INTRODUCTION

The concept of the common heritage of mankind is one of the most extraordinary developments in recent intellectual history and one of the most revolutionary and radical legal concepts to have emerged in recent decades. The year 1997 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the advent of the concept in the domain of public international law. Ever since its emergence, it has become evident that no other concept, notion, principle or doctrine has brought as much intensive debate, controversy, confrontation and speculation as the common heritage phenomenon did. This is because it is a philosophical idea that questions the regimes of globally important resources regardless of their situation, and requires major changes in the world order to apply its provisions. In other words, the application and enforcement of the common heritage of mankind require a critical reexamination of many well-established principles and doctrines of classical international law, such as acquisition of territory, consent-based sources of international law, sovereignty, equality, resource allocation and international personality .

Initially, the development of the common heritage of mankind principle in international law is traced to provide an understanding of how the conflicting interpretations over its substance have arisen. This examination demonstrates the opposing positions taken by developing and developed states, prior to the principle's overall acceptance in the 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It also evidences that, despite overall acceptance, the common heritage of mankind principle lacks precise legal obligations .

Due to the ideological differences of developed and developing states, the common heritage of mankind principle has been interpreted in various ways. These interpretations have not been reconciled and there has been no juridical consideration of the common heritage of mankind principle to clarify them. Therefore, the precise legal requirements of the principle of the common heritage of mankind remain undefined.

The concept of the 'common heritage of mankind" governs the deep seabed, air space, outer space and Antarctica. However. the principle of the common heritage of mankind has differing interpretations and consequently lacks legal force. Subsequently, an attempt is made to give content to each element of the common heritage of mankind principle by considering existing international legal principles drawn from various sources. This demonstrates where the principle currently lacks content. More importantly, it also indicates the elements of the principle that require the most development to allow effective management of these common heritages.

The proclamation of certain areas as the common heritage of mankind has raised the question as to whether a new form of territorial regime is in process of being created .In 1970, the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration of Principles governing the seabed and ocean floor in which it was noted that the area in question and its resources were the common heritage of mankind. This was reiterated in Articles 136 and 137of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, in which it was provided that no sovereign or other rights would be recognized with regard to the area, except in the case of minerals recovered in accordance with the Convention. Article XI of the 1979 Moon treaty emphasize that the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind. Attempts are also being made to declare Antarctica as a common heritage .

Antarctica is a very intriguing topic in this regard as it is a huge ice covered landmass surrounded by water like an island. Seven countries have stake their claims on this continent. These countries are Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Chile, France, Norway and United Kingdom. Such claims are based on variety of grounds, ranging from mere discovery to Sector principle. In 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was signed by all states concerned with territorial claims or scientific exploration in the area. Its major effects were to demilitarize Antarctica, and to suspend but not eliminate territorial claims.

All these treaties regarding common heritage also concerns the environment also. Today there is a general feeling to protect the environment from deteriorating further. To this effect there have been many treaties signed .but this paper will concern it self with those treaties concerning common heritage which has an environmental effect also.

This paper studies global commons regimes, such as the Antarctic Treaty and the Agreement governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, and international environmental law in order to determine by what means the common heritage of mankind principle could evolve into a juridical standard. By contrasting similar principles and regimes that have had varying success, it becomes possible to determine what approach is required to make the common heritage of mankind principle an effective standard. Also this paper will examine the international environment law and the link between the common heritage and the environment. The researcher will study those treaties of common heritage which also speaks on environment issues.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS –
1. What is common heritage of mankind and how was it evolved? What is its true scope?
2. What is the link between common heritage and international environment law?

CHAPTERIZATION –
1. Common heritage –evolution and full scope this chapter will examine the principle of common heritage of mankind and will investigate its evolution and scope. It will examine the need for such a principle and will see how successful it has been until now.
2. Common heritage of mankind and international environment law This chapter will deal with environmental law and its various aspects. It will also study various treaties relating to environment issues. Finally it will look at the link between common heritage and environment issues.

CHAPTER ONE
COMMON HERITAGE – EVOLUTION AND SCOPE

The progress of the mankind was through industries which were sustained by natural minerals like rubber, metals, oil etc. but as the growth of industries increased the production levels also started going up and slowly the deposits of minerals within the jurisdiction of nations started to dwindle and in turn fade out. To sustain the industrial revolution new sources of minerals had to be found and they were found in those places where there was no control of any country or the claims were disputed. Some examples would include the deep sea bed, Antarctica, outer space etc. these areas belonged to no one in particular so an idea was developed that these areas were the property of everyone or of entire mankind. From here developed the idea of common heritage of mankind(hereby referred to as CHM). In 1830 Andres Bello, a poet and international jurist, wrote that things which could not be held by any one nation without affecting the interests of other nations were of the nature of an “individual common patrimony”, which only permitted a restricted and regulated ‘usufructus, that is a limited and non exclusive right of use . According to Bello’s view, certain areas of the planet should be set apart in common for the use of all people, which were not capable of being subject to claims of State sovereignty or ownership, but which were subject to certain defined rights of common use. He did not use the term “common heritage of mankind” but his idea was the same. Then in the late 19th century, scientists discovered polymetallic nodules on the deep seabed. The quantities found were large enough to enable commercial mining operations. But the only catch was that the seabed did not lie in the jurisdiction of any State. Consequently to regulate access to these resources, a legal regime had to be established. The regime adopted was the ‘common heritage of mankind ’. It was first limited to deep seabed only but afterwards it was expanded to outer space, Antarctica and world heritages too. In fact, biodiversity was once a part of this too.

The common heritage principle consists of four elements –
1. No State can proclaim sovereignty over any part of common heritage
2. The States can only use it for peaceful purposes.
3. Everyone has an equal share it it and any one can use it.
4. The nation exploiting it commercially has to share its management and profits with others .

Due to the ideological differences between the developed and developing nations, the common heritage principle has been interpreted in many ways. These interpretations have not been reconciled and there has been no judicial consideration of common heritage of mankind principle to clarify them. Thus the precise legal requirement of this principle remains undefined .

EVOLUTION OF THE PRINCIPLE -

The evolution of this principle began in 1960s and continued till 1994 when this principle was formerly recognized by a U.N General Assembly resolution. The negotiations beginning in 1960s and leading up to the Law of the Sea Convention provided an opportunity for the elucidation of the concept of CHM. There had been no other in depth debate on that concept up to that time. The notion of World Heritage Areas, located within the boundaries of a particular State but subject to a wider international interest, had still not emerged until the negotiation of the World Heritage Convention adopted by UNESCO in 1972 and even then those areas were not expressed as a form of CHM. Nor had much attention been given to the potential status of Antarctica as being within the common heritage of mankind. The Antarctic Treaty had been finalized in 1959, freezing the sovereign claims of all nations but leaving the actual legal status of Antarctica in doubt. Only the first outer space treaty of 1967 had adopted an approach similar to the concept of CHM in relation to outer space but it was not expressed in those terms . The first use of the term “common heritage of mankind” was by Arvid Pardo, the ambassador of Malta to U.N General Assembly when he was speaking on the subject of reservation of seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction exclusively for the use of all mankind. He spoke of the “dangers to mankind as a whole were the seabed and ocean floors beyond present national jurisdiction to be progressively ad competitively appropriated, exploited and used for military purpose by those who possessed the necessary technology. He proposed new international provisions that would see such resources being declared as the ‘common heritage of mankind”. This language has now found its way into the United Nations system .

The advancement of the CHM principle has been hindered by the conflicting interpretations by the developed and developing nations. It was not until the 1994 agreement that there arose universal support for this principle. The journey to this point in history was marked by various General Assembly resolutions and domestic laws whose aim was to support and promote a global convention relating to the law of sea.

