regional cooperation addressing marine pollution from land-based activities

293 Pages·2017·2.56 MB·English

REGIONAL COOPERATION ADDRESSING MARINE POLLUTION
FROM LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES: AN INTERPRETATION OF
ARTICLE 207 OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION FOCUSING
ON MONITORING, ASSESSEMENT, AND SURVEILLANCE OF THE
POLLUTION

NAPORN POPATTANACHAI

This thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of
Nottingham Trent University
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law

March 2018
(Revised Version)
This work is the intellectual property of the author. You may copy up to 5% of this
work for private study, or personal, non-commercial research. Any re-use of the
information contained within this document should be fully referenced, quoting the
author, title, university, degree level and pagination. Queries or requests for any
other use, or if a more substantial copy is required, should be directed in the owner(s)
of the Intellectual Property Rights.

(74 631 Words)

Signed:

Date: 14 March 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CASES ................................................................................................ viii
TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ............................................... xiii
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................ xxviii

Chapter I: Introduction ........................................................................................... 32
I. Research overview and objectives ............................................................... 32
II. Research hypothesis, questions and scope of the research ......................... 35
i. Research hypothesis and questions ............................................................. 35
ii. Scope of the research ................................................................................. 37
III. Research methodology ................................................................................. 38
IV. Contribution of this research ....................................................................... 40
V. Structure of the research ............................................................................. 41

Chapter II: The Rule of Treaty Interpretation as a Means to Clarify the Substance
of Article 207 of the LOSC ...................................................................................... 43
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. 43
II. Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT as tools for treaty interpretation ............. 44
i. General rule of treaty interpretation as specified in Article 31 of the VCLT 44
ii. Supplementary means of treaty interpretation (Article 32).......................... 69
III. Rule of treaty interpretation and its application in this research .............. 75
i. Sequence of ingredients to be thrown into the crucible of treaty interpretation
.................................................................................................................. 76
ii. Difference between subsequent agreement and subsequent practice as set out
in Article 31 (3) (a) and (b) of the VCLT ................................................... 77
IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 79

Chapter III: Rules and Principles of International Law related to the Protection of
the Marine Environment from MPLA .................................................................... 81
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. 81
II. Customary and general rules of international law ...................................... 82
i. Sustainable Development ........................................................................... 82
i
ii. Prevention Principle ................................................................................... 91
iii. Precautionary Principle .............................................................................. 98
iv. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) ...............................108
v. Polluter-Pays principle ..............................................................................113
vi. Cooperation ..............................................................................................116
vii. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ..................................................119
viii. Obligations to notify, exchange information and consult ...........................126
III. Conventional rules of international law – The LOSC................................129
IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................131

Chapter IV: Ordinary Meaning, Context, and Objects and Purposes of Article 207
of the LOSC ............................................................................................................133
I. Introduction .................................................................................................133
II. Preliminary interpretation of Article 207 of the LOSC – identifying
challenges .....................................................................................................135
III. Preliminary consideration of the term ‘pollution of the marine environment’
137
IV. Interpretation of Article 207 of the LOSC .................................................139
i. Article 207 of the LOSC – Paragraph 1 .....................................................140
ii. Article 207 of the LOSC – Paragraph 2 .....................................................167
iii. Article 207 of the LOSC – Paragraph 3 .....................................................169
iv. Article 207 of the LOSC – Paragraph 4 .....................................................170
v. Article 207 of the LOSC – Paragraph 5 .....................................................178
vi. Reading the provision as a whole in its context and the light of object and
purpose .....................................................................................................180
V. Conclusion ...................................................................................................182

Chapter V: Subsequent Practice of States at the Global Level related to the
Protection of the Marine Environment from MPLA under Article 207 of the LOSC
.................................................................................................................................184
I. Introduction .................................................................................................184
II. Identification of internationally agreed rules, standards, and recommended
practices and procedures ............................................................................186
i. Non-binding instruments ...........................................................................187
ii
ii. Binding instruments ..................................................................................191
III. Single-combined interpretation of the obligation to prevent, reduce, and
control MPLA at the regional level ............................................................195
i. Adoption of a Regional Plan/Programme of Action (RPA)........................196
ii. Monitoring, assessment, and surveillance of MPLA ..................................204
iii. Notification, consultation, and exchange of information regarding MPLA 213
iv. Other forms of cooperation related to MPLA ............................................218
IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................224

