legitimate scientific research for MGE activities. It unpacks key attributes of the research assessment framework, particularly its acknowledging and accounting for scientific gaps and uncertainties, as well as its informed application of the precautionary approach. This is especially relevant in the context of rapidly growing interest in MGE as a means of climate mitigation.
Introduction
International controversy centred on the concept of marine geoengineering (MGE) as a response to climate change is intensifying. Proponents herald the manipulation of marine systems as a valid approach to climate change mitigation, advocating, for example, the enhancement of the natural ability of the ocean to absorb and store carbon dioxide through application of MGE techniques.1 They argue that this would be consistent with a ‘climate change approach’ to the precautionary approach,2 and justifying the risks of undertaking such acts by comparing them to the risks created by climate change itself in the absence of suitable response measures. Opponents challenge MGE as a potentially dangerous distraction and also justify their position by invoking the precautionary approach.3 Many others seek to balance the risks and benefits,4 while recognising that both may be uncertain and hard to quantify.
This article considers the approach taken by the joint-meetings of the Governing Bodies of the 1972 London Convention (LC)5 and the 1996 London Protocol (LP)6 (LC/LP) and the regulatory framework they are developing in response, focusing on the regulation of, and guidelines for legitimate scientific research (LSR) for MGE activities. First, it provides context and some background to the development of the LSR assessment framework (AF, together AFLSR). Second, it focuses on the science-based and stepwise approach of the AF adopted to facilitate consideration of proposed LSR activities. Third, it explores the holistic nature of the AF and its application to ongoing MGE research activities and proposals. Fourth, it discusses the application of the precautionary approach in this context, the legal status and importance of the resolutions, statements, and guidelines adopted by the LC/LP in the context of the ocean regime complex and international law in general.
Context and Background to the Development of the LC/LP Approach to MGE Research
Since 2007, when proposals for commercial ocean fertilisation activities reached prominence, the parties to the LC/LP have adopted a number of resolutions and statements relating to MGE, including agreeing that such activities fall within the scope of the LC/LP as placement of matter for purposes other than disposal that may nonetheless be contrary to the aims of the LC/LP, thereby amounting to dumping.7 In essence, the approach of LC/LP Parties recognises that the risks associated with the MGE techniques they evaluated may be widespread, long-lasting or severe, and that the scientific knowledge of these risks is insufficient for deployment not to be contrary to the aims of the LC/LP. They therefore agreed to restrict permitted activities to LSR, defined as only those activities which meet all criteria of the rigorous scientific Assessment Framework.8
In 2013, the Parties amended the LP to regulate the placement of matter for ocean fertilisation and other MGE activities (2013 LP Amendment).9 Although this amendment has not yet come into force and currently only explicitly lists ocean fertilisation in its Annex, much of the content and purposes have already been adopted or referred to in relation to other MGE techniques in joint resolutions of the LC/LP,10 or in joint statements on MGE issued by the Governing Bodies of the LC/LP in 2022 and 2023. The latter emphasises that the Parties are of the view that the AF adopted by resolution for ocean fertilisation and the AF included in the 2013 LP Amendment form the appropriate basis for the assessment of proposed research and development of MGE projects, pending entry into force of the LP amendment.11
In 2022, LC/LP Parties acknowledged the growing interest in MGE techniques and in their potential to mitigate the effects of climate change and noted the multiple interests driving urgency for deployment.12 The conclusions of the 2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)13 and the 2022 IPCC Sixth Assessment Report14 explicitly formed part of the basis for this statement. LC/LP Parties also noted the limited information available about certain techniques, scientific uncertainties about effectiveness, and their potential to cause pollution or have other adverse effects on the marine environment, thereby highlighting the importance of adopting a precautionary approach. In this context, and on the basis of scientific recommendations from GESAMP, they identified and prioritised four MGE techniques for further scientific evaluation following careful consideration of scientific evidence of their potential effects and state of development: ‘ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE); macroalgae cultivation and other biomass for sequestration including artificial upwelling; marine cloud brightening; and microbubbles/reflective particles/material’. The statement also encourages Contracting Parties to apply the MGE AF adopted in 2013 to evaluate proposed MGE projects (LP 2013 Amendment).15
This approach, including the particular focus on acknowledging and accounting for scientific gaps and uncertainties, provided the basis for the work accomplished and recommendations made since then by the LC/LP Scientific Groups, leading to a further MGE Statement adopted in 2023 by the Governing Bodies.16 This statement highlighted the number and diversity of past, ongoing, and planned MGE projects and reiterated previous resolutions and statements in that context. It also builds on them and clarifies that LC/LP Parties are of the view that the 2010 AF for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilisation17 and the 2013 AF for Matter that May be Considered for Placement Under Annex 418 are applicable to proposed research and developments projects, including the criteria for LSR contained therein.
