Further Development of the Law of the Sea Convention in the Anthropocene Era: The Case of Anthropogenic Underwater Noise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article has significant implications for marine underwater noise in sustainable Oceans. Part 5 also recommends the approaches to solving the AUN and provides the readers or related authorities with follow-up ocean governance policy references. However, there are still a few suggestions for the authors, as follows:
- In part 3, The authors analyze various underwater noise regulations according to the UNCLOS or other conventions. Even if the future underwater noise is not fully regulated, the part mentioned by the author is sorted out. They can be organized into a table to make it easier for international readers to understand.
- For the institutional framework and response issues discussed by the authors in the fourth part, in order to be more efficient in the legal framework, it is recommended to provide related action plans or strategies in implementation, such as international law or domestic law, etc., so that more readers or countries can use it as a reference.
- It’s recommended that the manuscript could be accepted after minor revision.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
This article has significant implications for marine underwater noise in sustainable Oceans. Part 5 also recommends the approaches to solving the AUN and provides the readers or related authorities with follow-up ocean governance policy references. However, there are still a few suggestions for the authors, as follows:
Response: Many thanks for your comments and complements. We have revised this paper in accordance to the comment you provided. The paper has improved as a result of this revision and it is quite a bit longer with two additional tables. We sincere wish that this paper is now reacing publishable level.
We have provided the detailed responds of each comments provided by the reviewer, describe as follow:
1. In part 3, The authors analyze various underwater noise regulations according to the UNCLOS or other conventions. Even if the future underwater noise is not fully regulated, the part mentioned by the author is sorted out. They can be organized into a table to make it easier for international readers to understand."
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have added a table (Table 1: Relevant Provisions of the UNCLOS for Mitigating, Adapting, and Restoring the Impact of AUN in the Marine Environment) in accordance to your comment and suggestion.
2. For the institutional framework and response issues discussed by the authors in the fourth part, in order to be more efficient in the legal framework, it is recommended to provide related action plans or strategies in implementation, such as international law or domestic law, etc., so that more readers or countries can use it as a reference.
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have included additional paragraphs discussing various action plans and strategies aimed at addressing the issue of AUN. While we recognize the importance of providing detailed explanations for each instrument, strategy, initiative, and national law, we have decided to present a new table (Table 2: Regulatory framework and its response to the issue of AUN) instead. This table offers concise summaries and information about existing programs and action plans, making it a valuable reference for readers and countries seeking guidance. The following sentences have also been added:
Lines 358-367
Despite these significant discussions, the current UNGA resolution on the law of the sea has produced no substantial results in addressing AUN. However, the ICP-19 report acknowledges that other institutions, both at the international, regional and national levels, have adopted and implemented various instruments, initiatives, and programs to tackle AUN, as indicated in Table 2 [6]. For instance, the IMO has adopted the IMO Guidelines specifically designed to address AUN arising from shipping activities. Therefore, it is recommended that Parties to the UNCLOS utilize these existing instruments and initiatives, including IMO Guidelines as the best environmental practices and the best available technology to effectively address AUN and mitigate its impact on the marine environment.
3. It’s recommended that the manuscript could be accepted after minor revision.
Response: Many thanks for the positive comment. We have revised this paper in accordance to the comment you provided. We sincere wish that this paper is now reacing publishable level.
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution addresses in a clear manner a compelling point concerning the protection of the marine environment.
The issue has been thoroughly analysed by the Author and the contribution may be even published as it is. See the attachment just for few minor suggestions on possible points which would need further references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The Reviewer #2 provides several comments summarise as follow:
- The reviwer #2 suggest adding a note here [The UNCLOS is, without a doubt, an essential source of the modern law of the sea, although there are several other sources of the international law of the sea (lines 147-148)] with some examples.
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have added note number 1 to explain other sources of the law of the sea, with some examples.
Note 1
1.Other international instruments relevant to the law of the sea may include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD Convention), instruments established by the IMO, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS Convention), as well as other binding and non-binding instruments at different levels. The custom and practices of states, the judgments of international court and tribunals and the opinion of international jurist also contribute significantly to the development and interpretation of the law of the sea.
2.Reference to ITLOS Advisory Opinion on the Area could be useful for qualifying such obligations as due diligence ones.
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have added relavant reference to ITLOS Advisory Opinion to support this argument.
Line 198-200
This obligation is also considered to be a binding norm of customary international law, which means that all States have a legal obligation, including those that have not ratified the UNCLOS [37,38].
References:
[37] James, H. Saving the Oceans Through Law; Oxford University Press, 2017; Vol. 1; ISBN 9780198707325.
[38]Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion) ITLOS Rep 10.; 2011;
3. Again, provide some examples in a note (Considering the impact of AUN, several conservation provisions under this subject can also be applied to AUN).
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have added some examples of relavant provisions to support our argument in this paragraph (note 2).
- For instances, Article 63 (1): “States shall seek…to agree upon the measures necessary to co-ordinate and measure the conservation and development of such stocks” (shared and straddling fish stocks). Article 64 (1) provides that States “shall cooperate... with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utilization of such species throughout the region” (highly migratory species). Article 65: “States shall cooperate with a view to the con-servation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study” (marine mammals).
4. Suggesting to change the word “Article” into “Provision” (line 247)
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have agreed to change the word Article into “Provision”
5. Please, provide UN Doc references (line 331)
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have incorporated relevant UN document references to support our argument in this paragraph.