In 1967 there was a proposal during the 22nd session of General assembly which outlined the need to establish a regime to govern deep seabed. In order to stop militarily and technically advanced nations from exploiting the deep sea bed this proposal suggested both an international treaty and an international agency to regulate the activities of deep seabed. The international treaty was to regulate the activities by declaring seabeds as common heritage of mankind. As usual the developing countries endorsed it but the developed nations rejected it. There were two reasons for developing nations to accept it: firstly, many developing countries are the land based producers of minerals and they were apprehensive that if the developed nations could mine the minerals from seabed then the demand for minerals will go down and their economies will suffer. Second reason was the demand of a New International Economic Order(NIEO) in the world. The NIEO aimed to establish a more equitable distribution of resources and income between developed and developing nations. By distributing economic benefits from the exploitation of deep seabed between all parties, the advantages of those developed states with the technology to mine would be shared by the developing states. Thus many developing states saw CHM as a mean to rectify their economic situation . Developed states rejected the CHM principle on two grounds: firstly due to its imprecision they considered the concept to be devoid of any legal meaning. Secondly they argued that deep seabed could not belong to the entire world community and relied upon the freedom of seas regime which was outlined in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (1958) .

To further develop the CMH principle the General Assembly passed resolution 2467A IN 1968 which established a Committee on the peaceful uses of seabed and ocean floor beyond the limit of national jurisdiction(Seabed Committee). The Seabed Committee drafted a number of resolutions, the most important ones being Resolution 2574D which was passed in 1969(also known as Moratorium Resolution) and Resolution 2749, passed in 1970. The Moratorium resolution prohibited all states and persons from exploiting the deep seabed and also forbid anyone from exerting sovereignty over it. There were again serious differences between the developing and developed States over this resolution with the latter rejecting it as being recommendatory and not obligatory . The 1970 resolution was called the ‘Declaration Of Principles’ and this was seen as an attempt to outline the principles governing the seabed activities. It declared seabed as a common heritage of mankind but could not resolve the divide between the developed and developing nations.

Subsequently the Third UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was called to create a uniform codified regime covering all aspects of the law of the seas, but in particular the regime governing the deep seabed. Part XI of the UNCLOS embodies the deep seabed provisions. It also declared seabed as a CHM and prohibited any state or person from exploiting it. International Seabed Authority was formed and all the resources of seabed vested in it and it was given authority to act on behalf of mankind as whole. It also addressed the concerns of the developing nations. But many developed nations lead by U.S.A raised objection over this part of UNCLOS and did not signed it. Main reasons for their objection was that they were not the chief decision makers in this regard and the developing nations dominated ISA. That would go against their interests as they would not be given permission to mine seabed . To counter the UNCLOS regime the U.S passed a law called Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act in 1980. France, Japan, Italy, West Germany, Soviet Union and U.K followed suit and passed their own legislations which provided for licensing of any exploration or exploitation of any mineral resource occurring on the seabed, outside the UNCLOS regime. To prevent overlapping licenses , a reciprocating states’ regime was formed in order to recognize licenses issued by other legislating states. As expected the developing states objected sharply to this new alternative regime and argued that it was in contradictions of the General Assembly resolutions but the developed states countered it by saying that General Assembly resolutions were not binding and that they had raised objections while voting . With the increasing number of ratifications of UNCLOS and its imminent entry into force, need was felt to make amendments into part XI in order to win universal support. Subsequently the General Assembly drafted the 1994 Agreement.

This was the most important and deciding Agreement drafted by the General Assembly in this context. This agreement modified the objectionable clauses of UNCLOS and made changes in provisions regarding transfer of technology, training of personnel and decision making process of ISA. It also provided for a review of UNCLOS at any time. These measures helped the 1994 Agreement to achieve almost universal acceptance. The CHM principle now binds most of the states through UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement. However the 1994 Agreement has only altered the management regime and has not made any changes in the contents of the CHM principle .

Although the CHM principle was initially outlined in the context of deep seabed but analogous principles have formed the basis for other global commons. Especially Antarctic and Outer Space laws have the same foundation. Thus one can deduce that CHM govern these commons also.