Chapter VI: Subsequent Practice of States at the Regional Level concerning the
Monitoring, Assessment, and Surveillance of MPLA ............................................226
I. Introduction .................................................................................................226
II. Monitoring of MPLA ..................................................................................229
i. Institutional aspect of the monitoring requirement .....................................229
ii. Procedural aspect of the monitoring requirement.......................................232
iii. Substantive aspect of the monitoring requirement .....................................237
III. Assessment of MPLA ..................................................................................245
i. Institutional aspect of the required assessment ..........................................245
ii. Procedural aspect of the required assessment ............................................247
iii. Substantive aspect of the required assessment ...........................................251
IV. Surveillance of MPLA .................................................................................256
V. Conclusion ...................................................................................................256

Chapter VII: Conclusions.......................................................................................260
I. Introduction .................................................................................................260
II. Methodological complexity of the rule of treaty interpretation ................260
i. Sequence of ingredients to be thrown into the crucible of treaty interpretation
.................................................................................................................261
ii. Differences between subsequent agreement and subsequent practice as set out
in Article 31 (3) (a) and (b) of the VCLT ..................................................263
III. Outcomes of the interpretation of Article 207 of the LOSC ......................264
i. What do the ordinary meanings of the terms of Article 207 of the LOSC reveal
in relation to the obligation in Article 207 of the LOSC at the regional level?
.................................................................................................................265
iii
ii. What does the subsequent practice of States at the global level reveal in
relation to the obligation of Article 207 of the LOSC? ..............................269
iii. What does the subsequent practice of States through RSPs reveal in relation to
the obligation of Article 207 of the LOSC at the regional level? ................273
IV. Unfinished business in relation to Article 207 of the LOSC ......................278

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................280

iv
ABSTRACT

Marine Pollution from Land-based Activities (MPLA) has long been recognised as being
the biggest contributor to the deterioration of the marine environment. Despite the
recognition, this source of pollution remains largely unregulated. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) is the only international agreement that
regulates MPLA at the global level. However, Article 207 of the LOSC requiring States
to prevent, reduce, and control MPLA has been criticised for its lack of clarity and cannot
guide States’ action to fulfil their obligation.

This research picks up from this ambiguity and tries to clarify the substance of Article
207 of the LOSC. It specifically focuses on the regional aspect of this provision. The
question of this research is ‘how and to what extent should States act at the regional level
to fulfil their obligation under Article 207 of the LOSC.’ In so doing, it answers the
question through the lens of treaty interpretation showing what the possible
interpretations are and how States have interpreted Article 207 of the LOSC from their
subsequent practice both at global and regional levels.

To fulfil this obligation at the regional level, States have interpreted Article 207 of the
LOSC as a single combined obligation treating the obligations to prevent, reduce, and
control MPLA collectively. Besides, when applying at the regional level, the obligation
to prevent, reduce, and control MPLA comprises four key components. In particular, at
the regional level, monitoring, assessment, and surveillance of MPLA have been
developed to varying degrees to be part of the regional aspect of this obligation.
Monitoring and assessment of MPLA are essential and can be part of the obligation,
whereas surveillance of MPLA remains to be further developed.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, my higher legal studies especially this PhD would have never been
possible without the utmost kindest support of the Anandamahidol Foundation under the
Royal Patronage of His Majesty the King of Thailand who has been supportive of me
financially throughout my entire studies. No word can express how grateful I am having
received the scholarship, and for that, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the
Foundation. Also, I would like to respectfully offer this PhD thesis as a tribute in
memorial of the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej – King Rama IX – and as an evidence of
fulfilling His Majesty’s visions to develop Thai education through the establishment of
the Foundation and this prestigious scholarship.

Secondly, I would like to thank Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, Thailand for
allowing me to further my education and has ensured no disruption to my study. Thirdly,
I would like to extend my appreciation and gratitude to the ITLOS-Nippon Capacity-
Building and Training Programme on Dispute Settlement under the LOSC at the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for the 2016/2017 ITLOS-Nippon
fellowship and allowed me to exhaust the Tribunal library for my PhD research. Without
the support of this fellowship and the Tribunal, writing up my thesis could have been a
lot more difficult. No library is better than the Tribunal’s library!

For the past four years, my PhD study has been quite a journey. It has been quite so
because it involves two universities with four supervisors. First and most importantly,
this PhD study would not have come this far, and I will never complete this thesis without
the consistent support and guidance from my principal supervisor, Professor Elizabeth
Kirk. The only supervisor who has been with me for my entire PhD! No word can
express how lucky, grateful, and privileged I am to be under her supervision. I would
like to pay tribute to Elizabeth for every success happened during my study. Without her
kindness and delicate support, I would not have developed myself this much as an
academic lawyer and more importantly as a person. Thank you very much, Elizabeth. I
could not wish for the better supervisor. At Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent
University, I would like to thank Professor David Ong who agreed to act as my supervisor
and provided thoughtful comments on my work. At the University of Dundee where
vi
everything began, I would like to thank Professor Robin Churchill and Dr Sergei
Vinogradov who agreed to be my supervisors during my time in Dundee.

Certainly, PhD is not only an academic degree but also the course of finding the meaning
of life. Plenty has been lost, yet so much I have gained on this journey. This PhD has
turned me into an ironman and at the same time has brought so many tears to my eyes. I
have learned the feeling of doing my best, yet the result is unsatisfactory. Also, I have
experienced how bad it can be when I have not put enough effort into my work and my
life. Lucky enough, I have my inner-circle friends and colleagues who have always
comforted and been faithful to me. There is a never-ending list of people to mention.
However, of particular significance, I am indebted for their support and wholeheartedly
and sincerely thank; My family – my parents, my brothers, and all my relatives for their
never-ending supports; TU Law colleagues especially Former Dean Narong, Ajarn
Piruna, Ajarn Lalin, and Ajarn Kanoknai for their kind support and research assistance;
ITLOS/IFLOS Colleagues – Mr Registrar Philipe Gautier, ITLOS Librarian Ms
Mizerska-Dyba, Jo König, Inês Aguiar Branco, Klaudia Malczewka, and Sebastian Tho
Pesch and EATHAI Restaurant crews for the wonderful times in Hamburg; Dundee
Friends and Society – particularly P’Bunchoo, P’Aud, P’Pon, P’Toei, P’Joann, P’Ing,
P’Nay, P’Na, Tang, Fern, Gift, Bill Sarakorn, Now, Tarn, and Sis – for being an away-
from-home family and for every joyful moment we spent together; All other inner-circle
friends – especially P’Manida Zinmerman for her kind sponsorship in every sport event,
getaway trip and for being my model professional; Chompoo, May, and M for their love,
kindness, and constant encouragement; my OSK alumni especially Best for his multi-
capacity making my life easier and; last but not least, Titirat Kateratorn for her faith that
I could never repay. Finally, thank you to all the unnamed for their kindness. All have
blessed this study, and I sincerely could not ask for more.

Dad, you once said ‘I would be delighted if all my sons have a PhD.’
I have done my part, and hopefully, your dream comes true soon.
vii
TABLE OF CASES

International Court of Justice

Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 665

Whaling in the Antartic case (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) (Judgment),
[2014] ICJ Rep 22

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay case (Argentina v. Uruguay), (Judgment) [2010] ICJ
Rep 14

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
(Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136

Avena and other Mexican Nationals case (Mexico v. United States of America),
(Judgment) [2004] ICJ Rep 12

Legality of Use of Force case (Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy), (Preliminary Objections)
[2004] ICJ Rep 865

Sovereignty over Pulau Litigan and Pulau Sipadan case (Indonesia/Malaysia) [2002]
ICJ Rep 625

Kasikili/Sedudu (Namibia/Botswana) case, (Judgment) [1999] ICJ Rep 1045

Gabčikovo/Nagymaros case (Hungary v. Slovakia), (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep
225

viii