Regulation of marine scientific research by the European community and its member states

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 26 October 2014, At: 12:24Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ocean Development & InternationalLawPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uodl20

Regulation of marine scientificresearch by the Europeancommunity and its member statesAlfred H. A. Soons aa Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea ,University of Utrecht , Utrecht, The NetherlandsPublished online: 16 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Alfred H. A. Soons (1992) Regulation of marine scientific research bythe European community and its member states, Ocean Development & International Law,23:2-3, 259-277, DOI: 10.1080/00908329209545987

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908329209545987

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uodl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00908329209545987

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908329209545987

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Ocean Development and International Law, Volume 23, pp. 259-277 0090-8320/92 $3.00 + .00Printed in the UK. AH rights reserved. Copyright © 1992 Taylor & Francis

Regulation of Marine Scientific Researchby the European Community

and its Member States

ALFRED H. A. SOONS

Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the SeaUniversity of UtrechtUtrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract The competence of the European Community (EC) in the area of marinescientific research, since 1987 based expressly on European Economic Community(EEC) Treaty provisions, is limited to the promotion and coordination of suchresearch in the EC member states; it may also itself conduct research. In addition,the Community is becoming increasingly active in international cooperation, thusexercising external competences in this field. The basic prohibitions in the EECTreaty on restrictive (discriminatory) measures in practice have little impact on themember states' policies with respect to marine scientific research. The establishmentof exclusive economic zones (EEZs) is a competence of the individual member statesof the Community. Three have already done so. Establishment of EEZs by the otherEC coastal member states will in practice have little or no implications for marinescientific research by foreign researchers, unless the coastal states involved woulddecide to exercise their new rights with respect to marine scientific research to thefullest extent recognized by customary international law. However, there are atpresent no indications that this is being contemplated. On the contrary, discussionsare being held on arrangements for simplifying procedures to obtain consent.

Introduction

At the beginning of my contribution on marine scientific research in this special issue onthe European Community and the Exclusive Economic Zone, dedicated to Albert W.Koers, the energetic and versatile founder of the Netherlands Institute for the Law of theSea (NILOS) and my predecessor as its director, a brief reference is appropriate toAlbert's personal involvement in the subject of marine research. Two instances may bementioned.1

The first concerns scientific investigations undertaken for the management of fishstocks. During the negotiations at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on theregime of fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an informal proposal wasdrafted that later developed into paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the 1982 UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea.2 It dealt with the duty of the coastal state to ensure, throughproper conservation and management measures, that the maintenance of the living re-sources in the EEZ is not endangered by over-exploitation. For this purpose, accordingto the proposed text, the coastal state should take into account the best scientific evi-dence. Albert's contribution, as a member of the EEC observer delegation, concernedthe addition in the proposed text of the qualifying words "available to it" after thereference to the best scientific evidence. As a result it was clear that coastal states wouldnot be under an obligation to actively conduct scientific investigations in order to obtain

259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4

260 Alfred H. A. Soons

the best scientific evidence necessary for taking the required measures, but could takethese measures on the basis of the scientific information they have access to. The provi-sion still stimulates scientific investigations, but leaves room for the varying capabilitiesof coastal states in this respect.3

The second instance occurred during the same period. In 1974 Albert, as a consul-tant to the secretariat of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), un-dertook an evaluation study of CICAR (Cooperative Investigations in the Caribbean andAdjacent Regions, a regional project under the auspices of IOC), with a view to makingproposals for a future institutional structure for marine scientific research in the Carib-bean. His evaluation report4 contributed to the subsequent establishment of the first IOCRegional Sub-Commission, IOCARIBE (Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and Adja-cent Regions). Albert's interest in the Caribbean, very much shared by the presentauthor, remained and recently culminated in his building a vacation home on Curacao.

The European Community (EC) also geographically extends to the Caribbean re-gion, through the French departements d'outre mer of Guadeloupe and Martinique,which are included in the territorial scope of the Treaty of Rome. Of course, this contri-bution on the implications for marine scientific research of the establishment of exclu-sive economic zones by the EC member states will not focus on the Caribbean, but willdeal with the Community and its member states in general.

At the outset a few remarks are in order on the concept of marine scientific re-search. An explicit, generally accepted definition of marine scientific research for thepurpose of its international legal regulation does not exist. For our purposes, marinescientific research can be defined as any scientific investigation having as object themarine environment (water column and atmosphere above it, seabed and subsoil). How-ever, resource exploration (including prospecting for mineral resources) and fisheriesresearch involving fishing are excluded; these activities are subject to coastal state regu-lation in accordance with their sovereignty or sovereign rights with respect to naturalresources in the territorial sea, continental shelf, fishing zone, and EEZ and thus gov-erned by a different legal regime. Hydrographic surveying is also excluded from itsscope.5 The present article focuses on the actual conduct of marine scientific research atsea.

Prior to an analysis of the positions of the EC and its member states with respect tothe regulation of marine scientific research, a brief overview will first be provided of thepresent international legal regime of marine scientific research. The particular issues ofthe establishment of EEZs in the North Sea and the initiatives to develop simplifiedprocedures for obtaining consent will then be dealt with, followed by some concludingremarks.

The International Legal Regime of MarineScientific Research

The present international legal regime of marine scientific research is mainly part ofcustomary international law.

The 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, which are still in force for anumber of EC member countries,6 contain few specific references to marine scientificresearch. From the provisions of the Territorial Sea Convention it can be concluded thatcoastal states are entitled to require prior consent for any research to be undertaken inthe territorial sea. The High Seas Convention clearly implies the freedom to conduct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Regulation of Marine Scientific Research 261

marine scientific research in the area covered by that convention. Only the ContinentalShelf Convention explicitly refers to scientific research, stipulating in Article 5 that"[t]he exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resourcesmust not . . . result in any interference with fundamental oceanographic or other scien-tific research carried out with the intention of open publication" (paragraph 1) and"[t]he consent of the coastal State shall be obtained in respect of any research concern-ing the continental shelf and undertaken there. Nevertheless, the coastal State shall notnormally withhold its consent if the request is submitted by a qualified institution with aview to purely scientific research into the physical or biological characteristics of thecontinental shelf, subject to the proviso that the coastal State shall have the right, if it sodesires, to participate or to be represented in the research, and that in any event theresults shall be published" (paragraph 8). 7