The Assessment Framework for Legitimate Scientific Research
Robust consideration of scientific evidence drives decision-making by the Governing Bodies of the LC/LP. The regulation of marine scientific research (MSR) in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), which centres on the need to facilitate such research and share findings, provides that MSR must be conducted in compliance with the rules on protection and preservation of the marine environment. However, it does not articulate how this might be done.19 In the absence of another internationally agreed general mechanism to do so, two AFs can be seen to fulfil this role in that context: the AF developed to assess LSR for ocean fertilisation projects; and the generic AFLSR subsequently developed for research relating to all MGE activities.20 This approach balances the manipulations of, or perturbations introduced in, the marine environment by such research activities and their associated impacts (not all being known) with the need to understand better marine ecosystems and processes so as to adequately protect them.
To constitute LSR, the proposed activity must demonstrate ‘proper scientific attributes’, including addition to the scientific body of knowledge and demonstration of the scientific robustness of the proposal and research methodology through commitment to prepare detailed publications and adequate scientific peer-review throughout the process. The AFLSR includes components that can be grouped into 3 main steps as outlined below. Importantly, if the conditions and information needs of the AF are properly met, then the scientific research may be permitted and proceed as proposed, thereby providing the required legitimacy to the successful applicants. Proposals that do not pass every stage-gate of the AF would need to be refined or withdrawn.
Application for a permit for such scientific research is to be submitted according to the administrative or legislative measures adopted by the country or countries having jurisdiction over the research activity. For research activities involving placements within national jurisdiction, several permits may be required: (1) from the country having jurisdiction over the marine area concerned; (2) from the country of the flag of the vessel(s) used to carry out the research activity(ies); and (3) from the country(ies) of incorporation of the research institution(s) and/or other countries having jurisdiction or control over the research activity(ies) envisaged.21 Where the placement is to occur beyond national jurisdiction, countries in (2) and (3) above would have competence.22 Determination of who the applicant should be (e.g., the research institution or the entity that may be commissioning the research with a view to using it) is also left to the applicable domestic process. LC/LP guidance documents are understandably silent on this.
Screening and Legitimacy
This first step of the AF focuses on the demonstration that the activity qualifies as an MGE activity that meets the criteria for LSR. This requires explicit consideration, in scientific terms, of the proposed benefits of conducting such research, and not just the risks. Another important element of the AF is the justification of availability of financial resources.23 To be considered ‘legitimate’ and therefore amenable to further assessment and potential authorisation, placements for MSR related to MGE must be designed to answer questions that will add to scientific knowledge in ways that could not be achieved through other means. In addition, economic interests must not influence the design, conduct and/or outcome of the activity,24 to avoid the introduction of potential bias, real or perceived, from the outset.
