Letter: Britain dithers on law of the sea
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Britain dithers on law of the sea
Sir: In November 1994 the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force. The Government in that year expressed its satisfaction with the agreement which had been negotiated to allow implementation of Part XI of the Convention, dealing with the deep sea bed minerals regime, and expressed its intention to accede. In answer to a written question from Lord Kennet on 20 June 1996, Baroness Chalker, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, confirmed that this is still the long-term aim but that, for scarcely explained reasons concerning the Rockall fisheries zone, HMG would not take a decision on accession in the timeframe necessary to secure voting rights for the UK in the Law of the Sea Tribunal; that is, by 30 June.
This convention, which formalises and consolidates maritime law and is the most important advance in the law of the sea during the second half of this century, has now been accepted by more than 100 governments including France and Germany, most other European countries, China and Japan. HMG's delay in accession means that no British voice will be heard in those important first meetings of the institutions set up under the convention.
Britain has always played a leading part in the development of the law of the sea, not least of this major convention; it is therefore bizarre that maritime interests should be jeopardised in this way. Nothing is to be gained by this delay, least of all for the Rockall fisheries, and much will be lost. We appeal most strongly for the necessary steps towards accession to be completed before Parliament rises in two weeks' time, in order to avoid a further three months' delay.
Professor NICHOLAS GASKELL
Dr RALPH BEDDARD
Professor CHRISTINE CHINKIN
MICHAEL RANKEN
Institute of Maritime Law
University of Southampton
Highfield, Hampshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments