... K N A USS TRIBUTE
B a s i c T r e n d s i n t h e E v o l v i n g L a w o f t h e S e a a n d T h e i r I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r O c e a n U s e M a n a g e m e n t
Lawrence Juda Llniversity of Rhode Island • Kingston, Rhode Island LISA
r•overing over seventy per cent of the earth's surface the w o r l d ' s oceans are a distinguish- ing feature of the planet. F r o m a
h u m a n use perspective, ocean areas are significant, p r o v i d i n g food, energy, minerals, and a transportation h i g h w a y that m a k e s possible an inte- grated world economy. Accordingly, it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g that considerable attention has b e e n given to the inter- national law of the sea since that b o d y of law p r o v i d e s the legal f r a m e w o r k for the m a n a g e m e n t of the h u m a n uti- lization of o c e a n s p a c e a n d its resources.
The concept of f r e e d o m of the seas, as c h a m p i o n e d b y the celebrated Dutch l a w y e r H u g o Grotius in his seminal w o r k Mare Liberum in 1609, d o m i n a t e d legal t h o u g h t into the twentieth century. C o n t e m p o r a r y law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations
C o n v e n t i o n on the Law of the Sea, s u b s e q u e n t interna- tional a g r e e m e n t s , a n d state practice e m b o d i e s a different a p p r o a c h resulting from a variety of ocean use trends and d e v e l o p m e n t s . Clearly, as c o m p a r e d to law of this earlier period, p r e s e n t - d a y law indicates m o v e - m e n t t o w a r d a m o r e m a n a g e d e n v i r o n m e n t , w i t h constraints and responsibilities being placed on states as they exercise their rights in ocean areas (Juda, 1996).
The p r i m a r y forces n o w driving the transformation of the law of the sea are the increased h u m a n capability to exploit o c e a n r e s o u r c e s d u e to technological a d v a n c e s a n d the greatly increasing d e m a n d for ocean resources resulting from the g r o w t h of world p o p u l a - tion. O v e r time h u m a n use of the ocean e n v i r o n m e n t
has been m a r k e d tional uses, as
• .. ocean science has advanced the understanding of natural ocean systems and the effects otl those systems
of human activities ranging from fishing to the introduction of
pollutants into the marine environment.
In broad terms
the development of ocean law in the twentieth centurl/
has been characterized by four interrelated major trends.
b y a pattern of intensification of tradi- in regard to fishing a n d m a r i t i m e transportation, s u p p l e m e n t e d b y the emergence of n e w uses, such as the exploitation of offshore oil and gas deposits. A n d n e w commercial uses of ocean areas, for e x a m p l e d e e p seabed mining for m a n g a n e s e nodules, m a y be on the horizon.
This o b s e r v e d pattern of h u m a n use has b e e n a c c o m p a n i e d b y s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s of overexploitation of living resources, d a m a g e to m a r i n e ecosys- tems, conflict of uses of ocean space, a n d d i s p u t e s o v e r the n a t u r e a n d extent of coastal state authority in off- shore areas. At the s a m e time, ocean science has a d v a n c e d the u n d e r s t a n d - ing of natural ocean s y s t e m s a n d the effects on those s y s t e m s of h u m a n activities r a n g i n g f r o m fishing to the i n t r o d u c t i o n of p o l l u t a n t s into the m a r i n e environment.
In broad terms the d e v e l o p m e n t of ocean law in the twentieth century has b e e n characterized b y four inter- related major trends. The first is for greater national control and jurisdiction over those areas of ocean space subject to m o s t intense h u m a n use.
The 1982 United Nations L a w of the Sea C o n v e n t i o n allows for notable widening of coastal state jurisdiction a n d control o v e r m o r e extensive ocean areas than h a d been the case u n d e r the legal regime codified b y the first United Nations Conference on the L a w of the Sea in 1958. This i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t , reflected in state practice, has b e e n termed "the ocean enclosure m o v e - m e n t " (Ball, 1996; Alexander, 1983; Eckert, 1979). In
particular, the g r o w t h of national control over ocean areas is manifested in several key d e v e l o p m e n t s :
a. Recognition of a w i d e r territorial sea The right to claim a territorial sea to a m a x i m u m of 12 nautical miles has b e e n enshrined in the 1982 L a w of the Sea Convention. N o t surprisingly, m o s t coastal states including tile United States h a v e a s s e r t e d rights to the m a x i m u m extent, thus m o v i n g a w a y from w h a t often was seen as the tra- ditional three mile limit of territorial seas, referred to as the " c a n n o n - s h o t " rule. In the territorial sea the coastal state has full sovereignty, subject only to the right of ilmocent p a s s a g e for foreign flag ships.