Assessment of Risk of Impact
This step is particularly comprehensive in the detailed assessment it requires of a number of important elements included in the proposal, such as:
Adequate information on placement site selection;
Characterisation and assessment of matter to be placed into the marine environment (e.g. origin, amount, form, properties, toxicity, persistence, accumulation, etc.);
Potential and transboundary effects, including potential effects (nature, temporal and spatial scales) and cumulative impacts on human health, marine ecosystems structure and dynamics including sensitive species, populations, communities, habitats, and processes;
Risk management, to ensure that environmental risks are minimised;
Monitoring, to consider short- and long-term impacts and, to the extent possible, whether the activity has achieved its purpose and the permit conditions are met; and,
Reporting of assessments and provision of documentation for public availability and dissemination.25
Consultation and Consent
Consultation elements are an integral part of the AF, and they need to be satisfied for a permit application to be considered. They concern other States entitled to exercise jurisdiction in the area where the placement activity is proposed, States with a particular interest in this area,26 potentially affected States and relevant regional intergovernmental entities, and all other relevant stakeholders. This embraces the same approach as the new implementing agreement under the LOSC adopted in 2023 on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement).27 Importantly, consent must be sought from all States with an interest in the placement area. Substantively, the consultation focuses primarily on the assessment of potential impacts from the placement proposed, including the risk management approach. To ensure scientific robustness of these assessments, scientific cooperation is also encouraged. It is recommended that consultation be undertaken prior to submitting a placement proposal, but in any case during the assessment process and before a final permit decision is made.
Some placement activities may never enter the AFLSR for MGE activities if they are considered activities that fit existing regulations on waste. For example, this may be the case for some biomass sinking projects, where there is no intention or preparation to recover the material as part of the project. In this case, the waste assessment guidelines for assessment of organic matter of natural origin may have some application.28
A Holistic and Transparent Assessment of Risks
In general terms, proponents of MGE activities aim to develop and provide interventions that can yield benefits for Earth’s climate system at a regional and/or global scale. In the case of ocean alkalinity enhancement, for example, it is claimed that such activities may both decrease ocean acidification and increase the capacity of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide.29 However, this seemingly attractive win-win scenario of parallel protection of the marine environment and enhancement of the ocean’s capacity to store carbon dioxide remains hypothetical and requires a robust assessment of risk given the scale that would ultimately be needed for any such benefits to be realised and the unprecedented nature and potential magnitude of the associated risk. The proposed scale and context further require that MGE activities, even when limited to LSR, be conducted with enhanced transparency.
The approach to risk management under the AFLSR focuses on ensuring that environmental risks are minimised, and that research benefits are maximised and requires the application of a precautionary approach. The predicted benefits and risks of any proposed MGE research activity must be clearly stated as part of the justification within the application process. Any decision to grant a permit also implies that conditions are in place to ensure that environmental disturbance and detriment are minimised, and the research benefits maximised.
Scientists who focus on MGE techniques often highlight the limited number of field trials to date and the urgent need for field research to test hypotheses developed through modelling, laboratory, and microcosm studies.30 It is vital, nonetheless, that such calls do not detract from the need for any such research activities to be properly justified on scientific grounds and subject to thorough prior assessment. Local field trials, proposed to test hypotheses based on modelling or other laboratory-control experiments, require real data from the local system, collected over periods long enough to document the natural characteristics and variations. Several recent examples of MGE projects illustrate why the AFLSR will be so important in ensuring that future applications for a permit for research involving MGE-related placement activities are justified with sound hypotheses and underpinned by robust scientific methods. In the context of an initial field trial (albeit from a land-based source) for proposed OAE activities in coastal waters of Cornwall (United Kingdom), for example, the researchers have acknowledged that data available so far for the test site are too limited to provide a baseline against which to compare the findings from the treatment.31 Separately, other issues that have arisen from this and other recent MGE trials, which themselves have not been subject to consideration under the AFLSR so far, relate to economic interests in the research yielding certain outcomes, which in turn compromise scientific integrity and freedom from bias. These interests concern the selling of carbon credits for hypothetical long-term storage based largely on models and calculations, the testing of which should be the very subject of the research.32
The Place of the LC/LP in the Ocean Regime Complex
The central objective of the LC/LP and their Governing Bodies, that of protecting the ocean against pollution from disposal of waste and from placement of other matter in ways that are contrary to the aims of the LC and LP (and those of the LOSC), is a critical piece of the ocean regime complex that helps ensure that marine ecosystems continue to play their critical role in climate regulation. The LC/LP Bodies’ mandate is not to develop global climate policy; it is embedded in the ocean regime complex centred on, and articulated in, the LOSC.33
Two pivotal mechanisms of this ocean governance complex, and the way in which the LC/LP implement them in the context of MGE activities, are examined below.
