Latest news with #UnitedNationsConventionoftheLawoftheSea
Scoop
01-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Ministers Commit To Collective Actions For Ocean Sustainability
Issued by the 5th APEC Ocean-Related Ministerial Meeting Busan, Republic of Korea, 1 May 2025 Ministers from APEC economies gathered in Busan, Republic of Korea, today for the 5th APEC Ocean-Related Ministerial Meeting, reaffirming their collective commitment to addressing the critical challenges facing the ocean and marine resources in the Asia-Pacific region. The meeting marks the resumption of high-level ocean dialogue within APEC after a decade-long gap. In his opening remarks, Korea's Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, Kang Do-Hyung, emphasized the importance of the ocean as an essential resource for all APEC economies and its critical role in the economic development of the region. 'The ocean serves as a foundation of life that embraces us all, and it stands as a key resource for our shared future,' said Minister Kang. 'Over the millennia, it has underpinned the delicate balance between economic development and environmental sustainability.' However, Minister Kang added that the ocean is currently facing a range of serious challenges. 'The rising sea temperatures and sea levels, the depletion of fishery resources, and the growing issue of marine debris are threatening not only marine ecosystems but also the sustainability of fisheries, aquaculture, and marine tourism—resulting in significant economic and social costs,' Minister Kang added. But Minister Kang also shared encouraging facts that even in the face of these crises, the international community continues to make tireless efforts to protect the ocean and ensure a sustainable future. 'The recently adopted BBNJ Agreement has become a historic milestone in preserving marine ecosystems in areas outside the jurisdiction of any economy,' Minister Kang stated, referring to the 2023 agreement under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. 'The international community has set a clear goal of securing ratification by at least 60 economies by June this year and is working together toward that target.' Minister Kang also highlighted other international efforts, such as the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, which is recognized for laying the foundation for a more sustainable fisheries sector by limiting harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing and IUU fishing. 'APEC, through the Ocean and Fisheries Working Group, has steadily strengthened regional efforts to address a wide range of ocean issues, including combating IUU fishing and reducing marine debris to promote sustainable development in the ocean and fisheries sectors,' Minister Kang added. APEC has developed strategic roadmaps to address critical ocean issues, including marine debris, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, as well as small-scale fisheries and aquaculture. The APEC Roadmap on Marine Debris, endorsed in 2019, emphasizes voluntary and cooperative actions among member economies to reduce marine debris, particularly plastic litter, through policy development, capacity building and sustainable waste management practices. Similarly, the APEC Roadmap on Combatting IUU Fishing outlines collaborative strategies to prevent and eliminate IUU fishing activities. This includes the development and implementation of economy-wide plans of actions, capacity building and the adoption of port state measures to strengthen enforcement and compliance across the region. In 2022, APEC also adopted the Roadmap on Small-Scale Fisheries and Aquaculture, aimed at promoting the sustainable development of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture sectors. This roadmap focuses on enhancing the livelihoods of small-scale fishers and aquaculture producers through improved market access, capacity-building, and the promotion of responsible and sustainable practices. These roadmaps serve as frameworks for APEC economies to align their efforts and implement effective measures to protect marine ecosystems and ensure the sustainable use of ocean resources. 'These multifaceted efforts highlight the complexity and severity of the challenges we face. At the same time, they offer hope that even the most difficult ocean-related issues can be addressed through cooperation and innovation,' he continued. 'In this moment where crisis and hope coexist, we have gathered here today to respond collectively to the challenges facing our oceans and to chart a course toward a sustainable future. I sincerely hope that today's discussions will not remain as mere documents or declarations but will be translated into concrete actions and policies by all APEC member economies,' Minister Kang concluded.