- UNGA Resolution 77/248 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (UN Doc A/RES/77/248); 2022;
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of article: “Further Development of the Law of the Sea Convention in the Anthropocene Era: The Case of Anthropogenic Underwater Noise”
This article is focused on UN Convention of the Law of the Sea that has been adopted in 1982. Addressing new developments with era of climate changes seems to adequate to new perception needs for the rules governing all users of the oceans and their resources. Depletion of resources, sophisticated manner of use and high presence of fishery and navigation vessels needs advancement of the legal traditional concepts and regimes and addressing concerns within current circumstances.
I do recommend couple of suggestions for improving the ms, as follows:
· In line 55: the authors use “marine creatures”, would suggest be better change/use to “marine livings”
· In between lines 67-84, once you use terminology (geophony, biophony, anthropophony), please insert references upon this.
· Authors mention, the fact that “Despite the UNGA’s concern on this issue, the resolution has not yet produced significant development toward noise regulation such as the development of a task force to develop international agreements on noise regulation or the effective guideline to address the AUN”. Probably lack of detailed studies on AUN leads UNGA to not consider the amendments, so this might point might be extended within section pages 7-8.
· This issue steadily is becoming also a concern for other conventions (as CBD), so at the section of conclusions authors might adders the fact of cumulative improvements with adoption of provisions related to UNCLOS.
Author Response
This article is focused on UN Convention of the Law of the Sea that has been adopted in 1982. Addressing new developments with era of climate changes seems to adequate to new perception needs for the rules governing all users of the oceans and their resources. Depletion of resources, sophisticated manner of use and high presence of fishery and navigation vessels needs advancement of the legal traditional concepts and regimes and addressing concerns within current circumstances. I do recommend couple of suggestions for improving the ms, as follows:
Response: Many thanks for your comments and complements. We have revised this paper in accordance to the comment you provided. We sincere wish that this paper is now reacing publishable level.
We have provided the detailed responds of each comments provided by the reviewer, describe as follow:
1.In line 55: the authors use “marine creatures”, would suggest be better change/use to “marine livings”
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have changed the term “marine creatures” to the “marine organisms”
2.In between lines 67-84, once you use terminology (geophony, biophony, anthropophony), please insert references upon this.
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have added relevant references to support the use of those terminologies.
3.Authors mention, the fact that “Despite the UNGA’s concern on this issue, the resolution has not yet produced significant development toward noise regulation such as the development of a task force to develop international agreements on noise regulation or the effective guideline to address the AUN”. Probably lack of detailed studies on AUN leads UNGA to not consider the amendments, so this might point might be extended within section pages 7-8.
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have revised this part in accordance to your comment (in red color and italic).
Despite the UNGA’s concern on this issue, the resolution has not yet produced significant development toward noise regulation such as the development of a task force to develop international agreements on noise regulation or the effective guideline to address the AUN. The existing gaps in knowledge and the limited detailed studies and data on AUN are likely contributing factors hindering the development of specific regulations to tackle this issue. As a result, the current UNGA resolution has primarily focused on promoting further research and consideration of the effects of AUN on marine living resources, and has urged the DOALOS to gather and share peer-reviewed scientific studies received from Member States on its website [74]. Additionally, the resolution has recognized and encouraged the implementation of the IMO Guidelines for reducing AUN from commercial shipping. Furthermore, it has stressed the importance of cooperation and coordination among States and international organizations in conducting research on AUN. The resolution also calls on States to consider cost-effective measures and strategies for addressing the issue of AUN [70–75].
4.This issue steadily is becoming also a concern for other conventions (as CBD), so at the section of conclusions authors might adders the fact of cumulative improvements with adoption of provisions related to UNCLOS.
Response: Many thanks for the comment. We have included an additional sentence in line with your suggestion.
It is evidence that AUN has been regarded as an emergent global marine environmental problem and poses several impacts on the marine environment and biodiversity. This fact has prompted the interpretation of the UNCLOS and examined its in-stitutional arrangement to respond to this issue. While several discussions have continuously been made in the annual cycle of review of the UNCLOS, there are no significant policies outcome to tackle this issue. Therefore, further discussion to strengthen the regulatory framework for the protection of the marine environment against this issue is a paramount necessity. This article argues that the UNCLOS offers a legal basis for protecting the marine environment against AUN. This legal basis can be found through various provisions related to the protection of the marine environment, conservation of marine living resources and conservation of marine biodiversity. However, it is essential to be noted that the UNCLOS does not provide a specific standard to address AUN. Therefore, this article suggests that several provisions of the Part XII of the UNCLOS relating to the protection of the marine environment should be interpreted as a framework agreement that contains a general obligation to address AUN. Accordingly, it is arguable that the regulation and management of AUN under the UNCLOS can be further developed through three different approaches: the adoption of a new implementing agreement, addressing AUN through the existing implementing agreement (BBNJ Agreement) and regulation through rules of references. In addition, it is argued that the adoption of several instruments and programs by various other institutions (as shown in Table 2) could provide support and enhance the implementation of relevant provisions of the UNCLOS to effectively address the issue of AUN. In such circumstances, it is arguable that the UNCLOS can be regarded as a living instrument that provides a flexible mechanism to respond to current and future problems for marine environmental protection. It is noteworthy that this article is relevant to the fundamental theoretical issue of how international law of the sea, based on the UNCLOS as its basic framework, can be further developed to meet new challenges.
