Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
8.4.3 Argo legal framework
ject, providing the following: 'the Argo project shall be fully consistent with UNCLOS'.
This line subscribes all Argo activities to UNCLOS, despite the fact of 'the absence of a
specific international legal instrument regulating profiling floats, drifting buoys, and other
UNCLOS provisions for MSR are applicable to Argo since many states refuse to accept that
the Argo activities fall under Part XIII of UNCLOS.
IOC Resolution IOC-XLI-4 confirmed once again that 'the Argo project shall be fully
consistent with UNCLOS' and it added 'without prejudice to the sovereign rights of the
coastal states over their continental shelf and exclusive economic zone'. However, the ap-
plication of UNCLOS has been questioned by states.
The interpretation of Argo activities with regard to UNCLOS is very controversial.
While some IOC member states view the Argo project as an activity better characterized as
operational oceanography, not governed by the marine scientific research provisions under
UNCLOS 1982 Part XIII, other member states understand that Argo activities are governed
by Part XIII of UNCLOS (marine scientific research).
To date, the IOC Assembly has been unable to reconcile the positions on marine sci-
entific research regulation versus freedom from marine scientific research regulation, on
other instruments deployed at sea (gliders, buoys, etc.), and it may suffer the same fate as
the IOC's failed attempt to adopt an Ocean Data Acquisition Systems (ODAS) Convention
in the 1970s and 1990s (IOC,
1993
).
Given the lack of specific provision in UNCLOS, provisions to be applied,
mutatis
mutandis
, are Articles 259-262, in addition to Article 263, which provides for compensation
for damage resulting from measures in contravention of UNCLOS (Churchill and Lowe,
Argo works in a responsible way, fully aware of its obligations under UNCLOS. As
stated by the Argo Steering Team (AST): 'Argo does its best to minimize the probability of
