Principles of international environmental protection - Introduction to International Environmental Law - page 84

From an environmental law perspective, this means above all that the nearly
200 states in the world are sovereign in the regulation of the use and protec-
tion of the environment and in the implementation of related legislation in
their own territories, within the limits of international law. However, decisions
by the WTO dispute settlement bodies have further defi ned that states can, on
certain conditions, act to protect the environment beyond their sovereignty -
as, for example, in the Shrimp/Turtle case when the USA sought to protect
turtles outside its territory (see Chapter 5 , p. 145).
Which areas are then considered to be under the 'ownership' of states? First
of all, states are sovereign in their land areas. Nearly all land areas belong to
states; the most prominent exception being Antarctica, where sovereignty
claims are frozen (but not renounced) (see below, 'Antarctica and the Arctic
regions', p. 101). 1 Ownership of a territory - that is, a state being sovereign in
a territory - also includes sovereign rights to certain adjacent maritime spaces
and superjacent airspace. A state is sovereign up to the outer edge of its terri-
torial waters (12 nautical miles), which is also the outer edge of a state's
airspace. 2
In many cases, territorial sovereignty is, in reality, a mere illusion.
Intergovernmental treaties have opened the world's airspace to all airlines. On
the territorial sea, foreign vessels have been legally guaranteed 'innocent
passage'. 3 Multinational companies operate across many countries and in a
fully global market in terms of goods and services.
Today, coastal states enjoy sovereign rights to the natural resources of their
exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The exclusive economic
zone may extend to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) from
the baseline, 4 and the continental shelf may extend even further, up to a
maximum of 350 nautical miles (and even beyond that in some cases). States
have the exclusive right to control the use of the natural resources (for exam-
ple, fi sh stocks) within their exclusive economic zones. If a state decides to
establish an exclusive fi shing or economic zone (which must be publicly
declared if the state wants to enjoy exclusive rights), it is also obligated to
protect the marine environment in the same area.
The continental shelf is considered a natural extension of the land territory,
so it is not necessary for a state to make a specifi c claim to it. A state has the
exclusive right to exploit seabed and sub-seabed resources, including oil and
gas resources, minerals and certain seabed fauna. As the continental shelf can
extend to over 200 nautical miles, it is pertinent to consider whether a state
has the right or, indeed, the obligation to protect the environment of the
so-called outer continental shelf. We will consider this question below in
connection with the international law principle of no-harm. A state is obli-
gated to prevent and minimize the probability of environmental harm from
any operations it permits in its jurisdiction and control. Since a coastal state
can permit oil drilling in its continental shelf, say, 400 kilometres from the
coast, it is also liable to arrange for an appropriate environmental impact assess-
ment to be performed before deciding to grant the permission.