The Independent
18-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Legal case for Chagos Islands handover hits another hurdle
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has been told he is 'running out of excuses' to press ahead with the controversial deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. A key argument for the deal was that it would fend off legal challenges under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It has now been revealed that the UK is protected under international law against UNCLOS challenges. It is the second major part of the legal case to fall apart after it was revealed claims that telecommunications could be stopped on the islands were also shown to be false. Critics argue the deal, costing £18 billion, unnecessarily leases back a strategically vital airbase that the UK already owns.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Starmer ‘running out of excuses' as legal case for handing over Chagos Islands unravels
Keir Starmer has been told he is 'running out of excuses' to press ahead with the controversial deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It comes after a minister admitted that Britain actually has a protection in international law against one of the major reasons senior politicians have been briefed that the UK has no choice but to hand over the islands. The government is closing in on a deal to hand over the Chagos Islands on the back of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that the archipelago belongs to Mauritius. The agreement would see the UK lease back the Diego Garcia airbase for 140 years at an expected cost of £18bn. Donald Trump has indicated he backs the deal but critics point out that the ICJ ruling is only advisory. The Independent has learned that senior politicians have been briefed that one of the main reasons to go ahead with the deal is that the UK would fall foul of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), preventing ships going to and from the base. But a written answer has revealed that the UK is protected under international law against UNCLOS challenges. It is the second major part of the legal case to fall apart after it was revealed claims that telecommunications could be stopped on the islands were also shown to be false. The row has blown up again over the deal which is expected to cost the British taxpayer £18 billion after Mr Trump appeared to give it his blessing when he met Sir Keir in the Oval Office. But in a speech on Monday night, Kemi Badenoch noted that the same pressure had been put on the UK government to give away the Falkland Islands to Argentina by the United Nations. She said: 'Labour is negotiating the Chagos Islands away, and paying billions for the privilege. The excuses we hear about a UN court ruling and electromagnetic spectrum are nonsense.' Opposition politicians hope that if they can demonstrate the legal case for handing the islands over has collapsed then they could persuade the president to exercise his veto at the last minute. The Indian Ocean islands represent an important part of UK-US security plans because of the strategically crucial Diego Garcia airbase. Critics of Sir Keir's policy to press ahead with the expensive deal claim that he has wrongly persuaded the US president that a deal has to go ahead to end the legal uncertainty. There are also questions over whether Mr Trump is aware of a potential problem in taking nuclear weapons to Diego Garcia after the transfer of ownership because Mauritius is signed up to a nuclear free treaty. The Independent understands that one of the main reasons given to senior politicians in private briefings on why the UK has 'no choice' but to give the islands to Mauritius is because the UK and US would fall foul of a legal challenge via the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in using the Diego Garcia airbase. The reason for this is because UN agencies are obliged to follow rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has ruled that the islands belong to Mauritius and while that only has 'advisory' status for the UK and could be ignored, it has a binding status for the UN and its role in international law. However, a written answer has blown apart this reasoning after the government itself revealed that the UK has a separate legal carve out on UNCLOS, which protects its current control of the crucial Indian Ocean islands. Responding to a written question by Tory shadow armed forces minister Mark Francois, foreign office minister Stephen Doughty said: 'By Declaration dated 7 April 2003 the UK exercised the right to exclude from compulsory dispute settlement procedures in UNCLOS 'disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297 paragraph 2 or 3'. 'Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 297 address disputes related to marine scientific research and fisheries respectively.' He added: 'While these exclusions remain in place, they do not prevent all possible legal challenges. It is worth noting that in the event that parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS have chosen different procedures for the settlement of disputes, the dispute must be submitted to an arbitral tribunal unless the parties otherwise agree. Such rulings are binding on the parties.' But Mr Francois, accused the government of running out of excuses. He said: 'The government is rapidly running out of excuses for spending £18 billion of taxpayers money, to rent back a vital strategic base which we already own. We have a crystal-clear opt-out from any UNCLOS decision affecting military facilities - a point which our American allies will hopefully realise too. The government should now end this Chagos chaos once and for all; just drop this bonkers plan and move on.' But this is the second time one of the major planks in the legal case on the necessity of a deal has fallen apart. Previously, official sources the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which controls the network of satellite communications could sever the links 'if an international court was to rule in future that the US and UK were using Diego Garcia to run satellite communications in breach of international law.' But Labour's communications minister Sir Christopher Bryant dismissed this concern altogether in another written answer. An FCDO spokesperson told The Independent: 'The Chagos Islands deal is paramount for our national security. The deal secures the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia and without it, the operation of the base is at risk. 'Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. 'Finalising a deal means that we can secure strong protections, including from malign influence, which means the base can operate as it has done well into the next century.' A source added:'There are numerous avenues through which Mauritius could pursue a legally binding judgment, including relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or under dispute provisions of treaties to which both states are parties. 'Such cases could be brought rapidly and include seeking provisional measures, themselves legally binding, which could be introduced within weeks. This would have had serious implications for base operations. Ignoring these issues is not a responsible approach for a government serious about protecting the UK's national security.'