Subsequent state practice, however, clearly shows that coastal states, includingstates parties to the Continental Shelf Convention, have acquired further rights andduties with respect to marine scientific research on the continental shelf. These rightsand duties, it can be argued, do not conflict with the provisions of paragraph 8 of Article5, Continental Shelf Convention, but complement and further specify those provisions.Present state practice with respect to marine scientific research on the continental shelfto a very large extent follows the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law ofthe Sea (UNCLOS), but this Convention is not yet in force. The same applies to marinescientific research in the EEZ.8 It is therefore appropriate to summarize briefly themarine scientific research provisions of UNCLOS.9

UNCLOS provides for full coastal state control over marine scientific research inthe internal waters, archipelagic waters, and territorial sea (Article 245); express priorconsent is required. Marine scientific research conducted in the high seas (the water areabeyond the EEZ), and in the international seabed area is free (i.e., subject exclusively tothe jurisdiction of the flag state) (Articles 87, 143, 256, and 257), except for marinescientific research concerning the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical milesfrom the baseline of the territorial sea. Such research is subject to coastal state jurisdic-tion almost to the same extent as research conducted on the continental shelf within 200nautical miles from the baseline, the only difference being that the absolute consentregime for marine scientific research of direct significance for the exploration and ex-ploitation of natural resources only applies to certain designated areas of this part of thecontinental shelf (Article 246(6)).

All marine scientific research activities in the EEZ and on the continental shelfrequire coastal state consent (Article 246(1), (2)). This full consent regime is partlyabsolute, partly qualified. It is absolute to the extent that coastal states have the discre-tionary power to grant or withhold consent for certain categories of research, the mostimportant of which is research of direct significance for the exploration and exploitationof the natural resources (Article 246(5)).10 It is qualified to the extent that coastal statesare required to grant consent, in normal circumstances, for all other marine scientificresearch activities (Article 246(3), (4)). Coastal state consent need not necessarily begiven expressly. It may be implied in two situations: (1) when the coastal state has notreacted within four months to the communication informing it of the intention to conductthe research (i.e., the request for consent) (Article 252), or (2) when the research isundertaken by or under the auspices of an international organization of which the coastalstate is a member and the research project in question was approved by the coastal statewhen the decision was made by the organization to undertake the project, and the coastal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


state has not expressed any objection within four months of notification of the project bythe organization to it (Article 247).

States intending to undertake marine scientific research in the EEZ or on the conti-nental shelf of a coastal state should provide the coastal state with certain, specifiedinformation at least six months before the expected starting date of the research work;this is to be regarded as the request for coastal state consent (Article 248). The research-ing state must comply with a number of specified conditions, the most important ofwhich are granting the coastal state an opportunity to participate or to be represented inthe research, providing it with the results of the research and with access to the data andsamples collected, and assisting it in assessing or interpreting the data, samples, andresearch results (Article 249). All communications between the research state and thecoastal state should be made through appropriate official channels (Article 250). Incertain specified situations the coastal state has the right to order the suspension orcessation of research activities in progress (Article 253). Neighboring landlocked andgeographically disadvantaged states should be notified of proposed research projects(except for those covered by the absolute consent regime) and are entitled to requirecertain, specified information and assistance from the research state; they should begiven an opportunity, whenever feasible, to participate in the research (Article 254).

Disputes concerning the exercise by the coastal state of its rights to withhold consentfor marine scientific research or to order its suspension or cessation are subject only to acompulsory conciliation procedure and, even then, to a limited extent.11 All other dis-putes concerning marine scientific research are to be settled in accordance with proce-dures entailing binding decisions (Article 264 and Part XV of the Convention).

Although it can be concluded from surveys of state practice that the main elementsof UNCLOS's regime for marine scientific research have become part of customaryinternational law, certainly not all its detailed provisions have. Some will or cannotbecome rules of customary international law (for example, those on the rights of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states and on dispute settlement).12

The European Community: Competence and Actionsin the Field of Marine Scientific Research

Introduction

The European Community is a regional economic integration organization, and as suchit is primarily associated with the regulation of economic activities. The question there-fore arises whether the Community's actions in the economic field to some extent cover,or otherwise have repercussions for, the field of scientific research. Or, in other words,to what extent (if any) marine scientific research activities are or can be subject to ECrules and policy, either because they are included in the economic field or separately.

Until recently the European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty13 did not referexplicitly to scientific research as a subject of concern to the Community. This waschanged by the adoption of the Single European Act in 1986,14 which entered into forceon July 1, 1987. Article 24 of the Single European Act added to Part Three of the EECTreaty a new Title VI on Research and Technological Development. However, as will beseen, the EEC Treaty already had some impact on scientific research policy and regula-tion before the adoption of the Single European Act.

In order to look more closely at the extent to which marine scientific research is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


(potentially) affected by Community action, it is useful to make a distinction betweentwo categories of means used generally in Community law to achieve the main objectiveof the Treaty (i.e., integration of the markets of the member states into a single market),vis negative integration and positive integration.15 Negative integration refers to theremoval of national barriers to intra-Community trade and commerce by the directlyeffective basic prohibitions contained in the EEC Treaty. Positive integration is used todenote integration achieved by means of secondary legislation and other (incentive)measures adopted by the Community institutions. The ways in which these two catego-ries of means affect marine scientific research will be discussed in the next two sectionsof this article. It should be stressed, however, that Community measures affect onlymarine scientific research conducted in maritime areas under the jurisdiction of a mem-ber state by institutions from other member states; marine scientific research by institu-tions from third states is not affected by them.

One preliminary remark to be made here concerns the geographical scope of Com-munity rules under the EEC Treaty. According to the interpretation of Article 227 givenby the European Court of Justice, the Community rules (Treaty and secondary legisla-tion) are applicable not only in the territories of the member states (which include theirinternal waters and territorial seas) but also in the maritime areas where the memberstates exercise sovereign rights or jurisdiction under general international law.16

Negative Integration

Negative integration is achieved by compliance with the basic rules of the EEC Treatyon the freedom of movement of goods, persons, services, and capital. By prohibitingnational measures restricting these freedoms, the markets of the member states arebrought closer together.

