EU Unilateralism and the Law of the Sea

摘要

In the context of the modern law of the sea, codified in UNCLOS, and constrained by compulsory dispute settlement, unilateralism is unlikely to prove productive for any state party, or for the EU. This is especially so if there is no general international support for the proposed changes. As a policy option for the EU, unilateralism must be used, if at all, with studied restraint if serious legal disputes are to be avoided. The advance implementation of double-hull regulations for ships entering EU ports is not a true example of unilateralism, however. It rests on no novel jurisdictional claims, violates no rights of third parties, contravenes no article of UNCLOS, and is not inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Convention. There is little for other states to object to in the Regulation. At most it implements in advance measures agreed internationally by IMO. But even without parallel IMO measures, the EU would not be acting unlawfully; analogies with previous unilateral action by Iceland, Canada or Chile are thus inappropriate and misleading. Only if the regulations are subsequently applied to ships in passage in the territorial sea or EEZ will a real problem of unilateral—and potentially illegal—action arise.