OUTER SPACE -

Talking about outer space, the researcher will look at the important treaties signed and the scope of CHM in this area. In 1959 UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space(COPUOS) was established. COPUOS drafted several resolutions which culminated into the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including Moon and Other Celestial Bodies in 1969(also known as Outer Space Treaty). This treaty established a basic framework of international law to be applicable in outer space. It declared outer space to be the province of all mankind and allowed the states to explore and use outer space for the benefit of all countries . Article 2 prohibits the appropriation of outer space by any means and Article 4 prevents nations from installing weapons into the space. Further in 1979 COPUOS drafted the Moon Treaty whose objectives are the safe development and rational management of lunar resources and the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from those resources . Article 11 of this treaty states that the moon and its resources are the common heritage of mankind. Thus the CHM principle was incorporated into outer space also by this treaty. This treaty also prohibits the appropriation of moon and makes provisions for an international regime once exploitation becomes feasible. Basically the moon treaty reiterates the points of 1967 treaty. Surprisingly only 11 countries have ratified it till 2003 and 5 others have signed it, including India and France. Absence of United States from the list of signatories is still more surprising as it is one of the pioneering nation in space technology. The lack of absence by states that promote lunar activities indicates that it is unlikely that the CHM principle in the Moon treaty will be defined . As a resul the CHM remains an inchoate principle in space law but this does not mean that it will not be applicable in future. This uncertainty matches the ambiguities present in the CHM principle in law of seabed. In both the case the lack of systematic utilization has worked against the creation of a specific regime and the articulation of legal restrictions .

ANTARCTICA –

Antarctica is the last of the major global commons that the researcher will be discussing in this paper. It is the only continent which is not under the jurisdiction of any state and still its legal status is doubtful because 7 countries have claims over several sectors of the continent. These states are Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, France, U.K and Norway. These states based their claims on factors like discovery, proclamation of sovereignty, geographical proximity and occupation through the establishment of scientific bases . Despite all the claims, about one fifth of the continent remains unclaimed. The Antarctic treaty of 1959 was signed by only a few interested states, including all the claimant states plus others like Belgium, Japan, South Africa, USSR and USA. The treaty allows other states to accede to it and consequently many others have joined it over the number of years, including India. The existing claims over much of Antarctica plus the lack of universal application of the Antarctic treaty provisions makes it very difficult for Antarctica to be considered as a global common. But the nature of issues surrounding it give it a very global commons like approach and the fact that no one nation has any jurisdiction over it helps its cause. Other treaties and conventions came into place after the Antarctic treaty. These new international agreements over Antarctica were known as ‘Antarctic treaty systems’ which included 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the 1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral resource Activities and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The Antarctic treaty freezes all the territorial claims on Antarctica by every nation and prohibits any state from exploiting its minerals. This is reiterated in Article 7 of 1991 protocol .

The Antarctic Treaty establishes a hierarchy to govern Antarctica. Article IX creates 3 groups of state parties, oly two of which are entitled to attend the Antarctic Treaty consultative meetings. These are the 12 states that have signed and ratified the treaty and those states that have acceded to the treaty and fulfill the requirements laid down in Art. IX(2). Both of these groups comprise the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCP). The third group consists of those members who have acceded to the treaty but do not fulfill the requirements under IX(2) .

There are some differences between the model followed by the Antarctic treaty and the CHM principle. In CHM no state can claim sovereignty over an area of CHM whereas in Antarctica 7 nations are already claiming different parts of it. Secondly in CHM there is no strict prohibition on exploitation of mineral resources and the only condition is that the states mining those resources have to share the benefits with all the other nations whereas in Antarctic treaty there is a provision regarding absolute prohibition on exploitation of minerals. But still the Antarctic model has been effective as it has demonstrated how to get international co-operation and work towards preservation of a resource or global common.

Thus we see the scope of CHM is quite wide now and is ever expanding. There are differences in its interpretations butt that issue is being resolved slowly but surely as the people are understanding each other’s needs and there is a growing understanding between developed ande developing nations.