b . R e c o g n i t i o n of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in international law
The legal right to establish EEZs extending to 200 miles f r o m the baselines used to m e a s u r e the terri- torial sea, sanctified in the 1982 United Nations C o n v e n t i o n on the L a w of the Sea, has b e e n institutionalized b y extensive state practice. This d e v e l o p m e n t , c r e a t i n g a n e w juridical z o n e b e t w e e n the territorial sea a n d the high seas, m a r k s a major change in ocean law a n d p r o v i d e s the coastal state with m a n a g e m e n t a u t h o r i t y a n d responsibility over all the living or non-living resources found there. Since s o m e 95 p e r cent of the w o r l d fish catch is taken within 200 miles of the coast and since that area is no longer treated as an international c o m m o n s , accessible to fishermen of a n y and all states at will, the potential for effective m a n a g e m e n t of the ocean's living resources has been increased.
In addition to control over natural resources in the EEZ, the coastal state has also acquired juris- dictional rights in regard to the establishment of artificial islands, installations, and structures, as well as in regard to m a r i n e pollution and scientific research. Of special concern to o c e a n o g r a p h e r s is the fact that research within the EEZ m u s t be conducted with the prior p e r m i s s i o n of the coastal state; scientific research n o w has b e c o m e subject to the c o m p l i c a t i o n s of a " c o n s e n t r e g i m e " that i m p o s e s a n u m b e r of obligations on researchers (Knauss, 1985a; Roach, 1996) a n d exemplifies the fact that the concept of " f r e e d o m of the seas" has been eroded.
c. R e d e f i n i n g the c o n t i n e n t a l s h e l f to remove any doubt that the coastal state has s o v e r e i g n rights over the resources of the entire continental margin, i.e., the continental shelf, slope, and rise, an area c o l l e c t i v e l y referred to by legal writers (but not oceanographers) as the continental s h e l f
Where the physical continental m a r g i n is less than
200 miles, the legally defined continental shelf is recognized, nonetheless, to e n c o m p a s s the seafloor out to 200 miles from the baselines used to m e a s u r e the territorial sea. Utilizing the "Irish formula,"
coastal state rights are also recognized in regard to legally defined continental shelf areas that extend b e y o n d 200 miles (Prescott, 1985). The p r i m a r y concern with the continental shelf relates to coastal state s o v e r e i g n r i g h t s o v e r m i n e r a l resources including oil and gas. But the legal regime of the continental shelf is of i m p o r t a n c e to the marine sci- ence c o m m u n i t y because scientific research in or on the legally defined continental shelf, as in the case of the EEZ, is subject to a consent regime con- trolled b y the coastal state.
d . R e c o g n i t i o n of the right of archipelagic states to establish and utilize archipelag- ic b a s e l i n e s
Under the 1982 Uizited Nations L a w of the Sea Convention, archipelagic states such as Indonesia and the Philippines are entitled to utilize straight archipelagic baselines connecting their outermost islands provided, a m o n g other things, that those baselines include the m a i n islands and an area in which tile ratio of the area of water to land is between 1:1 and 9:1. The practical effect of the use of such baselines is to enlarge substantially the ocean area falling witl~n baselines as c o m p a r e d to a sys- tem of delimitation around each individual island c o m p o n e n t of an archipelagic state.
As a consequence of "ocean enclosure" approxi- mately 37 per cent of the w o r l d ' s oceans come u n d e r some form of coastal state jurisdiction and control (Alexander, 1986). The significance of this figure is underscored b y the reality that the ocean areas e n c o m p a s s e d in territorial seas, EEZs, continental shelves, and archipelagic waters constitute the most heavily utilized areas of ocean space. All offshore oil, almost 30 per cent of the w o r l d ' s annual oil pro- duction, is taken f r o m continental shelf areas.