The European Court of Justice has determined that all the main provisions con-nected with negative integration have direct effect, which means that these provisionscan be invoked by individuals before national courts.17 As a result, many restrictions onthe freedom of movement within the Community have been identified and challenged,not only in areas directly associated with the process of economic integration (as ex-pressly referred to in the Treaty) but also to unforeseen, indirectly related areas.

There are some exceptions recognized in the Treaty to these prohibitions of nationalmeasures restricting the freedoms of movement. For example, with respect to the freemovement of goods, Article 36 of the EEC Treaty allows restrictions justified ongrounds of, inter alia, public policy or public security; the protection of health and lifeof humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing historic orarchaeological value; or the protection of industrial or commercial property. Such re-strictions should not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a dis-guised restriction on trade between member states. Article 48(3), in conjunction withArticle 66, recognizes the right of member states to subject the free movement of per-sons and services to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security, orpublic health.

It is not easy to indicate precisely what the consequences are of these basic freedomsof movement, including the related permissible exceptions, for the national legislationand administrative practices of the member states relating to the conduct of marinescientific research. The following remarks concern exclusively the actual conduct ofmarine scientific research at sea. (Issues relating to the funding and conduct of marinescientific research in laboratories on land are not addressed.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


It is submitted that a distinction should be made here between (1) marine scientificresearch conducted for or by a commercial company, and (2) marine scientific researchconducted by governmental or academic research institutions for noncommercial pur-poses. The second category of research, which is by far the largest part of marinescientific research activities undertaken by institutions within the member states of theEC, may not be subject at all to the prohibitions on national restrictive measures (dis-criminating between research by national institutions and institutions from other memberstates), because the activity in question (marine scientific research) is, first of all, not tobe regarded as an "economic" activity and, second, could be covered by the exceptionsbased on public policy (and perhaps public security).18

The situation may be somewhat different with respect to the first category, that is,marine scientific research either for commercial purposes (a very small part of marinescientific research) or conducted by a commercial company under contract for a govern-ment or academic institution. In these cases, which may be regarded as economic activi-ties, the nondiscrimination rules would seem applicable. For example, a requirement bythe member state that only its nationals may conduct the research, or that a researchvessel registered in that member state must be employed, could be unacceptable. Mostother coastal state requirements, if applied on a nondiscriminatory basis involving objec-tive criteria, would seem acceptable.

Positive Integration

Positive integration is achieved by Community institutions adopting specific measuresaimed at furthering the integration process. Such measures may either bring nationalmeasures into alignment with each other in such a way that any distortions of trade thatthese may cause are removed, or they may introduce a common regime that replacesexisting national rules altogether. Article 189 of the EEC Treaty lists the instrumentsavailable to the Community for this purpose: regulations, directives, decisions, recom-mendations, and opinions. Over the years, a number of additional instruments, withvarying degrees of legal force, have been developed in practice, such as treaties, acts ofrepresentatives of governments of member states meeting within Council, communica-tions, declarations, resolutions, and conclusions. In the present context it is important tonote that several of these instruments may be used to establish general rules for theprovision of financial contributions (grants, subsidies) by the Community, or for theaward of such contributions in individual cases.

Any action taken by a Community organ by means of one of these instrumentsrequires a basis in one or more provisions of the EEC Treaty; otherwise the organ wouldbe acting ultra vires. Article 235 provides a basis for Community action in cases wherethe Treaty does not expressly provide a basis for such actions, if that action is considerednecessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of theobjectives of the Community. In such cases, the Council, acting unanimously on aproposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may takethe appropriate measures. Before the entry into force of the Single European Act, Com-munity actions in the field of scientific research were taken on the basis of Article 235.

The Single European Act in 1987 added a series of provisions on research andtechnological development to the EEC Treaty (Articles 130f-130q, in Title VI); theircontents can be briefly summarized as follows.19

Article 130f provides that the Community, in order to strengthen the scientific andtechnological basis of European industry and to encourage it to become more competi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


tive at the international level, shall encourage undertakings, research centers, and uni-versities in their research and technological development activities. Their efforts to co-operate with one another shall be supported, aiming notably at enabling undertakings toexploit the Community's internal market potential to the fullest, in particular through theopening up of national public contracts, the definition of common standards, and theremoval of legal and fiscal barriers to that cooperation.

From Article 130g it is clear that the Community's activities in this field are in-tended as complementary to the activities of the member states. The Community shallcarry out the following activities:

(a) implementation of research, technological development, and demonstration pro-grams, by promoting cooperation with undertakings, research centers, and universities;

(b) promotion of cooperation in the field of Community research, technologicaldevelopment, and demonstration with third countries and international organizations;

(c) dissemination and optimization of the results of activities in Community re-search, technological development, and demonstration; and

(d) stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers in the Community.According to Article 130h, the member states shall, in liaison with the Commission,

coordinate among themselves the policies and programs carried out at the national level.In close contact with the member states, the Commission may take any useful initiativeto promote such coordination.

Articles 130i-130p lay down how the Community's own activities are to be con-ducted. Multiannual framework programs should be adopted, identifying the scientificand technical objectives, defining their respective priorities, setting out the main lines ofthe activities envisaged and fixing the amount deemed necessary, the detailed rules forfinancial participation by the Community in the program as a whole, and the breakdownof this amount between the various contemplated activities. Such programs shall beadopted by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission andafter consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee (Arti-cle 130q, paragraph 1).

The framework program shall be implemented through specific programs developedwithin each activity. Also, supplementary programs, in which only certain memberstates participate, may be established. The specific and supplementary programs shall beadopted by the Council by a qualified majority, after consulting the Economic and SocialCommittee and in cooperation with the European Parliament (Article 130q, paragraph2).

Article 130n provides for cooperation in implementing the multiannual frameworkprograms, with third states or international organizations. Such arrangements may be thesubject of international agreements between the Community and the third states in-volved.

