This article examines the growing influence of international investment law on the legal regime governing deep-seabed mining under Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It argues that this process of "investmentification" has emerged gradually through the interaction of treaty provisions, International Seabed Authority contractual practice, and national sponsorship agreements. While these developments enhance predictability for private operators, they also introduce new pressures on the regulatory discretion of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and sponsoring states, raising questions about how stability commitments can be reconciled with the collective and environmental obligations embedded in the common heritage of humankind (CHM). By analyzing the legal architecture of UNCLOS, the evolution of ISA contracts, and the recent contractualization of sponsorship regimes, the article explores how investment law logics shape authority, risk allocation, and environmental governance in the Area, and considers how these dynamics might be aligned with the CHM principle.
The Al Yasat Marine Protected Area (MPA) is located off the western coast of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the Arabian Gulf. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) also has a narrow coastline in this part of the Gulf. Its refusal to recognise the UAE's MPA has reignited the parties' maritime delimitation dispute, which stems from the provisions of the Treaty of Jeddah (1974). This article analyses this controversial treaty framework before evaluating the maritime entitlements and obligations of the parties-including in relation to the Al Yasat MPA-as a matter of customary international law. In so doing, it examines the legal arguments advanced by the KSA and UAE in this context with a view to considering the existing scope for a negotiated solution to their protracted maritime dispute.
This article examines the complex legal relationship between the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CUCH). During the negotiation of the CUCH, states diverged sharply on whether the new instrument should be subordinated to UNCLOS, a disagreement that continues to influence ratification practice. Against this background, the article analyzes the absence of an express subordination clause and explores how the interaction between the two treaties must be determined through general treaty law, in particular Articles 304 and 311 UNCLOS and Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The article undertakes a two-way analysis: first, it assesses how UNCLOS regulates the coexistence of subsequent agreements, focusing on the notions of compatibility and preservation; second, it evaluates how the CUCH positions itself vis-& agrave;-vis UNCLOS through clauses of non-prejudice, contextual interpretation, and jurisdictional neutrality. Particular attention is given to contested issues such as sunken state vessels, the powers of the Coordinating State in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and the protection regime in the contiguous zone. Drawing on state practice, judicial and arbitral jurisprudence, and recent advisory opinions of international courts and tribunals, the article argues that the relationship between UNCLOS and the CUCH is best understood in terms of functional complementarity rather than hierarchy. It concludes that the CUCH may operate as a compatible specialized regime within UNCLOS's framework, contributing to the coherent and evolutionary protection of underwater cultural heritage.
This article develops a legal interpretation of "marine technology" under Article 1(10) of the BBNJ Agreement and examines how this definition enables the operationalization of equitable capacity-building and technology transfer. Drawing on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Wittgenstein's theory of family resemblance, the article argues that the definition of "marine technology" serves as a dynamic, purpose-driven legal tool. It acquires meaning through its role within the treaty architecture. Through this lens, the article identifies two critical legal functions of the definition. First, it highlights the technologies that context-specific capacity-building measures must accompany. Second, it enables the mapping of potential access barriers, including intellectual property protections, that may obstruct effective participation by developing states. By analyzing the functional categories listed in the definition clause, the article demonstrates how legal interpretation can guide the strategic implementation of the BBNJ Agreement's equity objectives. The analysis concludes that a narrow understanding of "marine technology" reproduces structural bias in international cooperation and limits the legal operability of benefit-sharing obligations under the BBNJ Agreement.
In September 2025, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS), which aims to prohibit fisheries subsidies fueling the overexploitation of fish stocks, entered into force. In doing so, the AFS became the first WTO instrument of international fisheries law (IFL). The AFS creates the possibility of initiating disputes before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, which raises challenges pertaining to fragmentation stemming from differing or contradictory rulings by international courts and tribunals. This article examines the challenge of fragmentation of IFL before analyzing the potential of parallel proceedings under the AFS and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the possibility of indirectly litigating matters previously exempted from compulsory dispute settlement.
