3.5 Other principles
The principles briefly raised above are all selected based on a state-centered approach and are closely linked to UNCLOS’ zonal management approach. However, UNCLOS can also be perceived from other perspectives. One central point in UNCLOS is, as mentioned above, the idea of the oceans as being a “common heritage of mankind”, as codified in Part XI of UNCLOS.(1) Millicay, “The Common Heritage of Mankind: 21st Century Challenges of a Revolutionary Concept”, in del Castillo (ed.), Law of the Sea, From Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, p. 272 ff. Here, UNCLOS is moving away from a mainly state-centered interest and is taking into account the interest of everyone, both present and future. In this sense, UNCLOS’ function is to contribute to the protection of the oceans and its resources beyond simply individual interests. In this context, UNCLOS tends to only provide a general legal framework, supplemented by specific regulation such as the 1995 UN Fish Stock Agreement.(2) The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995. See also above under point 1, footnote 20-21. The idea of the oceans as a “common heritage of mankind also influences the zonal approach of UNCLOS, since the rights of coastal states and flag states can be limited, for example with a view to the marine ecosystem.
In the context of the idea of the oceans as being a “common heritage of mankind”, another aspect should briefly be mentioned: one of the newer perspectives of UNCLOS was the strengthening of the status of landlocked states. The development of the law of the sea has traditionally been dominated by coastal states and their interests. UNCLOS is, in other words, opening up the oceans for all, including for non-coastal states, and thus contributing to a wider sharing of the oceans and their resources as such.(3) On the development concerning landlocked states see Tuerk, “Landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states”, in Rothwell et.al, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, 2015, p. 325 ff.
Finally, when presenting the general functions of UNCLOS, another perspective should be mentioned: one central function of UNCLOS is to provide for a system for conflict resolution. The system is binding as such, but provides for different options and for a conflict resolution procedure.(4) See Oxman, “Courts and Tribunals: the ICJ, ITLOS and Arbitral Tribunals”, in Rothwell et.al, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea, 2015, p. 394 ff. One new creation connected to UNCLOS is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which since its establishment has contributed both to the interpretation of UNCLOS and also to the development of the law of the sea in general. As mentioned above, UNCLOS often operates with opposing interests and general terminology, and therefore creates a need for jurisprudence which clarifies the particular issues at stake.