United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

• Climate change will wreak havoc on small island developing states in the Pacific and elsewhere.
• So island states are asking whether obligations to address climate change might be contained in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
• It is possible small island states could one day be compensated for the damage done.
• Read more:
  COP26 failed to address ocean acidification, but the law of the seas means states must protect the world's oceans

Why seek an advisory opinion?

• The answers to these questions are known as advisory opinions.
• Advisory opinions are not legally binding, they are authoritative statements on legal matters.
• The tribunal has delivered two advisory opinions in the past: on deep seabed mining and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities.
• One avenue to achieve this is through an advisory opinion from the tribunal.

The question before the tribunal

• (b) to protect and preserve the marine environment in relation to climate change impacts, including ocean warming and sea level rise, and ocean acidification?
• That provides clues as to which sections of the treaty the tribunal will refer to in its opinion.
• The question refers explicitly to the part of the convention entitled “Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment”.

What if states do not meet their obligations?

• And if so, in what ways does the convention require that they be addressed by states?
• What the commission’s question does not ask is, what happens when states do not meet their obligations?
• Sustained pressure from small island states is advancing our understanding of the obligations of states to address climate change.
• Read more:
  The UN is asking the International Court of Justice for its opinion on states' climate obligations.

• The vessel experienced a catastrophic implosion at some point during its journey, with all five passengers presumed dead.
• An expert explains

  For now, details elude us – and it could be days, or even weeks, before we receive meaningful updates on the investigation’s progress.

• The Titan disaster happened in international waters, in a commercially operated vessel, and with victims of different nationalities.

What happens next?

The Titan, a research and exploration sub owned by US company OceanGate, lost contact with its surface vessel on Sunday morning, about one hour and 45 minutes after its departure. Chief investigator Jason Neubauer said the US Coast Guard will receive help from Canada, France and the United Kingdom. He said authorities had already mapped the accident site, and the inquiry will aim to address several questions, including:
Recovery operations in remote parts of the ocean are painstakingly complex, with myriad variables to consider. We can expect the Titan investigation will cost millions of dollars.

Harsh conditions

• Manufacturer Pelagic Research Services told CNN the ROV’s lifting capabilities had “been utilised and continue to be utilised”, and that missions would continue for about a week.
• ROVs can collect vast amounts of data for deep-sea operations, including video footage and sensor readings.
• They may have disintegrated during the implosion, drifted too far away from the search area, or be obscured by other debris.
• Underwater hazards, harsh weather and strong currents all add to the challenge – especially by limiting visibility.

Finding the remains

• But the chances of actually finding them will depend on various factors, including the cause of the implosion, the depth at which it happened, and the surrounding conditions.
• A severe implosion may have resulted in extensive fragmentation and scattering of both the submersible’s structure and human remains.
• The effort to locate remains may involve observation from long-range aircraft and patrol vessels, or may even rely on radar, sonar or satellite imagery.

Sharing responsibility

• The Titan investigation will involve coordination between multiple entities, including maritime authorities, coast guard services and search and rescue organisations.
• This requires that all vessels, regardless of their flag, have a legal obligation to render assistance to any person in distress at sea.

• The permit was eventually granted because the application was lodged just before the government’s 2018 offshore exploration ban was in place.
• The High Court ruled it should therefore have been considered under the previous system.
• Between 2008 and 2017, Aotearoa New Zealand’s offshore environment was opened up for further oil and gas exploration on the promise of economic growth and energy independence.

Deep Water Horizon and the Rena

• Read more:
  The Bay of Plenty oil spill: loading the dice against disaster

  First, the Rena disaster occurred in Tauranga, off the east coast of the North Island.

• The Rena was a container ship that ran aground on the Ōtāiti/Astrolabe reef in October 2011 while on its way into Tauranga Harbour.
• The second event, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, sensitised the public to the risks of offshore oil extraction.

Petrobras and the Raukūmara Basin

• Petrobras had secured a five-year permit to explore for oil and gas under block offers released in 2010.
• Nevertheless, Petrobras informed Te Whānau-ā-Apanui that they would begin their seismic survey work in early 2011 and began work in April using the large survey vessel, the Orient Explorer.
• Read more:
  Why New Zealand should not explore for more natural gas reserves

  Opposition to Petrobras began quickly both onshore and offshore, demanding “no drill, no spill”.

The ‘Andarko amendment’

• It was also a silent partner to the Deep Water Horizon rig responsible for the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
• The Minister for Energy and Resources at the time said the protesters shouldn’t be trying to stop other people going about their lawful business.

Change and uncertainty

• This is an edited extract from Stopping Oil: Climate Justice and Hope by Sophie Bond, Amanda Thomas and Gradon Diprose (Melbourne University Press).
• Amanda Thomas has recevied funding from Deep South National Science challenge in the past to research community responses to climate change.
• Gradon Diprose has received funding from Deep South National Science Challenge to research adaptation to climate change in Aotearoa New Zealand.

• Canada does not presently have a domestic legal framework that would permit seabed mining and, in the absence of a rigorous regulatory structure, will not authorize seabed mining in areas under its jurisdiction.
• Due diligence, as well as precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches, must be exercised with respect to decision-making regarding seabed mineral activity and governance.
• Indigenous Peoples, industry, provinces and territories, and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, must also have the opportunity to be engaged on Canada's seabed mineral governance.
• Seabed mining should only take place if effective protection of the marine environment is provided through a rigorous regulatory structure, applying precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches, using science-based and transparent management, and ensuring effective compliance with a robust inspection mechanism.