The assumption that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the legal framework for all activities taking place in the sea - Ocean Sustainability in the 21st Century - page 356

10.1 A commonly repeated statement
The resolutions that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted in past years on the
subject 'Oceans and the Law of the Sea' emphasize 'the universal and unified character' of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 1982) (UNCLOS) and
the need to maintain its integrity. The resolutions also reaffirm 'that the Convention sets out
the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out'
(Res. 68/70, 2013). Such a statement is often repeated by states and experts in international
law of the sea. But does it fully correspond with the truth?
There is no doubt that the UNCLOS is a cornerstone in the process for the codification
of international law. It has been rightly described as a 'Constitution for Oceans', 'a monu-
mental achievement in the international community', 'the first comprehensive treaty dealing
with practically every aspect of the uses and resources of the seas and the oceans', as well
as an instrument which 'has successfully accommodated the competing interests of all na-
tions' (Koh, 1983 ) . The UNCLOS has many merits, which nobody could deny. However,
the assumption that everything that occurs in the seas must necessarily fall under the scope
of the UNCLOS, if this is what the words of the above mentioned resolutions are intended
to mean, is far from being satisfactory, as this chapter will try to show. 1
In fact, the UNCLOS, as any legal instrument, is linked to the time when it was ne-
gotiated and adopted (from 1973 to 1982 in this case) and to what was possible to achieve
during the negotiations for the drafting of its text.
A first remark regarding this is that there are some evident gaps in the UNCLOS itself,
because the states involved in the negotiations were not willing or able to address and solve
a few thorny questions that were deliberately left vague. Here, the gaps can be filled by
resorting to provisions of customary international law (regulation through customary inter-
national law). It may also happen that some UNCLOS provisions are worded in too gen-
eral terms, which lack sufficient precision. Where different interpretations of the relevant