Page 103 - Microsoft Word - SD16-En-Fin

This is a SEO version of Microsoft Word - SD16-En-Fin. Click here to view full version

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »

98 

its activities in conformity with the Convention. For example, enacting national legislation that penalizes the contractor for not complying with the Convention will work to deter the contractor from breaching the Convention; however, it will never ensure that the contractor always complies. The notion of “ensuring” or “guaranteeing” becomes even more untenable when one considers the large number of subcontractors and third parties that will likely be involved in a contractor’s mining operations. Taking this into consideration, what is the meaning of the term “ensure” in the aforementioned clauses? Clarification is also sought with regard to the meaning of the term “securing compliance” as adopted in annex III, article 4, paragraph 4, and the meaning of the term “secure effective compliance” as adopted in article 139, paragraph 2. In particular, guidance is sought on the following four questions:  

(a) Can the same meaning be ascribed to both terms, or does “secure effective compliance” denote a lower standard of responsibility than “securing compliance”? If they do share a similar interpretation, please provide guidance on what these terms essentially mean for a developing State attempting to fulfil its responsibility under Part XI. Again, in reality no amount of measures taken by a sponsoring State could ever fully “secure compliance” of a contractor when the contractor is a separate entity from the State; (b) How do these two terms operate in relation to the term “ensure”, as referenced in paragraph 5 above? Can all three terms be used interchangeably, or does “ensure” denote a higher standard of responsibility?; 

(c) If it is determined that “secure effective compliance” does denote a lower standard than “ensure”, what is this standard of responsibility?; 

(d) Which standard does the sponsoring State ultimately have to meet to fulfil its responsibilities under Part XI and avoid liability?  

7. How can a sponsoring State comply with its responsibility under Part XI to secure the effective compliance of the contractor? In particular, what measures is the sponsoring State required to take? Clarification is sought on the meaning of and relationship between the following terms: 

(a) “All necessary and appropriate measures”, in the context of article 139, paragraph 2;  (b) “All measures necessary”, in the context of article 153, paragraph 4; 

(c) “measures which are … reasonably appropriate”, in the context of annex III, article 4, paragraph 4.  

8. These three clauses essentially provide that the sponsoring State can be relieved of liability if it takes certain measures to secure the contractor’s effective compliance; however, while referring to the same requirement, each clause adopts different wording to describe the types of measures the State is required to take. Clarification is sought on whether those three terms have the same or different meanings. For example, the term “measures which are … reasonably appropriate” appears to be less onerous and suggests fewer measures than “all measures necessary”. If it is determined that those terms do have different meanings, which term takes precedence? That is, in order for the sponsoring State to fulfil its responsibility under Part XI and secure the contractor’s effective compliance, must the sponsoring State take “all necessary and appropriate measures”, “all measures necessary” or “measures which are … reasonably appropriate”?  

9. Regarding the clauses referred to in paragraph 7 above, it is unclear who determines what is appropriate and/or necessary. Clarification is sought on whether it is the sponsoring State itself that determines what is appropriate or necessary, or if this is to be determined objectively by a governing body such as the Authority or the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. It is also noted that: 

(a) Annex III, article 4, paragraph 4, states that a sponsoring State shall not be liable if it has adopted laws and regulations and taken administrative measures which are “within the framework of its legal system, reasonably appropriate for securing compliance by persons under its jurisdiction”. The nature of this wording suggests that the test contains a subjective element and that it takes into account the individual characteristics of each State, implying that the measures required would differ from State to State;

Page 103 - Microsoft Word - SD16-En-Fin

This is a SEO version of Microsoft Word - SD16-En-Fin. Click here to view full version

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »