The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) instituted the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an international organisation, to act as some sort of trustee or agent of mankind regarding the Area beyond national jurisdiction and the mineral resources therein, which are the common heritage of mankind. This chapter seeks to explore the extent to which the ISA has a role under the Convention, as modified by the 1994 Agreement, in the polar regions. It begins by exploring the role of the ISA under Part XI, as modified by the 1994 Agreement. Subsequently, it examines what role the ISA may play in the polar regions. Thereafter, it ends with some concluding remarks.

After being excluded from the development of early law of the sea due to colonialism, Africa has become quite active in the development of contemporary law of the sea ever since the various African States gained independence from colonial rule. Unfortunately, because many African states had not achieved independence during UNCLOS I and II, the outcomes of these Conferences did not include significant contributions from Africa. However, by the time of UNCLOS III, a significant number of African States had gained independence and had become active members of the international community. These African States were active in pushing for the convening of UNCLOS III to renegotiate the terms of modern law of the sea, and they made significant contributions during the Conference, particularly in the areas of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), continental shelf (CS), and international seabed area (the Area), which were eventually incorporated into UNCLOS 82. This article will focus specifically on the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf (CS) and will investigate whether African States have made significant contributions to the advancement of these two key functional economic maritime zones within national jurisdiction forty years after the adoption of UNCLOS.

The common heritage of mankind (CHM) is of a relatively recent origin. This study examines Arvid Pardo's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1967, in which he urged that body to designate the seabed beyond national control as CHM. The commentary next looks at Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 82, as amended by the 1994 Agreement, which incorporates the CHM as a core principle governing mineral mining in the deep bottom area beyond national jurisdiction. Finally, it discusses CHM's future prospects in relation to the draft International Seabed Authority (ISA) Exploitation Regulations, the Enterprise, an ISA organ that has yet to be operationalized, and ongoing discussions about an international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity under the UNCLOS. The purpose of this study is to highlight the complexity surrounding the CHM, which is a key principle governing deep seabed activities.

The deep seabed area beyond national jurisdiction(the Area) raises certain important maritime security issues such as the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction in the Area, prospects of piracy and terrorism against ships engaged in deep seabed mining activities, as well as the challenge that deep seabed mining activities could actually raise issues as regard environmental security. Yet relatively little has been articulated on maritime security and the Area. This chapter seeks to investigate possible maritime security issues that could arise in the Area, engaging with this from what may be considered a rather traditional state-centric maritime security approach, as well as a more non-State centric viewpoint.

This is a Study of issues relating to the operation of the Enterprise, in particular on the legal, technical and financial implications for the International Seabed Authority(ISA) and for States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 82) , taking into account the provisions of UNCLOS, the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (1994 Implementation Agreement) and the ISA regulations on prospecting and exploration for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts and polymetallic sulphides and nodules in the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area).

Historic rights in the law of the sea has been given prominence since the publication by China of the so-called nine-dash line map. Certain States have challenged this claim as inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (unclos) to which China is a State Party. On the other hand, it has been argued that although historic rights claims are not comprehensively regulated by the unclos they are actually governed by the principles of general international law. Consequently, this would require establishing if there is a general and consistent practice of States followed by them from a sense of legal obligation which establish historic rights claims are consistent with Customary International Law. This article explores the State Practice of African States in order to determine whether these States acknowledge and recognize historic rights claims as consistent with contemporary law of the sea.