International Responsibility of the Sponsoring State for Exploitation of the Area Resources in Light of the Requirements of International Environmental Law

Subject Areas : environmental low

Javad Salehi ¹ , Hossein Alekajbaf ²

1 - Associate Professor of Faculty Law at Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Faculty Law at Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2018-05-19 Accepted : 2018-09-05 Published : 2021-06-22

Keywords: Convention on the Law of the Sea, Environment International Law, marine environment, International Liability Law, Sponsoring State,

Abstract :

The obligations of the Sponsoring State are subject to liability arising from the requirements of international environmental law. The obligations of the Sponsoring State in protecting the environment of the area are of an appropriate nature, assessment, precaution, prevention, control and compensation. However, if the Sponsoring State has taken all necessary and appropriate measures to the best of its ability to bind the sponsored contractor, it will not be liable for damages resulting from the contractor's activities. This situation means that the damages resulting from the contractor's activity to exploit the resources of the area are not compensated. However, the international community should not, in any case, suffer the damage caused by the contractor's activities to the marine environment. Undoubtedly, the inability of the Sponsoring State to control and oblige the contractor to fully comply with international standards in the exploration and extraction of marine resources should not be taken into account by the international community. It is imperative that the Sponsoring State be absolutely responsible for the damages caused by the contractor. If the damage is due to the fault of the contractor, the Sponsoring State shall compensate it and then deduct it from the contractor's bail. If the damage caused by the negligence of the Sponsoring State, it should compensate the same damage so that in any case the damage to the marine environment is not left unattended and the damage is not inflicted on the international community body.

References:

1. Hajar Raee Dehaghi, Jvad Najafi (2016), Protection of the Environment Against Damage During Armed Conflict, Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 14(2), pp. 139-153. (In Persian)


2. Vahid Nikkhah, Mohammad Reza Vijeh, Mohammad Hussein Ramazani Ghavamabadi (2016), Analyzing of the Legal Relationship Between the Government and the Environment in Transition to Green Government, Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 14(3), pp. 147-158. (In Persian)


3. Farhad Jam and Janet Blake (2017), Global Environmental Governance System: Challenges and Solutions, Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 15(1), pp. 141-156. (In Persian)


4. Javadi, Alireza, Abbas Poorhashemi and Shirin Shirazian (2018), Problems and Challenges Facing the Development of International Environmental, Journal of Environmental Science Technology, Vol 20(1), pp. 133-139. (In Persian)

5. Javandehjananlo, Farokh (2015), Theoritical Bases of the Liability of Sea Oil Pollution, Journal of Trade Studies, 20(77), pp. 169-188. (In Persian)


6. Harrison, James (2011), Making the Law of the Sea A Study in the Development of International Law, Cambridge University Press.

1. Salehi, Javad (2017), Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; Manifestation of Flag State Obligations on Illegal Fishing by Vessels Flying its Flag in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Third State, Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 7(28), pp. 1-12. (In Persian)

8. Salehi, Javad (2019), Compensation Liability to Deep Sea Area Environment in Customary International Law and the Inconsistent Approach of Seabed Disputes Chamber of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Journal of Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49(1), pp. 195-211. (In Persian)


9. Salehi, Javad (2020), Provisional Measures and its Implications in the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea’s Judicial Procedure; A Manifestation of the Defendant’s Human Rights Considerations with Respect to the Victim’s Requirements, Journal of Comparative Law Review, Vol. 11(1), pp. 171-19 (in Persian).


10. Boyle, Alan (2007), The Environmental Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 22(3), 369-381.


11. Crawford, James (2012), Brownlie’s Principles of Public InternationalLaw,8^nd, Oxford University Press.

1. Held, David (2003), ‘The Changing Structure of International Law: Sovereignty Transformed?’ in; David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, 2^nd, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.


2. Ivanova, Maria, Ivar Baste and Bernice Lee (2012), ‘Global Responses’, Global Environment Outlook 5: Environment for the Future We Want, United Nations Environment Programme, Available at: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8021/GEO5_report_full_en.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y.


3. International Court of Justice (1969), Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands, North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Reports, Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/52/052-19690220-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.


4. Salehi, Javad (2018), Jurisdiction in the International Law of the Sea in Conflict between Right to Protection of Offshore Facilities and Freedom of Navigation, Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 8(32), pp. 21-30. (In Persian)


5. Salehi, Javad (2019), Approach of Coastal State and Flag State in Light of Instruments and Principles of International Law Confronting the Illegal Performance of the Flagship, Journal of Public Law Research, Vol. 21(63), pp. 241-269. (In Persian)

17. International Court of Justice (1996), Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapon, Report. 226, Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf.


18. Ramazani Ghavamabadi, Mohammad Hossein (2014), A Comparative Study of “Precautionary Principle” in Opinions and Decisions of Internationals Tribunals, Public Law Research, Vol. 15(40), pp. 141-164. (In Persian)

1. Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (2011), Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, No 17, Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/adv_op_010211.pdf.

20. Payne, Cymie (2011), Chamber Advises Caution in Seabed Mining, International Law Grrls, Available at: http://www.intlawgrrls.com/2011/03/chamber-advises-caution-in-seabed.html.


21. Don, Anton, Robert A. Makgill and Cymie R. Payne (2011), Advisory Opinion on Responsibility and Liability for International Seabed Mining: International Environmental Law in the Seabed Disputes Chamber, ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 11-06, Australian National University, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1793216.


22. Solhchi, Mohammadali (2014), State Responsibility for Violation of Human Rights by Transnational Corporations, Journal of Public Law Research, Vol. 16(44), pp. 105-128. (In Persian)

1. Bonfanti, Angelica and Francesca Romanin Jacur (2014), Energy from the Sea and the Protection of the Marine Environment: Treaty-Based Regimes and Ocean Corporate Social Responsibility, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 29, pp. 622–644.

24. Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2008), Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford University Press.

1. Azizi, Sattar and Siamak Karimi (2016), Derived International Responsibility Resulted from Aid or Assistance with Emphasis on Case of Use of Cluster Munitions in Yemen, Journal of Public Law Research, Vol. 18(51), pp. 109-134. (In Persian)