In the recent 1992 Treaty on European Union,20 which is not yet in force, Article 3of the EEC Treaty defining the activities of the Community is amended to the effect thatthe promotion of research and technological development is expressly included in the listof activities of the Community. Amendments are also made to the provisions on researchand technological development in Title VI of Part Three of the Treaty. That title willbecome Title XV of the same part. Most amendments are not of a very significantnature. The Community's activities in this field remain complementary to those of themember states, but the role of the Community is strengthened somewhat, including theCommission's right to take, in close cooperation with the member states, any useful

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


initiative to promote coordination of national policies and Community policy (Article130h).

Since 1984, three multiannual framework programs have been adopted by the Coun-cil.21 In the second, a specific program dealing exclusively with marine science andtechnology (MAST I) was included. This program, for the period 1987-1991, had abudget of 50 million ECU. These funds are used for contributions, up to a maximum of50 percent of the total costs, to projects undertaken jointly by scientific teams of at leasttwo member states. The grants are awarded after a call for proposals and a selectionprocess. The program covers both seagoing and laboratory research, and has a largecomponent of basic research. The seagoing research projects are at present concentratedin the northeast Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.

The third multiannual framework program, for the period 1990-1994, again in-cludes a specific program on marine science and technology (MAST II), this time with abudget of 102 million ECU. It is structured in a way similar to MAST I.

Within the framework of MAST, the Commission of the EC has initiated studies toimprove the cooperation between marine research institutions in the member states. Oneof the achievements in this context has been the development of "Euroship," a databaseavailable since 1990 providing full information on all research vessels in the memberstates, including their cruise schedules. This may improve the efficient use of availableseagoing research facilities. Another initiative involves the development of simplifiedprocedures for obtaining consent to conduct research in waters of member states. Thisproject will be discussed further below.

Other specific programs also have marine components, the main ones being Fish-eries Research, and the Environment Program (formerly "STEP"). The marine compo-nent of the latter program focuses on studies of the anthropogenic impacts on the near-shore marine environment.

The EC Commission and the European Science Foundation have together estab-lished the European Committee on Ocean and Polar Sciences.

The Community now has observer status with the International Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES), and maintains informal contacts with a number of inter-national organizations in the field of marine science, including IOC.

From the above survey of the provisions in the EEC Treaty on research, it can beconcluded that the Community competence in the field of marine research is restrictedstrictly to the promotion (through funding), coordination, and the promotion of interna-tional cooperation in such research (through agreements with third states and interna-tional organizations). The Community may also itself conduct marine scientific re-search.22 There is no express basis for Community action with respect to the regulationof the conduct of marine scientific research at sea (e.g., harmonization of nationalclearance procedures, and related conditions). Only Article 235 could possibly be usedfor that purpose.

The European Community and VNCLOS

What are the consequences of the conclusions of the previous two sections of this articlefor the European Community as a potential party to UNCLOS?23 The Community signedthe Convention on December 7, 1984, in accordance with the provisions of Article 305of the Convention and its Annex IX. The Community is entitled to become a party of theConvention when a majority of its member states become parties, in accordance withArticle 306 and Annex IX.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


When the Community signed the Convention in 1984, the declaration made by itspecifying the matters governed by the Convention in respect of which competence hasbeen transferred to the Community by its member states (as required by Article 2 ofAnnex IX), did not mention marine scientific research. That declaration referred only tomarine fisheries, marine environmental protection, and in a general way to certain ele-ments of Parts X and XI of the Convention.24 However, the declaration mentions that thearea of competence transferred by the member states to the Community is, by its verynature, subject to continuous development. The Community therefore reserves the rightto make new declarations at a later date. Nevertheless, no such declarations have beenmade, notwithstanding the fact that important developments have taken place within theCommunity since 1984.

It should be noted here that previously, during the negotiations leading to UNCLOS,the member states of the Community did not make any common proposals in the area ofmarine scientific research, nor has the EEC observer delegation been active in that area.

If the Community would now make a new declaration (either as a signatory, or whenbecoming a party to the Convention when a new declaration is required), it seemsobvious that a reference to the Community's competence in the area of marine scientificresearch should be included. The inclusion of express provisions in the EEC Treatyproviding a basis for Community action in the field of science, and the subsequentimplementation of those provisions also in the field of marine scientific research (includ-ing the conclusion of international agreements in this field), warrants such a conclu-sion.25 The exact phrasing of this reference, however, may be subject to debate. It issubmitted that the Community's competence in matters governed by Part XIII of the Lawof the Sea Convention would extend to the promotion of and international cooperation inmarine scientific research, and could also be based on the Community's right, as aninternational organization, to itself conduct marine scientific research.

The Position of EC Member States

Introduction

Since the Community's role with respect to the conduct of marine scientific research islimited, it will be clear that for an assessment of the implications for marine scientificresearch of the establishment of EEZs by the EC member states, an analysis of thepresent practice of those member states is essential.

Most marine scientific research conducted in foreign waters by institutions from ECmember states is carried out by institutions from the United Kingdom, France, Germany,Italy, and the Netherlands. These can be considered the "research states" (at the sametime being coastal states), whereas the other member states are more to be considered ascoastal states from the point of view of the international legal regime of marine scientificresearch.

To some extent this has been reflected in the positions taken at the Third UNConference on the Law of the Sea, the "research states" generally being more in favorof less restrictions (more freedom) for marine scientific research in areas under coastalstate jurisdiction beyond the territorial sea. Similarly, this is somewhat reflected in thenational regulations and administrative practices relating to the conduct of marine scien-tific research in EC member states' maritime areas. These will be briefly surveyed inthis section.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


The following survey is based mainly on the information included on the variousmember states (except Ireland) in the 1989 publication by the UN Office for OceanAffairs and the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea: National Legislation, Regulationsand Supplementary Documents on Marine Scientific Research in Areas under NationalJurisdiction.26

The survey focuses on the practice of the member states with respect to marinescientific research conducted by institutions from other states (including other EC mem-ber states) in the marine areas under their jurisdiction; their practice with respect tomarine scientific research conducted by their own institutions in waters under the juris-diction of other states has not been examined for this purpose. From an earlier study,however, it can be concluded that EC member states in practice never object to otherstates exercising rights with respect to marine scientific research in conformity with theprovisions of Part XIII of UNCLOS. Only the provisions on the rights of landlocked andgeographically disadvantaged states and on research conducted by or under the auspicesof international organizations have never been applied, and instances of the actual use ofthe implied consent rule are scarce.27

Belgium

Belgium does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research. Belgiangovernmental policy is to require express consent for any research to be conducted in theterritorial sea. The situation is less clear with respect to research in the fisheries zoneand continental shelf area. Research involving fishing in the fisheries zone appears to begoverned by fisheries legislation requiring a permit or exemption. For other research inthe fisheries zone or continental shelf area, notification is required. Belgian offshoremining legislation requires a license for "scientific exploration" of the mineral and othernonliving resources of the seabed and subsoil of the territorial sea and of the continentalshelf.