Unpacking the Precautionary Approach
In 1991, the LC Governing Body adopted a resolution to guide the application of the precautionary approach (PA), showing its foresight as an early advocate of an approach now integral to marine environmental policy-making.34 This resolution abandoned a system of controlled dumping based on assumptions about the assimilative capacity of the ocean and evolved into an approach based on precaution and prevention. It articulates five guiding elements for its application to dumping activities, emphasising the central role of scientific evidence. These include the reduction of risk and scientific uncertainty related to proposed disposal operations, the fullest possible use of scientific and socioeconomic research for enhanced understanding to inform long-range policy options, and adequate monitoring for early detection and mitigation of these impacts.
These authors consider that this elaboration of the PA by the LC Governing Body is consistent with other inclusions of the PA in different international agreements, as well as its application by international courts.35 Of particular relevance to climate MGE activities, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides that ‘parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects’.36 Some climate scholars have interpreted this so as to automatically justify the deployment of climate MGE activities as a solution for climate change,37 thereby identifying them as a ‘precautionary measure’. However, taking highly uncertain, potentially large and possibly irreversible risks through deliberate manipulation of ocean physics, chemistry or ecology (e.g., MGE deployment) on the basis that such interventions might reduce some aspects of climate risk hardly seems ‘precautionary’ in nature, given the manipulation involved and potential risks associated with such manipulation. It is certainly no argument for proceeding without careful justification, assessment, and consultation. Robust scientific understanding and evidence is necessary to reduce the uncertainty and the risk of catalysing an even worse outcome.
The contours of the PA and the actions it may require, including in the context of MGE activities, must be examined in light of its different applications, that is, its use in other legal instruments and in decisions of international courts, as well as the overall principle of coherence of international law.38 Its common use focuses on ensuring that protection measures are being taken, that is, the exercise of ‘caution and prudence’, even when there is scientific uncertainty about the magnitude of the risk.39 Furthermore, the precautionary approach has been recognised as an attribute of the obligation to act with due diligence when protecting the marine environment,40 and therefore is central to Part XII of the LOSC.41 All the scientific evidence available must be considered for the PA to be applied rigorously. The AFLSR seeks precisely to enable such consideration and thereby reduce scientific uncertainty in the context of MGE research projects.
Standard of the Due Diligence Obligation in High Risk Activities
Guidance documents and methodologies adopted by LC/LP Bodies provide a unique basis to guide States Parties’ fulfilment of their obligation of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment in the context of MGE activities.