Submarine fiber-optic cables carry over 99 per cent of international data, yet the legal framework governing cyber operations against these systems remains underdeveloped and fragmented. This article examines the extent to which existing international law-specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the jus ad bellum regime, and international humanitarian law (IHL)-regulates non-kinetic interference with submarine data cables across peacetime, "grey-zone," and armed conflict contexts. Relying on doctrinal analysis of treaty law, the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals, Tallinn Manual 2.0 rules, and recent national cyber policy statements, the article advances three core claims. First, UNCLOS furnishes a differentiated but incomplete protective framework, providing relatively robust coastal state competences in the territorial sea while leaving significant enforcement and attribution gaps in the exclusive economic zone and on the high seas. Second, emerging practice supports an effects-based approach under which large-scale, intentional disruption of cable functionality may qualify as a "use of force," and in extreme cases as an "armed attack," thereby engaging the law on self-defence and countermeasures. Third, IHL's treatment of submarine data cables as civilian and potentially dual-use objects entails constraints of distinction, proportionality, and precaution that remain insufficiently integrated into cyber operational planning. The article concludes by identifying targeted interpretative and institutional developments necessary to enhance the coherence and predictability of legal protection for submarine data cables without undermining navigational freedoms.
Modern slavery in capture fisheries persists not only through abusive practices on board fishing vessels, but also through a wider network of corporate actors that sustain such operations, notably those engaged in offshore transshipment. In Asia, where these actors operate across jurisdictional boundaries, many fall outside the reach of existing legal frameworks. This article examines the role of home state jurisdiction in regulating corporate involvement in modern slavery at sea, focusing on transshipment and other fishing-related activities. It argues that the current law of the sea regime, anchored in flag and coastal state jurisdiction, leaves accountability gaps when those states fail to act. The article contends that home states have a duty to protect against human rights abuses committed by their nationals abroad, and that this duty extends extraterritorially in its prescriptive reach, is assessed through a due diligence standard, and is operationalized through domestic enforcement measures.
This article considers the existing elements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime for deep-sea mining activities (DSM EIA regime) in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and analyses whether EIA is adequate in terms of environmental protection. To assess adequacy, EIA is elaborated upon as a due diligence obligation to ensure effective environmental protection and the obligation of reasonable regard for other activities in the marine environment. In addition, it includes effective stakeholder consultation and environmental monitoring. Also relevant to the deep-sea mining EIA regime are the provisions and institutional mechanisms of the recently concluded BBNJ Agreement, especially in terms of the obligation or duty to cooperate.
This article addresses the role of a due diligence obligation as a norm to remedy normative deficiencies in the international law of Arctic shipping arising from regulatory gaps. Specifically, three functions of a due diligence obligation are discussed: function as an obligation of conduct, the interstitial function, and the systemic function. It will be argued that through the three functions, to a certain extent, a due diligence obligation can contribute to remedying normative deficiencies in the international legal framework for preventing vessel-source marine pollution from Arctic shipping. At the same time, care must be taken in noting that the application of a due diligence obligation may be under challenges owing to its variable nature.
This article explores the interface of regimes in the law of the sea and international maritime law and discusses to what extent and how area-based management measures adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) may be employed to support the objectives of the 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 (BBNJ Agreement). In pursuing this quest, the article first explores the interface between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the BBNJ Agreement, and IMO instruments to support the conservation of marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Second, the article discusses the notion of area-based management on the high seas, as this is expected to be the principal point of convergence between UNCLOS, the BBNJ Agreement, and IMO instruments. Third, the article examines the IMO instruments that will be most useful in supporting area-based management measures adopted under the BBNJ Agreement. Finally, the article concludes with observations on the opportunity the BBNJ Agreement provides IMO to play a larger role in supporting conservation of the ocean commons.
This article examines how shipping-related measures (SRM) adopted through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) can contribute to the establishment and implementation of area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas, in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) under the BBNJ Agreement. It analyses the extent to which SRM established under existing IMO instruments may support the conservation objectives of ABMTs by mitigating the environmental impacts of international shipping. While recognising the primary role of flag states in regulating vessels, the article also considers the roles of port and coastal states in enforcing, monitoring, and reviewing SRM applicable to ships operating on the high seas. It argues that effective coordination among flag, port, and coastal states is essential to achieving this objective.
A central focus for the agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) was to clarify how environmental impact assessments (EIAs) were to be carried out for activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). An emerging use of the high seas is the operation of plastic removal technologies to address existing or legacy marine plastic pollution. While initiatives to remove existing plastic pollution from the marine environment such as The Ocean Cleanup have gained significant media attention, relatively less attention has been paid to the implications of new international legal developments for regulating such plastic removal activities. This article explores the BBNJ EIA provisions for these activities, as well as the negotiations on plastic removal in the Global Plastics Treaty process. Ultimately, it provides recommendations for best practices for EIAs regarding the removal of plastic pollution from the marine environment in ABNJ going forward.