Applications for authorization and notifications must be made through diplomaticchannels, at least three months before the proposed starting date. Specified informationmust be submitted, but no standard form is prescribed. Results and conclusions of theresearch must be communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In practice, applica-tions are often made less than three months in advance and are always approved.

Denmark

Denmark does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research. Conti-nental shelf legislation requires permission for research concerning the natural resourcesof the continental shelf. Government instructions require applications for permission toconduct marine scientific research in areas under Danish jurisdiction (territorial sea,continental shelf, and fisheries zone) to be made through diplomatic channels at least 30days before the start of the research cruise. A standard application form, "Notificationof Proposed Research Cruise" (the ICES form), is to be used. Permission is granted innearly all cases. However, sometimes permission for research in the territorial sea isconditional on participation of a Danish observer on board. As a general rule, copies ofreports on research results must be submitted afterwards.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


France

Article 2 of Act No. 86-826 of 11 July 1986 concerning marine scientific research,amending Act No. 76-655 of 16 July 1976 concerning the Economic Zone off the coastof the territory of the Republic, stipulates that any marine scientific research carried outin the territorial sea, economic zone, and on the continental shelf shall be subject toauthorization and, where appropriate, regulations on the conditions and according to themodalities determined by Decree. Such a Decree has not yet been promulgated; a drafthas been prepared and is now being discussed within government departments.

In practice, the French government applies in principle the provisions of Part XIIIof UNCLOS. Applications must be forwarded through diplomatic channels at least fourmonths in advance, accompanied by specified information.

Germany

Germany does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research. TheFederal Mining Law, Article 132, requires permission for research activities on thecontinental shelf that by their purpose and nature are obviously unsuitable for the pros-pecting or exploration of mineral resources. Resource exploration and prospecting aregoverned by other provisions of the Federal Mining Law.

According to administrative practice, any marine scientific research in the territorialsea requires permission, which is granted at the discretion of the competent Germanauthorities. Research activities relating to the water column above the continental shelfare not subject to permission, since Germany does not claim an EEZ, but notification isexpected. Also in the case of research concerning living resources in the fishing zone,prior notification should be given.

Applications or notifications should be made through diplomatic channels. No stan-dard form is prescribed. Also, the lead time has not been officially specified.

Greece

Greece does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research, but in aDiplomatic Note (No. 625.1/207/AS 90 of 31 January 1978) from the Ministry of For-eign Affairs, administrative practice is explained.

Requests for permission to carry out marine scientific research in the Greek territo-rial sea or on the continental shelf (no fisheries zone has been established) should bemade through diplomatic channels, and must be submitted at least two months in ad-vance. The note specifies the information to be supplied (no standard form), and indi-cates that the request should include an understanding that Greek scientific personnel isinvited to follow the research and that the results will be submitted to Greek authoritiesand will be published.

Because of the dispute with Turkey on the delimitation of the continental shelf in theAegean Sea, the conduct of marine scientific research in that area by foreign institutionsis not permitted.

Ireland

Ireland does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research. Irish ad-ministrative practice requires prior permission for marine scientific research in the terri-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


torial sea, fisheries zone, and on the continental shelf. Requests should be submittedthrough diplomatic channels six months in advance. In practice, however, requests re-ceived not less than three months prior to the commencement of the research are nor-mally processed. Specified information must be supplied; no standard form is pre-scribed. Often the condition is made that an Irish observer will be on board. Researchreports must always be made available subsequently.

Italy

Italy does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research. Italian prac-tice is formulated in a Note of 9 July 1984 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs onRegulation of Scientific Research by Foreign Vessels in Areas under Italian Jurisdiction(i.e., territorial sea and continental shelf). This Note to a considerable extent follows theprovisions of Part XIII of UNCLOS. Requests must be submitted not less than sixmonths in advance of the starting date of the research project, through diplomatic chan-nels.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific research.Marine scientific research involving the taking of fish in the Netherlands fishing zone,which includes the territorial sea, is governed by fisheries legislation. This legislationimplements the European Community's Common Fisheries Policy. The Minister of Ag-riculture and Fisheries is empowered to grant exemptions from the prohibitions on fish-ing, for the purpose of fishing for scientific research. As far as research on the continen-tal shelf is concerned, Article 2(2) of the Continental Shelf Mining Act (which alsoapplies in the outer nine miles of the territorial sea) provides that research "which maylead to the proving of the presence of exploitable quantities of mineral resources" mayonly be undertaken with a prior exemption from the Ministers of Economic Affairs andof Education and Sciences. Since the entry into force of this Act in 1965 such anexemption has been granted only once. Apparently all other scientific research done onthe Netherlands' continental shelf has been considered as not coming within the scope ofArticle 2(2) of the Continental Shelf Mining Act.

The Netherlands requires three months advance notification of research activities tobe conducted in areas under Netherlands jurisdiction. The notification should be submit-ted through diplomatic channels.

Portugal

Decree-Law No. 52/85 of 1 March 1985 contains a number of provisions regulating theconduct of marine scientific research in the Portuguese territorial sea and EEZ. Suchresearch requires authorization by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (presumably to beapplied for through diplomatic channels). Requests must be submitted at least six monthsin advance, together with specified information. The obligations for the research institu-tions are in accordance with the provisions of Part XUI of UNCLOS.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


Spain

Marine scientific research in areas under Spanish jurisdiction (territorial sea, continentalshelf, and EEZ) is governed by the provisions of Royal Decree No. 799/81 of 27February 1981, which closely follows the provisions of UNCLOS Part XIII {inter alia,use of diplomatic channels and six months lead time). Especially noteworthy is Article10(2), which provides that consent for marine scientific research in the EEZ and on thecontinental shelf may be presumed if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not reactedwithin four months after receipt of the request for permission.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom does not have special legislation regulating marine scientific re-search. Fisheries legislation provides that fishing for the purpose of scientific research isnot governed by the fisheries regulations but is subject to special arrangements with theforeign government involved.

United Kingdom practice is to require applications to carry out marine scientificresearch in the territorial sea, fishing zone, or on the continental shelf to be submittedthrough diplomatic channels at least three months prior to the commencement of theresearch cruise. For this purpose a standard application form is prescribed; recently theUK government has been using the Standard Form A included as Annex I in MarineScientific Research: A Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant Provisions of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, published by the UN Office for OceanAffairs and the Law of the Sea in 1991. Details of the research results should be pro-vided within 12 months. Participation of a British observer may be required.

Conclusions

So far, only three EC member states have enacted special legislation dealing with marinescientific research (France, Portugal, and Spain). It is interesting to note that these arethe only three member states of the European Community that have established EEZs.All member states require the use of diplomatic channels for clearance requests. Mosthave designated one office in the Foreign Ministry to process them, and sometimes tocoordinate interdepartmental consultations. Only two prescribe a standard form for thispurpose (Denmark and the United Kingdom), although the ICES standard form is oftenused, especially among North Sea coastal states. The officially required lead time variesconsiderably, from 30 days (Denmark) through 2 months (Greece), 3 months (Belgium,the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom), 4 months (France) to 6 months (Ireland,Italy, Portugal, and Spain), although it appears that these official lead times are in somecases not strictly enforced.

Except for Germany and the Netherlands, all member states routinely require thesubmission of postcruise reports on research results. Belgium, Germany, and the Nether-lands appear to be the only three member states that do not use the right to requirecoastal state participation in the research. Spain is the only member state explicitlyproviding for the possibility of implied consent (in accordance with UNCLOS's provi-sions) for research in areas beyond the territorial sea.

Each year, several hundred clearance requests from institutions in EC member statesare processed in this way by the administrations of other EC member states. Most ofthem can be considered routine matters. None of the states makes a distinction in treat-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


ing clearance requests between requests from institutions in EC member states and otherstates.

The above survey of present practice leads to the following conclusions with respectto the implications for marine scientific research of the establishment of exclusive eco-nomic zones by the EC member states.

For France, Portugal, and Spain, which already have EEZs (only in the AtlanticOcean area), there are obviously no implications. For the Mediterranean Sea areas ofFrance and Spain, the situation is identical to that of the other Mediterranean Sea mem-ber states (Italy and Greece). At present these states have only a territorial sea andcontinental shelf. Establishment of an EEZ would mean that any marine scientific re-search in the water column of the area claimed by them would be subject to theirjurisdiction, in accordance with customary international law. Such research at present isformally free; however, it appears that in practice such research by foreign institutions isin most (if not all) cases notified in advance. In fact, it is treated as if jurisdiction withrespect to marine scientific research is exercised by those coastal states.

For the North Sea coastal states (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium,and the United Kingdom) and Ireland the situation is somewhat different, since each atpresent has not only a territorial sea and continental shelf, but also a 200-mile fishingzone. As a result, they already claim jurisdiction with respect to certain kinds of re-search in the water column (fisheries research). In practice, moreover, they already wishto be notified of any marine scientific research in this area and that seems to be commonpractice by research states. The formal establishment of EEZs by these states need nothave any practical consequences, since they are not required by international law to fullyexercise all rights (with corresponding duties) they acquire under customary interna-tional law with respect to marine scientific research in their EEZs. This issue will befurther discussed in the next section.

Establishment of EEZs in the North Sea

At the initiative of the government of the Netherlands (within the framework of theInternational Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of the North Sea), consultationshave taken place during the past two years among the coastal states of the North Sea onthe desirability of the coordinated establishment of EEZs (or some other form of juris-dictional zone) in that area mainly for the purpose of increasing coastal state powers withrespect to vessel-source pollution and dumping.28 During those consultations the issue ofjurisdiction over marine scientific research also came up. Several delegations (notablyBelgium and Germany) expressed concern that the establishment of EEZs could lead tofurther restrictions on the conduct of marine scientific research in the North Sea area.

Agreement was reached on recommending to the governments concerned that theeventual establishment of EEZs in the North Sea should not lead to any new restrictionsor impediments for the conduct of marine scientific research. It is expected that thegovernments involved will take decisions on this matter in September 1992.

Although the policy objective of this recommendation seems clear (safeguarding theinterests of marine scientific research, by application of a sort of "stand still" principle),and can be regarded as a reflection of the importance attached by the governmentsinvolved to the promotion of marine scientific research, questions may arise as to itsprecise implications. Implementation of this recommendation would mean that the NorthSea coastal states involved, when formally establishing EEZs, will abstain from fully

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


exercising their rights under international law with respect to marine scientific researchin their EEZs. Taken literally, their present practices would be "frozen"—at least, nomore stringent requirements than applicable at present could be introduced—but thiswould result in the continuation of the present diverging (and even not always nationallyconsistent!) practices.

It is submitted that it would be far better, for achieving the intended policy objec-tive, to reach agreement among the North Sea coastal states (or possibly even a largergroup of states) on an arrangement simplifying national clearance procedures and relatedconditions, which at the same time would introduce uniformity for this purpose. Sucharrangements are the subject of the next section.

Simplified Procedures

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

In the late 1960s and the 1970s, research institutions in the northeast Atlantic regionbegan to experience difficulties (mainly in the form of what they considered complexadministrative procedures, and sometimes refusals to requests) in the planning and exe-cution of their marine scientific research projects in areas under coastal state jurisdic-tion. These problems were frequently discussed in the framework of the InternationalCouncil for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES),29 and several attempts have been made toagree on simplified procedures for obtaining consent.30 These attempts have failed, how-ever; the only success has been the drafting of a Standard Form for this purpose (entitled"Notification of Proposed Research Cruise," the so-called ICES form), which is still inuse in several member states of ICES. The main reason for not reaching agreementwithin ICES on simplified procedures probably was the politically heterogeneous mem-bership of ICES (membership included both NATO and Warsaw Pact member states),and the resulting sensitivity of certain research projects in certain geographical areas(military security aspects).