CHAPTER TWO
COMMON HERITAGE OF MANKIND AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT LAW

As the technological advancements occur, the activities of humans are expanding at a rapid pace and now we are trying to exploit every resource of minerals that we can lay our hands on. This frantic increase in the activities of mankind has had an adverse impact on the environment of the globe. Various ecosystems have been destroyed or severely damaged because of mining and other activities. This rapid deterioration of the environment caused the international community to stock of the situation and take some damage control measures to rectify it. Many measures were taken, many conferences were called, many conventions were organized, but still the situation is hardly better. One of the unintentional measures taken to preserve the environment was Common Heritage of Mankind principle. It was introduced to secure the economic rights of the developing nations and to get them equitable share in the resources and their benefits yet it also stated provisions about preserving and not carrying out dangerous activities in any CHM area. CHM principle actually provides that no state can mine a resource without sharing the benefits with other states and no country will ever want to do that so no one is mining these resources and thus the environment around them is still protected. In fact it can be said that one of the basic objectives behind the CHM principle was to conserve the environment. Various international treaties and conventions gave birth to international environmental law.

EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW –

Early attempts to develop international environmental law focused on the conservation of wildlife like fisheries, birds and seals and to some extent the protection of rivers and seas. Bilateral fisheries convention were signed to halt over exploitation and in 1931 the first Whaling convention was signed. In 1916 the USA and UK signed the first bilateral treaty for the protection of migratory birds and subsequently International Committee for Bird Protection was formed in 1922 (ICBP) . Apart from wildlife countries also focused on the pollution of water. The 1909 Water Boundaries Treaty between USA and Canada is witness to that. The activities took a faster pace since the inception on United Nations with international organizations addressing environmental issues at the global and regional level and a dawning realization crept up about the impact of economic activities of states upon environment. First step towards environment protection regime was the UN Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources(UNCCUR) in 1949. This convention recognized the UN’s role in environment protection and talked about a balanced approach to manage natural resources. This conference resulted in 1972 Stockholm Conference.

The first real action happened with the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment which was held at Stockholm which is why it is also called as Stockholm conference. This was the first conference to deal with environmental issues in a comprehensive manner. This conference decided many things of which a few are –
1. Condemnation of nuclear testing
2. Creation of World Environment Day
3. An action plan consisting of recommendations for international actions
4. The Adoption of Stockholm Declaration
5. Recommendations for new international machinery

Stockholm Declaration was a very important step in environment protection. It consisted of a series of principles intended to influence how states were to conduct activities with regard to environment . In 1992 Rio De Janeiro hosted the UN Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) which further continued the good work of Stockholm conference. The main outcomes from this conference were –
1. The creation of the preparatory document Agenda 21
2. The opening for signatures of UN Framework Convention on Climatic Changes
3. The opening for signatures of Convention on Biological Diversity
4. Adoption of the Non- legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests. .
5. The adoption of the Rio Declaration

Both the Stockholm and the Rio declarations similar broad based principles and the important fact is that the international community have generally accepted these principles despite the fact that they contain undefined terms, and impose obligations upon both the developed and developing nations. Since UNCED a number of important new instruments have been adopted and negotiations for others continue. There is frantic development going on in the field of environmental law and many new treaties have been signed. One thing emerges from this development of environmental law: international environmental law is no longer exclusively concerned with the adoption of normative standards to guide behavior, but increasingly addresses techniques of implementation which are practical, effective, equitable and acceptable to most of the international community . The universal acceptance and implementation has been achieved through the adoption of framework approach for negotiations at both the Stockholm and Rio conferences. This involves defining the scope of legal obligations in general language while subsequent protocols outline the specific details which results in progressive specification of commitments at a rate which acceptable to most states. The initial principle formed the framework, guiding the development of the obligations. This has resulted in a highly successful model which in contrast to UNCLOS model seems much more feasible .

LINK BETWEEN CHM AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW –

As mentioned above the global commons are the property of no one and everyone. To regulate activities around them the principle of Common heritage of mankind was adopted which is not yet a very acceptable one. There is an inherent link between environmental law and CHM principle. This is demonstrated by the various treaties on CHM which always have clauses concerning conservation and protection of environment around the global commons. Researcher is looking at three most important global commons in this respect: outer space, deep seabed and Antarctica.

Talking about outer space, three are 3 main environmental problems relating to it –
1. Orbital space debris
2. Environmental damage caused to other planets due to human activities
3. Environmental damage caused on earth as a result of man made objects falling from space .