Further, as noted above, 95 per cent of world fish catch comes from within the 200 mile limit. It is nec- essary to observe, too, the importance of commercial and military navigation and overflight through or over territorial seas, straits used for international navigation, archipelagic waters, and other waters in which coastal states h a v e some f o r m of national jurisdiction. A n d finally, it is precisely these ocean areas where m o s t waste products and pollutants are introduced into the world oceans.
W h y has national jurisdiction of coastal states over ocean areas e x p a n d e d as it has? Clearly, the d a y of the nation-state has not yet passed. The n e w states in Africa a n d Asia, together with the states of Latin America, were at the forefront of the m o v e m e n t to e x p a n d coastal state p o w e r s a n d prerogatives into ocean areas (Orrego
18 Oceanography • VoL 14 • No. 2/2001
Vicufia, 1984; Attard, 1987). In m a n y respects such efforts are quite understandable, for without coastal state authority in areas off their shores, resources will be exploited by and for d e v e l o p e d states rather than for the benefit of the adjacent coastal state. Concern with distant water fishing p r o v i d e d powerful impetus for the states of the developing world to champion the con- cept of the EEZ.
The second major trend in ocean law is the develop- ment of a legal system which increasingly recognizes the multiplicity of ocean uses and the need to p r o v i d e a balanced regime that acknowledges the rights of coastal states but also those of the larger w o r l d community.
While coastal state authority and jurisdiction in off- shore areas obviously have e x p a n d e d in the past half century, that expansion has been accomplished in the context of recognition of significant rights for non- coastal states. Whereas the earlier Grotian system of ocean law was formulated in an age in which the focus was on ocean navigation, the m o d e r n legal system has h a d to take into a c c o u n t g r o w i n g c o n c e r n w i t h depletion of ocean resources and their allocation and conservation and with protection of the ocean environ- ment, as well. The new law of the sea attempts to balance navigation rights, which are still of major significance, in terms of both economic and military matters, with the growing concern over ocean resource availability and over the state of the ocean environment.
The 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention clearly conveys the fact that its framers conceived the oceans in three dimensional terms, subject to a variety of uses, some old and some new, through the entire vertical c o l u m n of ocean space f r o m s u b - b o t t o m t h r o u g h the water c o l u m n and into the airspace above.
In addition to the traditional uses of fishery exploitation and surface navigation, ocean space utilization was perceived to include waste disposal and transport, marine scientific research, military uses, submarine cables and pipelines, construction of artificial islands, structures, platforms, a n d installations, overflight, offshore port facilities, archaeological research, seabed mining, u n d e r w a t e r navigation, exploitation of non- living resources from the water column, and p r o d u c t i o n of e n e r g y from water, currents, and winds. The Convention reflects an u n d e r s t a n d i n g that ocean space is used and will be used for a growing multiplicity of purposes.
O v e r time, greater sophistication and i n v e n t i v e genius have been displayed in d e v e l o p i n g n e w off- shore juridical zones and acceptable legal formulations that acknowledge the complicated balance of interests and uses to which ocean space is subject. N e w forms of intermediate legal authority allowing for less than total coastal state control have been applied to ocean areas in proximity to coastal states. In both the continental shelf and the EEZ the coastal state is recognized as having "sovereign rights" over living and non-living resources, for example, and limited jurisdiction rather
than "sovereignty." The concept of sovereign rights implies limited control and a u t h o r i t y for specific purposes, as o p p o s e d to total control for all p u r p o s e s associated with sovereignty. In both the EEZ and the continental shelf, rights associated with the high seas, such as freedom of navigation and overflight, that are not contrary to the limited rights possessed b y the coastal state continue to apply. This new, more sophis- ticated ocean legal regime clearly seeks to achieve an acceptable balance of rights, respecting coastal state and w o r l d navigational interests.
While there appears to be an a c c o m m o d a t i o n of interests a m o n g coastal states and the broader world community, this by no means suggests that significant legal problems relating to jurisdiction do not exist;
m a n y important details have yet to be clarified b y state practice. In the territorial sea, for example, there remain differences with respect to i n n o c e n t passage of warships; a sizeable n u m b e r of states maintain that for- eign warships require coastal state notification or even authorization for passage through their territorial seas.
