CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

PETR VÁLEK CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ communis that could be used by any State, or the sea bed as res nullius that would be open to occupation of any State. Fortunately, instead of these approaches benefiting mainly the developed coastal States, a complex international legal regime was created by the UNCLOS and later revised by the 1994 Implementation Agreement. 39 The cornerstone of this legal regime is Article 136 of the UNCLOS declaring that “[t]he Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.” As a consequence, pursuant to Article 137(1) of the UNCLOS, “[n]o State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof.” As such, in relation to the resources of the Area, the landlocked and coastal States enjoy the same status which is expressly confirmed in Article 140(1) of the UNCLOS. 40 In order tomanage the Area, the UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority (hereinafter, the “ISA”), an international organization with its seat in Kingston, Jamaica. The ISA was equipped with a strong mandate by Article 137(2) of the UNCLOS stating that “[a] ll rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act” and that “[t]he minerals recovered from the Area…may only be alienated in accordance with this Part and the rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority.” This mandate, i.e., the exploration and exploitation in the Area, is executed by the ISA pursuant to Article 153 of the UNCLOS in two ways: first, directly, through the Enterprise (also called its “mining arm” 41 ), or second, indirectly, through “States Parties, or state enterprises or natural or juridical persons” with the authorization of the ISA. This “parallel system” – proposed by the U.S. Secretary of State H. Kissinger 42 – was a compromise between the developing countries, who “held the view that the Authority should have comprehensive powers for regulating and controlling deep sea mining activities, and, after a transitory stage, should assume the sole competence for conducting such activities,” 43 and the industrialized States, who “maintained that the Authority should have only well-defined regulatory powers, while States and their nationals should have direct, non-discriminatory, and assured access to the resources of the international sea-bed under a licensing or concession system.” 44 The Czech Republic (and, before 1993, Czechoslovakia) has been active in relation to this international legal regime in three aspects. First, in order to start this new business of sea bed mining, several consortia were formed, both from private companies and States, including Czechoslovakia. This country was a founding member of the Interoceanmetal, a joint organization of former socialist States (Bulgaria, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Poland, USSR, Vietnam, and Czechoslovakia) with its seat in Stettin ( Szczecin) , thus becoming the first landlocked State participating in the exploration of the sea bed. 45 The Interoceanmetal was established by a treaty ( cоглашение ) signed in Moscow on 27 April 1987. Following 39 See supra 9, pp. 223-229. 40 Article 140 of the UNCLOS (Benefit of mankind): “1. Activities in the Area shall, as specifically provided for in this Part, be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States, whether coastal or land-locked, …”. 41 See supra 9, p. 229. 42 See supra 13, p. 705. 43 JAENICKE, G. Law of the Sea, in: Encyclopedia of Public International Law , Vol. III, 1997, p. 161. 44 Ibid. 45 Information on the website of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic, available at: https:// www.mpo.cz/en/construction-and-raw-materials/raw-material-policy/seabed-raw-materials/activities-of-the- czech-republic-in-the-field-of-utilisation-of-mineral-resources-from-the-seabed--13598/.

386