CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ THE ISSUES OF SOVEREIGNTY AND OWNERSHIP IN RESPECT TO THE SEAǧBED … vote). It, therefore, has the features of a subject of international law. On the other hand, the supposed status of the body “mankind” is not set by any conventional regulation 16 ”. Concerning the term “mankind”, it has a broader sense than the community of states. This is explicitly expressed in Article 140 Paragraph 1 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea according to which particular consideration shall be given to the interests and needs of developing States and of peoples who have not attained full independence or other self- governing status recognized by the United Nations in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 15 14 (XV). In most of the regulations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the bearers of particular rights and obligations are sovereign states, “mankind” is used in general formulations. We can come to the conclusion that “mankind” in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea stresses the interest that the benefit of the Area be shared by as many states and peoples who have not attained full independence (according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea) and through them by as many people as possible for the benefit of mankind as a whole. It is not possible yet to talk about “ mankind” as a subject of international law, it is rather a first rudiment of future regulation. “Mankind” today refers rather to the community of states while taking into account the interests of all states and of peoples who have not attained full independence. Apart from clarifying the term “mankind”, it is also necessary to deal with the term “heritage” or “common heritage”. According to Webster’s dictionary, 17 the word “common” means “belonging equally to, or shared by, two or more or by the community at large”. The word “heritage” is defined as “property that is or can be inherited, something handed down from one’s ancestors or the past, as a characteristic, a culture, tradition, etc. or the rights, burdens, or status resulting from being born in a certain time or place; birthright”. The question may arise if heritage in the sense of “common heritage of mankind” can be linked with property in the sense of civil law or whether to interpret it differently. It is necessary to mention in respect to the explanation of the term “ heritage ” that no regulation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea links “common heritage of mankind” with ownership of the sea floor. The representative of the USA 18 declared during the negotiations about the sea-bed and ocean floor already in 1972 that “common heritage” does not mean “common ownership”. The view that “common heritage” cannot be identified with ownership is held, for example, by Pardo and Christol. 19 They argue that such an interpretation would contradict the concept of Malta, as it was laid to the UN and cannot be in harmony with the Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed which does not mention the ownership. They also point out that if “common heritage of mankind” meant common ownership, a danger could arise that if the majority of owners (that is states) wished, the sea-bed and the ocean floor could be divided into parts.

16 MALENOVSKÝ, J., Public International Law. 6th edition, Brno 2014, p. 148. 17 Webster’s New College Dictionary, p. 531.

18 STEVENSONU.S.,CallsforPromptInternationalActiontoSettleProblemsofLawoftheSeain:CHRISTOL,C.Q., The legal common heritage of mankind capturing an ilusive concept and applying it to world needs, XVIIIth Colloquium on the law of outer space . Lisbon 1975, p. 55. 19 MACDONALD, D., JOHNSTON, D. M. (eds.), The structures and process of international law . Hague 1983, p. 657.

383