Helsinki Convention

In the present context it is interesting to note that the member states of the Baltic MarineEnvironment Protection Commission ("Helsinki Commission"),31 two of which aremember states of the European Community (Denmark and Germany), have recentlyagain discussed this issue. This time, the member states succeeded in adopting a Recom-mendation on Procedures for Granting Permits for Monitoring and Research Activitiesin the Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zones, Fishing Zones or ContinentalShelves (HELCOM Recommendation 12/1, adopted on 21 February 1991). In this Rec-ommendation, the Helsinki Commission refers to the importance of the Baltic Monitor-ing Program (BMP) and the sometimes occurring need of instant and joint investigationsat sudden extreme events, for a successful implementation of which the application ofsmooth national administrative procedures for granting timely cruise permits for areasunder coastal state jurisdiction is a prerequisite. The Commission regrets that no realimprovements in the national administrative procedures have been experienced duringrecent years, and that these procedures frequently create major problems for the imple-mentation of joint monitoring programs. Therefore, the Commission urges the Contract-ing Parties to the Helsinki Convention to grant one year permits for planned research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


activities in the EEZ, fishing zone, or continental shelf, in the framework of the BMP,during which period the coastal state is only to be notified in advance for each individualcruise. Also, the Contracting Parties are urged to facilitate and without unnecessarydelay grant the permits in connection with the BMP and for research vessels for allBaltic Sea states to carry out joint scientific studies of common interest, and to submit tothe Environment Committee information about their efforts made in this respect. Itappears that in the short period since its adoption the Recommendation has not yet hadany impact. No instances are known of implementation of the recommended practice.

European Community

The question of the administrative procedures for obtaining coastal state consent hasrecently also come up in discussions among the research vessel operators within theEuropean Community. Many regard the present procedures, often complex and timeconsuming, even when routine research activities are involved, a major obstacle to theefficient planning and execution of marine scientific research projects. Also, researchprojects sponsored by the Community have been negatively affected in some instancesby such bureaucratic procedures. This has led the Commission (DG XII) of the EC totake the initiative for a study on possible ways to arrive at simplified procedures forobtaining consent.32 A first Draft Proposal for Simplified Procedures for Obtaining Con-sent to Conduct Marine Scientific Research in Maritime Areas under Jurisdiction of ECMember States has recently been submitted for initial comments by the member states.

The discussions take place in the Working Group of Legal Experts, of the SeniorOfficials on Law of the Sea (a group established by the Council to coordinate memberstate policies with regard to the law of the sea). The current draft proposal is based onthe following considerations:

• The simplified procedures should themselves also be simple—i.e., no complexcategories, conditions, and rules concerning the various situations in which theseprocedures should apply, but one straight-forward system. Thus, the procedureswould apply to all marine scientific research in all areas under coastal state juris-diction, including the territorial sea. Resource exploration remains governed byrelevant national legislation.

• The participating coastal states should have the opportunity to safeguard theirvital (security) interests, by designating certain maritime areas under their juris-diction where the procedures do not apply—e.g., for military security purposes orbecause of disputed claims.

• These procedures, originally intended to apply among the EC member states, canbe extended to other states on the basis of full reciprocity.

The draft proposes the following arrangement:

• All communications between participating states concerning the conduct of ma-rine scientific research projects shall be made through designated Marine Scien-tific Research Clearance Offices (one in each state);

• Marine scientific research activities to be conducted in areas under the jurisdic-tion (including the territorial sea) of coastal states participating in the arrangementshall be notified to the Marine Scientific Research Clearance Office of the coastalstate involved at least three months in advance of the starting date (actual fieldwork) of the research activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


• The notification should be made by means of a standard form, for which purposethe UN Draft Standard Form A, referred to above, should be used.

• The coastal state may object to the conduct of the research within one month ofthe receipt of the notification. Such objection must be in conformity with thecoastal state's rights under the provisions of Part XIII of UNCLOS and should beaccompanied by a full explanation.

• A preliminary report of the research project should be submitted to the coastalstate automatically within three months of the completion of the research activi-ties.

If agreement is reached on such an arrangement, the question arises as to in whatkind of instrument it should be laid down. If adoption of a legally binding instrument ispreferred, there seem to be two main options. The first would be restricted to the ECmember states—that is, a directive on the basis of Article 235 of the EEC Treaty. Thesecond would be an international agreement, which could be open also for nonmemberstates. The second option would seem preferable for the present purposes.

If a nonbinding arrangement is preferred, this can be done in various ways, depend-ing on whether or not the arrangement should also be open for participation by nonmem-ber states. Any decision by the competent authorities of the states involved would besufficient for this purpose.

Concluding Remarks

The establishment of EEZs is a competence of the individual member states of theCommunity. Three have already done so, for all (Portugal) or parts (France and Spain)of their coastal areas. Establishment of EEZs by the other EC coastal member states willin practice have little or no implications for marine scientific research, unless the coastalstates involved would decide to exercise their new rights with respect to marine scientificresearch to the fullest extent recognized by customary international law (in particular,increasing the required lead time and imposing additional conditions). However, thereare at present no indications that this is being contemplated. On the contrary, discussionsare being held on arrangements for simplifying procedures to obtain consent.

The competence of the Community in the area of marine scientific research islimited to the promotion and coordination of such research in the member states; it mayalso itself conduct research. Under Community programs, increasing amounts of fund-ing are available for marine science projects. This already has a significant positiveimpact on marine scientific research within the Community. The Community is alsobecoming increasingly active in international cooperation, and thus exercises externalcompetences. However, establishment of EEZs by the Community's member stateswould not seem to have any impact on the Community's involvement in marine scientificresearch in those areas.

Notes

1. Mention should of course also be made to Albert Koers' book, International Regulationof Marine Fisheries: A Study of Regional Fisheries Organizations (London: Fishing News Ltd.,1973), which deals with the functions of regional fisheries organizations concerning research, at211-219.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature December 10,1982, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122 (1982), 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982) (hereafter cited as UNCLOS).

3. On the meaning of the phrase "the best scientific evidence available to it," see W. T.Burke, "U.S. Fishery Management and the New Law of the Sea," American Journal of Interna-tional Law 76 (1982): 33-35.