The international legal regime regulating environmental aspects of outer space consists of three treaties: outer space treaty of 1967, moon treaty of 1979 and the 1992 outer space principles. The Outer Space treaty of 1967 lays down some provisions with important implications for environmental protection. It prohibits the stationing of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Article IX lays down some obligations and states that all studies and exploration of space must avoid the harmful contamination and adverse changes in the environment of earth resulting from the introduction of extra territorial matter. Parties are also under an obligation to undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with activities which may cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other state parties. But the main objective of this treaty is the protection of humans and not environment directly. Moon treaty of 1979 takes environment protection a step further by laying down certain provisions in Article 7. Art. 7(1) reads that,” in their exploration and use of moon, the parties are required to take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment, whether by introducing adverse changes that environment, by its harmful contamination through the introduction of extra environmental matter or otherwise. State parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully affecting the environment of earth through the introduction of extra territorial matter or otherwise.” The treaty also minimizes the amount of radio active substance that can be placed in space.

Now coming to the laws of the sea, we find that the rules concerning the protection of marine life from pollution are well developed both at the regional as well as on international level. This is mostly the result of various treaties and other international Acts adopted by States since 1972. But this paper will only look at those provisions regarding the environment which are mentioned in UNCLOS and other treaties establishing the principle of CHM. This is done in order to show the link between the environment law and CHM. The 1982 UNCLOS aimed to establish a legal order for the seas and oceans which would facilitate the peaceful use of seas and oceans. It also talks about conservation of living resources of sea, and protection and preservation of the marine environment. It is one of the most far reaching and influential global environment agreement with 142 parties as its members. It has influenced the development of regional rules for the protection of marine environment as well as broader international environmental law. Its provisions are regarded as statutory international laws. UNCLOS requires states to pursue to main objectives – to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution and to conserve and manage marine living resources .

Pollution from seabed activities is caused by the release of harmful substances during the exploration, exploitation and processing of seabed materials. UNCLOS establishes a basic framework of general commitments which are supplemented by regional rules in various seas. Article 145 of UNCLOS empowers the ISA to adopt rules for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of marine environment occurring from seabed activities carried on in areas outside the national jurisdiction. There are other treaties and conventions also laying provisions regarding marine environment protection but they are not considered as they are beyond the scope of this project.

Antarctica is a very unique case in the category of global commons and the development of environmental laws regarding it has been the same. The Antarctic continent extends over 14 million square kilometers and comprises 26 percent of the world’s wilderness area, representing 90 percent of all territorial ice and 70 percent of planets fresh water. It has a very limited terrestrial life and a highly productive marine ecosystem. It plays an important part in the maintaining of climatic equilibrium and thus it is of utmost importance that its environment should be preserved and protected. The international community has realized this fact and thus we have many treaties and conventions on it. 5 treaties are the most important ones and the researcher will be studying them: 1959 Antarctic treaty, 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, 1980 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities(CRAMRA) and 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The 1959 Antarctic treaty odes not directly say anything about environment protection but many of its provisions contribute incidentally to environment protection in the region, like the prohibition of nuclear testing in Antarctica or disposal of radioactive wastes in there is prohibited. It can be only used for peaceful purposes and military activities are prohibited . The 1972 Antarctic seals convention requires parties to limit the number of seals that it kills or captures annually and grants complete protection to certain species . The 1980 CCAMLR aims to conserve the marine living resources of Antarctic marine ecosystem. Harvested and associated activities are to be carried out in accordance with 3 principles of conservation adopted under the convention :
1. Preventing decrease in the size of any harvested population to a level below that which ensures its stable recruitment.
2. Maintaining the ecological relationship between harvested, dependent related populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration of depleted population to the level described in (1) above.
3. Preventing changes or minimizing risks of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible.

