This article discusses the process of implementing Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through the prism of transparency, opacity, and confidentiality, with a particular focus on the instances of disagreements between the subcommission and the Commission in plenary.
Author
Sandrine W. De Herdt, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India; Athens PIL, Faculty of Law, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Summary
The lack of transparency in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf constitutes a major issue for both submitting and third states. In this respect, a careful reader of the reports of UNCLOS Meeting of the States Parties would not fail to discern the constant calls for transparency in the work of this body.
While much has already been said on the transparency/confidentiality issues in the work of the Commission, new issues have emerged, such as the question of transparency in the internal relationship between the Commission and its subcommission.
Prompted by this observation, this article discusses the process of implementing Article 76 of UNCLOS through the prism of transparency, opacity, and confidentiality, with a particular focus on the instances of disagreements between the subcommission and the Commission in plenary.
Published in: Ocean Development & International Law
To read the full article, please click here.