This article examines the scope and operation of the Conference of the Parties' (COP) decision-making powers under Article 22 of the 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 (BBNJ Agreement), which will enter into force on 17 January 2026. It interrogates the persistent ambiguity surrounding the Agreement's relationship with other relevant legal instruments, frameworks, and bodies (IFBs), especially in the context of area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs). This article contends that prevailing interpretations of the "not to undermine" proviso in Articles 5(2) and 22(2) are overly restrictive, reflecting the political sensitivities of the negotiation phase rather than the treaty's object and purpose. It argues that in the implementation phase, "undermining" must be reinterpreted through the lens of the Agreement's objectives of conservation and sustainable use. Against this backdrop, this article advances a textual and teleological reading of Article 22 that supports a more proactive COP, capable of adopting measures that complement and reinforce, rather than merely defer to, existing IFBs. Special attention is given to the concept of "compatible" conservation measures in Article 22(1)(b) as a mechanism for ensuring a balanced and mutually reinforcing relationship of BBNJ institutions.
Human rights violations on board fishing vessels constitute a key challenge for the global fishing industry, especially in Southeast Asia. This work uncovers the human dimension of flag state jurisdiction under Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Building on the rules of reference in paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article 94, it discusses human rights instruments applicable to the international and the Southeast Asian regional context and identifies relevant rules and standards to guide flag states in the exercise of their jurisdiction over their fishing vessels.
Extensive labour and human rights violations perpetrated against fishers, especially Southeast Asian fishers, have prompted acute questions for the operation of international law. In opening a special issue concerned with the protection of Southeast Asian fishers under international law, this article briefly sets out the severe abuse to which fishers have been subjected and explains the complex legal questions that consequently emerge in international law. We explain how different bodies of international law interact, or could better interact, in regulating state conduct to protect fishers. We examine the human rights dimension of the law of the sea and the possible operation of human rights law in maritime settings, as well as other bodies of international law that have bearing on the protection of fishers. This discussion on the interaction of different bodies of international law provides the foundation for the more detailed and focused articles that follow in the special issue.
Among diverse institutions and frameworks seeking to address human rights and labour violations in fisheries in Southeast Asia (and elsewhere), some important steps have been taken by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). This article seeks to consider current developments in RFMOs, focusing on the development of a binding Conservation and Management Measure in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. It addresses the scope of powers of RFMOs to take action to protect fishers. The content of the new Conservation and Management Measure is examined, reflecting on key concerns and advances in relation to the scope of applicability of the measure and the rights protected. The engagement of RFMOs on this issue holds considerable promise, but the article demonstrates that a number of challenges must still be resolved.
The elimination of all forms of forced labour is considered a "fundamental right at work" of universal application. Fisheries is a well-documented and high-risk sector for the use of forced labour and arguably requires prioritization in international efforts to address this issue. What role can and do trade restrictive measures play in combating forced labour in fisheries, and are these measures consistent with international law? In answering these questions, this article demonstrates that import restrictions targeting forced labour products and states which facilitate the use of forced labour in fisheries are being employed in practice and are largely consistent with international law. Furthermore, these restrictions supplement and strengthen the existing international fisheries, trade and labour laws combating forced labour at sea.
This article examines the relationship between the navigational freedoms of all states and the sovereign rights of coastal states to authorize and construct offshore wind farms within their exclusive economic zone under the law of the sea. It focuses on how coastal states have considered shipping lanes and routeing measures in the planning of offshore wind projects, and how proposals for adjusting routeing measures to facilitate such development have been received by other states at the International Maritime Organization. The analysis shows that, contrary to some interpretations, the law of the sea provides coastal states with extensive procedural autonomy in balancing offshore wind development and navigational interests, including broad discretion to adapt routeing schemes to accommodate offshore wind. At the same time, early and inclusive marine spatial planning, supported by transparent notification and consultation procedures, can operationalize the preventive logic of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-promoting coexistence between navigation and offshore wind while contributing to the efficient and sustainable use of maritime space.