The Independent
17-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Starmer ‘running out of excuses' as legal case for handing over Chagos Islands unravels
Keir Starmer has been told he is 'running out of excuses' to press ahead with the controversial deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It comes after a minister admitted that Britain actually has a protection in international law against one of the major reasons senior politicians have been briefed that the UK has no choice but to hand over the islands. The government is closing in on a deal to hand over the Chagos Islands on the back of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that the archipelago belongs to Mauritius. The agreement would see the UK lease back the Diego Garcia airbase for 140 years at an expected cost of £18bn. Donald Trump has indicated he backs the deal but critics point out that the ICJ ruling is only advisory. The Independent has learned that senior politicians have been briefed that one of the main reasons to go ahead with the deal is that the UK would fall foul of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), preventing ships going to and from the base. But a written answer has revealed that the UK is protected under international law against UNCLOS challenges. It is the second major part of the legal case to fall apart after it was revealed claims that telecommunications could be stopped on the islands were also shown to be false. The row has blown up again over the deal which is expected to cost the British taxpayer £18 billion after Mr Trump appeared to give it his blessing when he met Sir Keir in the Oval Office. But in a speech on Monday night, Kemi Badenoch noted that the same pressure had been put on the UK government to give away the Falkland Islands to Argentina by the United Nations. She said: 'Labour is negotiating the Chagos Islands away, and paying billions for the privilege. The excuses we hear about a UN court ruling and electromagnetic spectrum are nonsense.' Opposition politicians hope that if they can demonstrate the legal case for handing the islands over has collapsed then they could persuade the president to exercise his veto at the last minute. The Indian Ocean islands represent an important part of UK-US security plans because of the strategically crucial Diego Garcia airbase. Critics of Sir Keir's policy to press ahead with the expensive deal claim that he has wrongly persuaded the US president that a deal has to go ahead to end the legal uncertainty. There are also questions over whether Mr Trump is aware of a potential problem in taking nuclear weapons to Diego Garcia after the transfer of ownership because Mauritius is signed up to a nuclear free treaty. The Independent understands that one of the main reasons given to senior politicians in private briefings on why the UK has 'no choice' but to give the islands to Mauritius is because the UK and US would fall foul of a legal challenge via the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in using the Diego Garcia airbase. The reason for this is because UN agencies are obliged to follow rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has ruled that the islands belong to Mauritius and while that only has 'advisory' status for the UK and could be ignored, it has a binding status for the UN and its role in international law. However, a written answer has blown apart this reasoning after the government itself revealed that the UK has a separate legal carve out on UNCLOS, which protects its current control of the crucial Indian Ocean islands. Responding to a written question by Tory shadow armed forces minister Mark Francois, foreign office minister Stephen Doughty said: 'By Declaration dated 7 April 2003 the UK exercised the right to exclude from compulsory dispute settlement procedures in UNCLOS 'disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297 paragraph 2 or 3'. 'Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 297 address disputes related to marine scientific research and fisheries respectively.' He added: 'While these exclusions remain in place, they do not prevent all possible legal challenges. It is worth noting that in the event that parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS have chosen different procedures for the settlement of disputes, the dispute must be submitted to an arbitral tribunal unless the parties otherwise agree. Such rulings are binding on the parties.' But Mr Francois, accused the government of running out of excuses. He said: 'The government is rapidly running out of excuses for spending £18 billion of taxpayers money, to rent back a vital strategic base which we already own. We have a crystal-clear opt-out from any UNCLOS decision affecting military facilities - a point which our American allies will hopefully realise too. The government should now end this Chagos chaos once and for all; just drop this bonkers plan and move on.' But this is the second time one of the major planks in the legal case on the necessity of a deal has fallen apart. Previously, official sources the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which controls the network of satellite communications could sever the links 'if an international court was to rule in future that the US and UK were using Diego Garcia to run satellite communications in breach of international law.' But Labour's communications minister Sir Christopher Bryant dismissed this concern altogether in another written answer. An FCDO spokesperson told The Independent: 'The Chagos Islands deal is paramount for our national security. The deal secures the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia and without it, the operation of the base is at risk. 'Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. 'Finalising a deal means that we can secure strong protections, including from malign influence, which means the base can operate as it has done well into the next century.' A source added:'There are numerous avenues through which Mauritius could pursue a legally binding judgment, including relevant provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or under dispute provisions of treaties to which both states are parties. 'Such cases could be brought rapidly and include seeking provisional measures, themselves legally binding, which could be introduced within weeks. This would have had serious implications for base operations. Ignoring these issues is not a responsible approach for a government serious about protecting the UK's national security.'