The 1988 CRAMRA marked the next step in the development of international law for the protection of Antarctic environment. CRAMRA was intended to determine whether Antarctic mineral resource activity was acceptable and, if so then under what conditions they can be carried out. These activities comprised of prospecting, exploration and development but did not include scientific study. CRAMRA recognized the dangers posed to environment by such activities and thus elaborated a set of measures designed to protect environment. But the main countries have not ratified this treaty and thus it is not likely that it will come into force very soon. But many of its innovative provisions have influenced developments in other environmental treaties and it remains an important model for the further development of international environmental law concerning rules on liability for environmental damage etc. the 1991 Environmental Protocol established a 50 year moratorium on Antarctic mineral resource activities from its entry into force on 14th January 1998 . This protocol comprises of the most comprehensive and stringent regime of environmental protection rules ever established under international law anywhere in the world. The objective of the protocol is the protection of Antarctic environment based on the conviction that it is for the good of all mankind.

Thus we see that the CHM principle is intricately linked with environmental law.

CONCLUSION

Common heritage of mankind is a very unique principle which confers an area which does not belong to anyone, to the entire mankind. The global commons ldo not belong to any one nation and they all have tremendous potential of generating vital minerals. If this principle of CHM had not been there then these resources would have been mined by the technologically advanced nations and formed a part of their territories. This principle advocates equitable sharing of benefits accrued of these resources and thus prevents any one nation from exploiting it alone. But there are lots of differences between the developed and developing nations regarding this principle and they need to be resolved in order to implement the principle in its true spirit. The evolution of this principle have seen many international treaties been signed but there is more work to be done because this principle has not gained universal acceptance.

International environmental law on the other hand is developing fast and is intricately related to CHM principle. CHM is actually preserving the natural resources of global commons and conserving the environment around them and thus helping in environment protection. Many treaties of CHM have incorporated elaborate provisions regarding environment protection because now there is a growing realization that we need to protect the environment for our own safety. This attitude has helped in framing of some very comprehensive environment laws regarding many areas of international law. But more work has to be done and a universal comprehensive legal regime has to be developed for environmental protection from human activities of mining etc.

\

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Secondary sources –
1. Sands Philippe, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2003, UK
2. Biswas.A.R., International Law, 1st edition, Kamal Law House, Kolkata, 1999
3. Malcolm .N.Shaw, International Law, 5th edition, Cambridge Publications, 2004
4. Turack Daniel, “Concept of common heritage of mankind in international law”, Journal of Third World Studies, Fall 2002
5. Nicholson Graham, “The Common Heritage of Mankind and Mining: An analysis of the law as to the high seas, outer space, the antarcti and world heritage.”,’ New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law’, 2002
6. Jack Barkenbus, Deep seabed resources:politics and technology (1979)
7. Martin Henry, ‘The deep seabed: Common heritage of mankind or arena for unilateral exploitation?’, (1992) 40 Naval law review207
8. Guntrip Edward, “Common heritage of mankind :an adequate regime for managing the deep seabed?”, ‘Melbourne Journal of International Law’, 2003
9. Boleslaw Boczek, “ideology and law of the sea: challenges of the New Economic Order”, Boston College International and Comparative law review(1984)
10. Bernard Herber,” the common heritage principle: Antarctica and the developing nations”, (1991) 50 American Journal of Economics and Sociology 391
11. Gorove Stephen, “the concept of common heritage of mankind: a political, moral or legal innovation?”, San Diego Law Review, Vol 9
12. R.W.King, “Deep seabed: who has the right to exploit them”, Colonial Law Journal,pg. 11, 1981
13. Bernard Oxman, “The 1994 Agreement and Convention”, American Journal of International Law, Vol 88 , 1994
14. Carol R.Buxton, “Property in Outer Space: common heritage of mankind principle v. the “first in time, first in right” rule of property law”, Journal of Air law and Commerce, 2004
15. Redgwell Catherine, “protection of ecosystems under international law: lessons from Antarctica
16. Ellen S. Tenenbaum, “A world park in Antarctica: The common heritage of mankind”, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 1990

Bhanu Pratap Singh
Currently pursuing B.A. LLB. (Hons.) from Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. Presently studying in 3rdYear Vth Semester.
email:bhanu77.rmlnlu@gmail.com
+91-9259229678.

Add Comment

You do not have permission to comment. If you log in, you may be able to comment.