The concept of due diligence has been progressively defined in successive decisions of international tribunals and recognised as a principle of international law.42 It entails an obligation to deploy adequate means and to exercise best possible efforts to protect the marine environment. The content of the obligation therefore varies with the risks involved, which may depend, for example, on the activity being undertaken or on the sensitivity of an ecosystem. The greater the risk is, the higher the standard of due diligence is expected to be.43 The deployment scale needed for MGE activities to achieve their intended purpose and have an effect on Earth’s climate is a fitting example of activities requiring the highest standard of due diligence.44 Furthermore, MGE activities pose the risk of transferring pollution from one area into another or transforming one type of pollution into another.45 Finally, when such rules, standards, recommended practices, and procedures can be considered as globally accepted, they can become incorporated by reference into the LOSC, thereby creating a standard benchmark that is applicable to the LOSC Contracting Parties, even if they are not a party to the instrument incorporated by reference.46
Conclusion
Through their reference to on-going critical international processes in other fora, including under the UNFCCC,47 the LC/LP Bodies have recognised that they are only one part of the overall ocean governance complex. However, their mandate includes consideration of MGE-related placements that may be contrary to the aims of the LC/LP. Although joint decisions of the Governing Bodies represent 101 States, and may at times be viewed as interpretations of provisions of the LC/LP, they do not replace the coming into force of the 2013 LP Amendment, which has been recognised as a priority by the Governing Bodies. Nevertheless, the LC/LP remain the only competent intergovernmental forum to date to have adopted the guidelines necessary to ensure that the field trials envisaged by MGE proponents be conducted according to robust scientific methodology and in accordance with international law, including the precautionary approach, the obligation of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment, the obligation to not transfer damage or hazards or transform one type of pollution into another, as well as the ability of marine ecosystems to continue playing their critical role in climate regulation.
RM Webb, ‘International Governance of Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Recent Developments and Future Directions’ (2024) available at https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sabin_climate_change/216; accessed 12 May 2024.
RM Webb, ‘An update on the evolving legal landscape for ocean-based carbon dioxide removal: Key outcomes of the October 2023 meeting of the parties to the London Convention and Protocol’ (Climate Law Blog, 2023) available at https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2023/10/20/an-update-on-the-evolving-legal-landscape-for-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-key-outcomes-of-the-october-2023-meeting-of-the-parties-to-the-london-convention-and-protocol/; accessed 12 May 2024.
E.g., Geoengineering Monitor, ‘Reasons to oppose geoengineering’ available at https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/reasons-to-oppose/; accessed 15 May 2024.
E.g., KN Scott, ‘Geoengineering and the marine environment’ in R Rayfuse (ed), Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2015) 451–472.
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London, 29 December 1972, in force 30 August 1975) 1046 UNTS 138 [LC].
Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London, 17 November 1996, in force 24 March 2006) [2006] ATS 11 [LP].
E.g., On the Regulation of Ocean Fertilization, IMO Resolution LC-LP.1 (31 October 2008); On the Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization, IMO Resolution LC-LP.2 (14 October 2010); On the Amendment to the London Protocol to Regulate the Placement of Matter for Ocean Fertilization and Other Marine Geoengineering Activities, IMO Resolution LP.4(8) (18 October 2013); Report of the Forty-Fourth Consultative Meeting and the Seventeenth Meeting of Contracting Parties, IMO Doc LC 44/17 (20 October 2022), Annex 2: Statement on Marine Geoengineering.
LC44/17 (n 7). See also H Ginsky and R Frost, ‘Marine geoengineering: Legally binding regulation under the London Protocol’ (2014) 2 Carbon and Climate Law Review 82–96. In this special issue, examining the LC/LP regime’s treatment of carbon capture and sequestration and ocean fertilisation see C Vivian and LD Savio, ‘The London Convention and Protocol: Adapting to address the ocean-climate crisis’ (pp. 519–527).
LP.4(8) (n 7).
The joint concurrent running of meetings of these Bodies achieves consistent implementation and evolution of both instruments in a single regime. See P Verlaan, ‘Marine scientific research: Its potential contribution to achieving responsible high seas governance’ (2012) 27 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (IJMCL) 805–812.
LP.4(8) (n 7).
LC44/17 (n 7).
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), ‘Summary for policymakers’ in Global Warming of 1.5 °C [V Masson-Delmotte et al. (eds)] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018) available at https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/; accessed 12 May 2024.
IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [PR Shukla et al. (eds)] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022) available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/; accessed 12 May 2024.
LP.4(8) (n 7).
Report of the Forty-Fifth Consultative Meeting and the Eighteenth Meeting of Contracting Parties, IMO Doc LC/17 (30 October 2023) Annex 4: Statement on Geoengineering.
LC-LP.2 (n 7).
