Page 289 - Economia Azul - versão: inglês

sphere of responsibility as a practice from In this context, the protection of ma- 5. Legal responses to face marine pollution: from the international to
which everyone must refrain from carry- rine ecosystems and, in particular, the fight the national sphere
ing out, whether individuals, companies or against marine pollution, must be promoted
States. In this sense, the Declaration of the by the whole society, at all its levels, being In view of the magnitude of the phe- vigilance in its application and in the exer-
United Nations Conference on the Human crucial for the achievement of the Sustain- nomenon hereupon analyzed, as well as cise of administrative control (Idem, 2017).
Environment and the Rio Declaration on able Development Goals (SDGs) and, specif- its serious consequences, the internation- Such an understanding was adopted by
Environment and Development affirmed ically, to promote ocean health and planet al community is making efforts to provide the Arbitration Court in the South China
in their principles the responsibility of resilience. Conserving the ocean must re- legal responses to the fight against marine Sea Arbitration, whose judgment is dated
States to ensure that activities carried flect the possibility of guaranteeing inter- pollution. At the international level, there July 12, 2016. The decision reiterates an
13
out under their jurisdiction do not cause generational solidarity, that is, agents must are different categories of binding instru- obligation of due diligence that States must
damage to the environment of other lo- have a transforming look at natural resourc- ments relevant to addressing marine pollu- ensure that activities within their jurisdic-
calities or areas beyond the limits of their es, not only envisioning them as an invest- tion. The principles and rules that govern tion and control respect the environment
national jurisdiction. 14 ment opportunity, but as valuable resources States regarding transboundary pollution of of other States or areas beyond national
Responsibility as a principle emerges to be perpetuated and transmitted to the the seas, as seen, are established in the UN- control. The States have a positive duty to
from the perception that there is a great descendants in the future (WEISS, 1992). CLOS, more specifically in its article 194. 15 prevent or mitigate significant damage to
vulnerability of nature subjected to the The unsustainable use of the seas and A notable feature of this device is its the environment when engaging in large-
technical intervention of humanity, a vul- their resources threatens the very founda- abdication of any damage as a triggering scale construction activities, as opposed to
nerability that was not suspected before tion on which the planet’s well-being and element of the established obligations. The a negative duty to refrain from degrading
becoming recognizable in the damage prosperity depend on. Embodying the full main focus of its legal regime is not on lia- the environment. The sentence was also
caused by human conduct. Nature as hu- potential of the sea economy therefore bility or obligation for damage to the envi- progressive in the sense of confirming that
man responsibility, therefore, is undoubt- requires responsible and sustainable ap- ronment, but on comprehensive regulation Part XII of UNCLOS can evolve through in-
edly a topic on which ethical theory is proaches to its economic development. In to prevent, reduce and control marine pol- terpretation and the duty of cooperation
dedicated to reflecting (JONAS, 1995). The taking action to reduce marine pollution, so- lution (PRÖLSS, 2017). (KOJIMA, Op. Cit.).
obligation of responsibility – whether of ciety as a whole invests in both the current The general principle of this provision, Other norms interact with the UNCLOS
States or individuals, that is, of society as and future provision of marine ecosystem regarding the State’s liability for damage when it comes to pollution of the marine
a whole – also extends to responsibility for services and the human benefits they pro- caused by pollution outside its territory, environment, presenting specific provisions
the future, and this responsibility can only vide. The principle of responsibility, there- must be considered as customary law since regarding pollution from different sourc-
16
exist if the beings that can in fact take re- fore, in line with sustainable development, the Nuclear Test Cases. The main objec- es, with instruments oriented or related
sponsibility continue to exist. This requires is essential for the maintenance of adequate tive, contained in article 194, is that States to pollution, such as the London Con-
17
ensuring the continuity of human existence conditions for the biosphere and the future do not cause damage by pollution, but if vention; mechanisms focused on biodi-
in the world (JONAS, 2017). survival of humanity (JONAS, 1976). pollution occurs, the intention is that it versity or species, such as the CBD ; and
18
does not spread beyond the areas of juris- agreements on chemicals and waste, such
diction of a particular State. This obligation as the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm
of conduct, according to the 2015 Advi- Conventions (UNEP, 2017), and specifically
sory Opinion of the Sub-Regional Fisheries regarding marine pollution from oil spills,
Commission of the International Court of the International Convention Relating to
the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), of 2015, re- intervention on the High Seas in cases of
quires due diligence in the sense that a oil pollution casualties. 19
State not only adopts appropriate rules More emphatically, the Basel Con-
and measures, but, likewise, some level of vention on the Control of Transboundary

286 BLUE ECONOMY Marine pollution as everyone’s responsibility 287