Page 221 - Economia Azul - versão: inglês

imposed by the 1982 Convention, as well on the other hand, those who criticize the 4. Perspectives of a paradigm shift: the sea increasingly as a source of
as the 1994 Agreement. 23 large number of options (BROWN, 1997, p. resources, in addition to a means of communication
Finally, other key institutions in the regu- 41). However, even understanding that the
lation of the seas are dispute settlement at multiplicity of mechanisms is not the most In fact, as stated in the evolution of has generated a race for resources, such
sea, such as the International Tribunal for ideal and perfect model for resolving dis- the use and regulation of the sea, when it as energy, those mainly related to genetic
the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). These are not putes on the law of the sea, it was the way goes back to its beginnings; even before heritage and marine biodiversity. It neither
strictly regulatory bodies, but international in which the States, during the III Confer- being an important means of communica- regulated nor created an International Or-
courts with powers to resolve disputes in ence, managed to obtain the adhesion and tion between peoples, its first use was as a ganization that would become a perenni-
relation to the rules of the law of the sea. In acceptance of the countries on the issue. source of subsistence resources with fish- al regulator of the sea, nor did it spatially
fact, ITLOS is not the only means of resolv- In other words, it was better to create a ing. Therefore, all the regulatory effort, so organize the immense liquid mass of the
ing disputes at sea. The 1982 Convention system that, despite not being ideal, made time-consuming and late, of the relation- High Seas - beyond those waters that UN-
then brings a list of procedural options to great progress towards the peaceful solution ship between human beings and the sea CLOS itself had attributed some right (or,
the parties that, in accordance with their of disputes over the law of the sea, than the was, little by little, consolidating itself in the secondarily, power) to the coastal States.
freedom of choice, may use: a) Conciliation, lack of a system of its own. Especially be- attempt to regulate the peaceful use of the Therefore, it can be said that this process
regulated in Annex V, Articles 284 and 298, cause the general objective of Part XV – the sea. Much has already been achieved, but still has prospects for new regulations. And
Number1, subparagraph a) of the UNCLOS peaceful settlement of disputes – has been two premises seem to have been overcome. there are initiatives in this sense, for exam-
(which make up the core of non-binding reasonably well achieved (BASTOS, Op. Cit., The first, in relation to the ‘peaceful ple with the UN’s new international call for
solutions); b) the International Tribunal for p.217; KARAMAN, 2012, p. 319). use of the sea’. The UNCLOS, built under a new Conference (in progress since 2017)
the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), regulated by In any case, it can be said that the a bipolar geopolitical environment (the US- to regulate marine Biodiversity Beyond Na-
Annex VI; c) an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal to dispute settlement system in the law of USSR Cold War), avoided getting involved tional Jurisdiction (BBNJ Convention, un-
be constituted along the lines of Annex VII the sea operates as follows: a) it is up to in non-consensual themes such as the der construction).
(MAROTTA RANGEL, 2002, p. 647) ; d) a the parties to resolve their own disputes non-peaceful use of the seas (that is, cases In fact, it is inaccurate to say that the
4
special Arbitration Court on matters of fish- peacefully; b) the parties can request the of classic armed conflicts) as it is a topic di- sea, as a means of communication be-
ing, protection and prevention of the marine intervention of a third party to carry out rectly affected by the state sovereignties and tween peoples, has lost importance. It is
environment, scientific research and naviga- a reconciliation and reach a common that would generate impasses in the polit- still through this medium that about 90%
tion, constituted in the light of Annex VIII; e) agreement; c) if the solution is not found, ical-ideological bipolarity. The new world of the world’s flow of goods is made (ICS,
and, furthermore, there is always the possi- section 2 also applies, in which the States order is evolutionary and little progress has 2022). Globalization has only increased this
bility of accessing the International Court of choose which mechanism they will use; d) been made in relation to the regulation of flow. So much so that important expansion
Justice, according to article 287, number 1, if it is not possible to reach a consensus on the use of the sea in conflicting situations, works were carried out in the Suez and
subparagraph b). which procedure to adopt, an arbitral tri- leaving, although very outdated in time, the Panama passages to allow the flow of even
This creates multiple mechanisms for bunal is created to settle the dispute, with greatest contributions arising from the so- larger ships. This could confirm the maxim
choosing the parties involved in disputes. a binding decision; e) the other procedures called Hague Peace Conventions, from the of Corbett’s strategy that whoever controls
This multiplicity of chambers and proce- are only used – such as the ITLOS – by the turn of the 19th century and the beginning the “lines of communication” has control
dures generated – and still generates – a will and deliberate choice of the States in- of the 20th century. The second issue is of the sea (CORBETT, 1918). However,
lot of discussion in the internationalist doc- volved; however, once chosen, the parties that, at the time of the 3rd United Nations technology has added new meaning to this
trine. On the one hand, there are those must submit to their decision (COSTA and Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973 – early 20th century concept of ‘line of com-
who defend them (CHARNEY, 1996, p. 74), SILVA, 2004 and MENSAH, 1998). 1982), there was no change in the perspec- munication’, first with submarine cables
tive of the interest of the sea, alternating for the telephone network and today with
from just a means of communication to a the immense network of submarine cables
relevant intrinsic source of resources. This that is responsible for more than 99% of

218 BLUE ECONOMY The Regulation of the Sea: Consolidation and Perspectives 219