Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T04:29:56.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

S. Rosenne, L.B. Sohn, eds., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. A Commentary, Vol. V, M.H. Nordquist, Editor-in-Chief, M. Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht1989, 497 pp. + Index, Dfl. 295/$165/£95.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Barbara Kwiatkowska
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Affiliation:
Associate Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , May 1990 , pp. 111 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Vol. I of the series containing the text of the Convention and Introductory Material was published in 1985. The volumes still to be published include: Vol. II – Second Committee: Articles 1 to 132, Annexes I and II, and the Final Act, Annex II; Vol. Ill – First Committee: Articles 133 to 191, Annexes HI and IV, and the Final Act, Annex I, Resolution II; Vol. IV – Third Committee: Articles 192 to 278, and the Final Act, Annex VI; and Vol. VI – Comprehensive Index to Series, consolidated list of treaties, cases and appendices, additional reference material.

2. For a general appraisal, see Nandan, S.N., ‘A Constitution for the Ocean: The 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention’, 1 Marine Policy Reports (1989) pp. 1–12; Council on Ocean Law (COL), The United States and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Synopsis of the Status of the Treaty and its Expanded Role in the World Today (1989). Note that the legislative history of the Convention is also the subject of some publications of the United Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (OALOS), in particular, Pollution by Dumping (1985, E. 85.V.12); Rights of Access of Land-Locked States to and from the Sea and Freedom of Transit (1987, E.87.V.5); Regime of Islands (1988, E.87.V.11); and Navigation on the High Seas (1989,Google Scholar E.89.V.2). See also QALOS' Master File Containing References to Official Documents of the UNCLOS III (1985, E.85.V.9)Google Scholar.

3. See Rosenne, Shabtai, Practice and Methods of International Law (1984) pp. 41–42, also pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

4. Note that the important evidence of State positions can also be found in statements at the 1982 closing session of UNCLOS III in Montego Bay. E.g., the coastal State's sovereign rights over archeological objects found on the continental shelf were for the first time suggested by Cape Verde (Volume V, p. 159), and after their rejection by UNCLOS III, Cape Verde reiterated its position at the Montego Bay session and subsequently declared upon ratification of the Convention that the removal of such objects from its maritime areas is subject to its consent (UN Law of the Sea Bulletin (1987) No. 10, p. 8). In some cases, e.g., the designated areas concept introduced by India, State practice (potentially) not conforming with the Convention is only reflected by the Montego Bay statements.

5. See the Special Reports on PrepCom by the Council on Ocean Law (COL), Washington DC, especially the recent ones of the Seventh Session, First Meeting, 27 February - 23 March 1989, and the Second Meeting, 14 August - 1 September 1989. For an annual review of PrepCom work, see the Law of the Sea Reports of the United Nations Secretary-General, the recent one being UN Doc A/44/650 (1989) pp. 34–41.

6. See, e.g., the Brazilian declarations upon signature and ratification of the Convention, in UN Law of the Sea Bulletin (1985) No. 5, p. 6, and (1988) No. 12, p. 8. Cf., Kwiatkowska, B., ‘Military Uses in the EEZ – A Reply to A.V. Lowe”, 11 Marine Policy (1987) pp. 249–250Google Scholar.

7. Cf., COL Report February/March 1989, supra n. 5, at p. 6.

8. Cf., supran. 4 and the main accompanying text.

9. Simmonds, K.R., ‘The Community's Declaration upon Signature of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’, 23 CMLR (1986) p. 521, at p. 525.Google Scholar

10. For such a suggestion, aiming to bind the US (as a non-signatory) to comply with the spirit and the letter of the Convention's provisions, see ‘Statement on US Policy on the Settlement of Disputes in the Law of the Sea of 7 March 1986’, by the Panel on the Law of Ocean uses, 81 AJIL (1987) pp. 438–442, and comments thereon by Kwiatkowska, B., in 82 AJIL (1988) pp. 332–335.Google Scholar

11. For the recent resolutions adopted in 1988, see UN Doc GA Res. 43/29 (Namibia, para. 12); 43/35 (Tokelau, preamble); 43/36 (Anguilla, para. 8); 43/37 (Cayman Islands, para. 8); 43/38 (Montserrat, para. 7); 43/39 (Bermuda, para. 8); 43/40 (Turks and Caicos Islands, para. 6); 43/41 (British Virgin Islands, preamble and para. 7); 43/42 (Guam, paras. 7 and 9); 43/43 (American Samoa, para. 6); and 43/44 (US Virgin Islands, para. 7), in UN Doc. A/43/49 (1989) pp. 230–247.