LP.4(8) (n 7), Annex 5.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 396, Article 240(d) [LOSC]; Verlaan (n 10).
LP.4(8) (n 7).
In the absence of specific provisions under the LC/LP and given the general responsibility of States to protect the marine environment under the LOSC, including through the adoption of all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from activities within its jurisdiction or control, different States may require a permit (and may even be required to do so). See, e.g., LOSC (n 19), Articles 194(1) and (2), 196 (when it involves the use of technology), 210. See also, e.g., Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion (21 May 2024), ITLOS Case No 31, paras 242, 258, 361.
Interplays with mechanisms under the BBNJ Agreement will also need to be taken into account when it enters into force. See (n 27) below. See also A Proelss, ‘Law of the sea and geoengineering’ in N Matz-Lück, Ø Jensen and E Johansen (eds), The Law of the Sea: Normative Context and Interactions with other Legal Regimes (Routledge, Abingdon, 2022) on scientific research for MGE within and beyond national jurisdiction.
LP.4(8) (n 7); LC-LP.2 (n 7).
LP.4(8) (n 7); LC-LP.2 (n 7).
LP.4(8) (n 7); LC-LP.2 (n 7).
The marine area concerned may be within or beyond national jurisdiction. See above, ‘The Assessment Framework for Legitimate Scientific Research’, and (n 21–22).
An extensive consultation process is included in the environmental impact assessment process provided for activities deployed in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 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, UN Doc A/CONF.232/2023/4* (New York, 19 June 2023, not yet in force), Article 32 [BBNJ Agreement].
Report of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the Scientific Group, IMO Doc LC/SG 24/11 (24 July 2001), Annex 9: Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Organic Material of Natural Origin, as amended 21 October 2013 (LC 35/15).
A Oschlies et al., ‘Climate targets, carbon dioxide removal, and the potential role of ocean alkalinity enhancement’ in A Oschlies et al. (eds), Guide to Best Practices in Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement Research (Copernicus Publications, State Planet, 2-oae2023, 2023).
Ibid.
Webinar presentation by Planetary Technologies to the Cornwall Carbon Scrutiny Group (15 March 2024), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iobd_ACoi15ZN3FpSdGg9ZzLOLXUVeGq/view; accessed 16 May 2024.
Running Tide, ‘How Running Tide measures and quantifies its impact’ available at https://www.runningtide.com/carbon-credits; accessed 16 May 2024.
LOSC (n 19), Articles 1(5), 194, 195, 210 and 216 (legislative and enforcement jurisdiction), 208 and 214 (dumping), 240(d).
The Application of the Precautionary Approach in Environmental Protection Within the Framework of the London Dumping Convention, IMO Res LDC.44(14) (29 November 1991).
E.g., P-M Dupuy and JE Viñuales, International Environmental Law (2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018) 71.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 9 May 1992, in force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107, Article 3.
E.g., Webb (n 1).
International Law Commission ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalised by M Koskenniemi, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006) 25, 253; ITLOS Case No 31 (n 21), paras 132–136.
E.g., Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Case No. 3 and 4, para 77.
KN Scott ‘International law in the Anthropocene: Responding to the geoengineering challenge’ (2013) 34(2) Michigan Journal of International Law 309–358, at pp. 341–344; MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95, para. 84.
KN Scott, ‘The LOSC: “A constitution for the oceans” in the Anthropocene?’ (2023) 41(1) Australian Year Book of International Law 269–298, at p. 280.
Y Lyons, D Cheong, ML Neo and HF Wong, ‘Managing giant clams in the SCS’ (2018) 33 IJMCL 467–494, at pp. 477–480.
T Stephens (Rapporteur) and D French (Chair), ‘ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, First Report’ (2014) 29.
ITLOS Case 31 (n 21), para. 241.
LOSC (n 19), Article 195.
E.g., A Boyle, ‘Marine pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention’ (1985) 79 American Journal of International Law 347–372, at p. 356.
E.g., LC45/16 (n 16).