4. CICAR: Past, Present and Future. An Evaluation Study of a Regional IOC Program,Report to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of Unesco (1975, mimeographed).

5. A detailed discussion of the definition of marine scientific research for the purpose of itsinternational legal regime can be found in A. H. A. Soons, Marine Scientific Research and theLaw of the Sea (Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1982), 5-8 and 118-125.

6. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, April 29, 1958, 516U.N.T.S. 206: Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United King-dom; Convention on the High Seas, April 29, 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 82: Belgium, Denmark,Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom; Convention on theContinental Shelf, April 29, 1958, 499 U.N.T.S. 312: Denmark, France, Greece, the Nether-lands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom; Convention on Fishing and Conservation of theLiving Resources of the High Seas, April 29, 1958, 559 U.N.T.S. 286: Belgium, Denmark,France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

7. For a detailed analysis of the international legal regime of marine scientific researchunder the 1958 Geneva Conventions, see Soons, supra note 5, at 43-97.

8. A. H. A. Soons, "The Developing Regime of Marine Scientific Research: Recent Euro-pean Experience and State Practice," in New Developments in Marine Science and Technology:Economic, Legal and Political Aspects of Change, ed. L. M. Alexander, S. Allen, and L. C.Hanson (Honolulu: Law of the Sea Institute, University of Hawaii, 1989), 293-307; W. Plesmannand V. Röben, "Marine Scientific Research: State Practice versus Law of the Sea?" in Law of theSea at the Crossroads: The Continuing Search for a Universally Accepted Régime, ed. R. Wolfram(Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1991), 373-392.

9. A detailed analysis can be found in Soons, supra note 5, at 101-259. See also The Law ofthe Sea. Marine Scientific Research. A Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant Provisions ofthe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (New York: UN Office for Ocean Affairsand the Law of the Sea, 1991) and B. Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in theNew Law of the Sea (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989), 134-159.

10. The other situations in which the coastal state has the discretionary power to refuseconsent are research involving drilling into the continental shelf, the use of explosives, or theintroduction of harmful substances into the marine environment (Article 246(5)(b)); research in-volving the construction, operation, or use of artificial islands, installations, and structures (Arti-cle 246(5)(c)); where the application contains information regarding the nature and objectives ofthe research project which is inaccurate (Article 246(5)(d)); and where the researching state orcompetent international organization has outstanding obligations to the coastal state from a priorresearch project (Article 246(5)(d)).

11. According to Article 297 (2) (b), the Conciliation Commission shall not call in questionthe exercise by the coastal state of its discretion to designate specific areas as referred to in Article246(6), or of its discretion to withhold consent in accordance with Article 246(5).

12. Soons, supra note 8, at 304.13. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, March 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S.

3 (hereafter cited as EEC Treaty).14. Single European Act, February 17 and 28, 1986, 25 I.L.M. 506 (1986).15. The concepts of negative and positive integration were first introduced by J. Tinbergen,

International Economic Integration, 2d ed. (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1965), 76. See also P. J. G.Kapteyn and P. VerLoren van Themaat, Introduction to the Law of the European Communities, 2ded., ed. L. W. Gormley (Deventer and Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1990), 79-82 and passim.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4


16. Case 3, 4, and 6/76, Kramer, Judgment of 14 July 1976, European Court Reports (1976)1310-1311, at cons. 30-31. See also A. W. Koers, "The External Authority of the EEC in Regardto Marine Fisheries," Common Market Law Review 14 (1977): 274-275 and 289-298.

17. Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos, Judgment of 5 February 1963, European Court Reports(1963) 1.

18. This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that such national restrictive measures maynot be permitted by the rules of the international law of the sea; this applies in particular to marinescientific research in areas beyond the territorial sea, which does not come within the scope of thecoastal state's discretionary power to grant or refuse consent.

19. More detailed analyses can be found in Technological Development and Cooperation inEurope—Legal Aspects, Asser Institute Colloquium on European Law, Session XVI, 1986 (TheHague: T. M. C. Asser Institute, 1987); Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, supra note 15, at645-650; J. Elizalde, "Legal Aspects of Community Policy on Research and Technological De-velopment (RTD)," Common Market Law Review 29 (1992): 309-346.

20. Treaty on European Union, February 7, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 247 (1992).21. The first program was based on Article 235 of the EEC Treaty, the later ones on the new

provisions in the Treaty.22. In this respect, the European Community can be regarded a "competent international

organization" for the purposes of the provisions of Part XIII of UNCLOS. Of particular relevancewould be Article 247, on simplified procedures for obtaining coastal state consent in cases ofmarine scientific research conducted by or under the auspices of international organizations. Seefurther Soons, supra note 5, at 129-131 and 178-182.

23. On this issue in general see, K. R. Simmonds, "The European Economic Communityand the New Law of the Sea," in Recueil des Cours 1989-VI (Dordrecht: Martinus NijhoffPublishers, 1991), 108-154; A. H. A. Soons, "The Position of the EEC towards the LOS Con-vention," in Proceedings, Eighty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Society of InternationalLaw (Washington, D.C.: American Society of International Law, 1991), 278-283.

24. The full text of the EEC Declaration can be found in Simmonds, supra note 23, at 158-160.

25. On the external competences of the Community in the field of science and technology,see Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, supra note 15, at 787-788; Elizalde, supra note 19, at340-343.

26. UN Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea: NationalLegislation, Regulations and Supplementary Documents on Marine Scientific Research in Areasunder National Jurisdiction (New York: United Nations, 1989).

27. Soons, supra note 8; Plesmann and Röben, supra note 8.28. T. IJlstra, "Development of Resource Jurisdiction in the EC's Regional Seas: National

EEZ Policies of EC Member States in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and theBaltic Sea," Ocean Development and International Law 23 (1992): 165-193.

29. On ICES, see M. Fitzmaurice, International Legal Problems of the Environmental Pro-tection of the Baltic Sea (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992), 151-153; Koers, supranote 1, at 77-79.

30. Soons, supra note 5, at 88-89.31. On the Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic

Sea Area, March 22, 1974, 13 I.L.M. 546 (1974), see Fitzmaurice, supra note 29, at 47-150.32. The present author is acting as a consultant to DG XII for this project.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:24

26

Oct

ober

201

4