Browse by title

Anthropogenic underwater noise pollution (AUNP) generated by, inter alia, commercial shipping, military exercises, the use of sonar and seismic surveys has increased dramatically since the early 1950s. This has caused or contributed to the death and suffering of marine biota.

International and domestic law must adequately regulate AUNP in order for this transboundary and transjurisdictional form of pollution to be addressed. This article examines the two most comprehensive multilateral international conventions regulating the world's oceans and biodiversity – the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity – to address the question of whether these two conventions adequately protect marine biota from AUNP. It is argued that the existing regimes established under these conventions are inadequate because they do not: sufficiently recognise AUNP as a form of pollution; provide comprehensive and binding direction as to practical measures to prevent, mitigate or eliminate AUNP; or provide adequate enforcement regimes. To remedy these inadequacies, this article concludes by outlining a number of non-exhaustive law reform recommendations.

Biopiracy, largely defined as misappropriation of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, has occurred all around the world. Southeast Asia, one of the world's biodiversity hotspots, has been a victim of biopiracy in a number of cases across the region. Despite the high occurrence of the exploitation of resources, the region has not responded to the problem of biopiracy adequately. One of the most important reasons for this lack of response to biopiracy is the absence of a legally binding regional instrument(s). However, considering that (i) biopiracy does not respect national borders, (ii) most of the Southeast Asian states have ratified the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and (iii) soft law instruments adopted so far have failed to tackle biopiracy, this article argues that a legally binding regional regime should be established to tackle biopiracy in a consistent manner. Following an analysis of a number of biopiracy cases in the region, this article discusses why a legally binding instrument(s) is necessary. It suggests how to improve the current regional instruments pertaining to access and benefit sharing in relation to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, based on the analysis of instruments adopted to tackle biopiracy in other regions.