Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
incident orhazard. Instruments that come ashore are safely recovered. The AST agreed that
the cost of, and responsibility for, the retrieval should be borne by the float owner. While
this may be expensive, it is a necessary overhead of the Argo project' (Argo Information
In June 2008, the Executive Council of IOC, after extensive debate by members of the
IOC Advisory Body of Experts on the Law of the Sea (IOC/ABE-LOS), adopted the latest
instrument on Argo, the Guidelines for the legal regulation of Argo Profiling Float Deploy-
ments on the High Seas (IOC,
2008b
). The document provides the procedure regulating the
communication mechanism between states and data policy. However, it reiterates the line
'fully consistent with UNCLOS' but does not shed any further light on the interpretation of
UNCLOS with regard to Argo.
However, the 2008 guidelines provide a general communication mechanism between
the Argo float Implementer, and the Argo Focal Point (AFP) in the coastal state for the case
where an Argo Programme float deployed in the high seas might drift into the EEZ of an
IOC member state that has requested notification. This mechanism weakens the relevant
international organizations while benefitting bilateral relations between states .