Moreover, differences exist with respect to the precise balance contained in the package of rights and duties of coastal states in their new EEZs. N o w that broad questions of jurisdiction have been addressed, legal attention will focus on the more precise nature of juris- diction in particular zones.
The third, and perhaps the most significant trend in ocean law, is the growing u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the need for m a n a g e m e n t of the physical e n v i r o n m e n t of the oceans and its resources and uses. Recognition of the need for ocean m a n a g e m e n t is manifested in a variety of provi- sions contained in the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention and stems from a basic alteration in the h u m a n perspective of the oceans. At an earlier time the oceans were v i e w e d as virtually limitless in terms of the living resources they could generate year after year and in terms of the wastes they could safely assimilate and render harmless.
In fact, w i d e r national claims to offshore areas by a variety of states have been fueled by the growing fear of fishery stock depletion due to the increasing activities of m o d e r n distant water fishing fleets. And even a cursory comparison of the 1958 United Nations Law of the Sea Conventions with the 1982 Convention quickly d e m o n s t r a t e s the g r o w i n g c o n c e r n of the w o r l d c o m m u n i t y with marine pollution and environmental protection. More is k n o w n t o d a y of the physical ocean system and its ecology than in past decades. From the perspective of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the oceans comprise a total environment, used b y m a n y for a host of different purposes with each use contributing to the cumulative impact on that environment. As noted in the Convention's preamble " . . . the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a w h o l e . . . "
Just as a law of the sea regime requires balance a m o n g the interests of a n u m b e r of states, so too does it
require an attempt to reconcile alternative and compet- ing uses and to recognize their synergistic implications for the well-being of ocean ecosystems. The disincentive to responsible behavior associated with the status of the oceans as a c o m m o n s has been reversed to some extent through the establishment of national
EEZs. Moreover, the new law of the sea creates strong incentives for effec- tive m a n a g e m e n t by the coastal state since it is that state that stands to ben- efit the most from such efforts.
The fourth major trend in ocean law is the recognition of the need for inter- national c o o r d i n a t i o n , c o o p e r a t i o n , and institutional d e v e l o p m e n t in the governance of ocean space. The 1982 U n i t e d N a t i o n s Law of the Sea Convention allocates control of ocean areas and their resources, placing the m o s t heavily utilized p o r t i o n s of
ocean space u n d e r the jurisdiction of coastal states.
With basic jurisdictional questions addressed, attention n o w has turned to the matter of management, that is, the use and conservation of the resources and environ- m e n t that come u n d e r national authority.
Such concern underscores the need for international c o o p e r a t i o n at the regional and global levels (Alexander, 1994). The Convention clearly recognizes that in terms of m a n a g e m e n t of the marine environ- m e n t and its living, and non-living resources, national interests c a n n o t be m a x i m i z e d absent c o o p e r a t i v e international efforts. Whereas coastal nation-states a p p e a r to emerge t r i u m p h a n t with the expansion of their authority into areas once viewed as high seas, in m a n y cases they still have at best limited control over events affecting the well-being of their e x p a n d e d offshore zones and resources. Jurisdictional capacity within a w i d e r zone such as the EEZ does not necessar- ily i m p l y control sufficient to p r o t e c t i m p o r t a n t interests in resources that migrate outside of that area or pollutants that m a y be transported into that area.
The expansion of national jurisdiction does not obvi- ate the need for international cooperation; in m a n y cases it accentuates its need by raising the stakes for those states involved. Regional cooperative efforts will be essential to turn formal authority and jurisdiction into meaningful or maximal benefits for each particular coastal state. Ironically, in this sense the jurisdictional triumph of coastal states will be accompanied by a new imperative for international cooperation. The a d o p t i o n of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement that emphasizes the importance of regional fishery bodies indicates a heightened awareness of the need for inter- national c o o p e r a t i o n to m a n a g e stocks that m o v e between EEZs and the high seas and also highly migra- tory species such as tuna (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995).
in the rules applied to such zones of national attthority,
such as those associated with navigational rights, and must remain vigilant to ensure that tendencies toward "'creeping jurisdiction'"
are checked (Knauss, 1985b).
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r o c e a n u s e m a n a g e m e n t Looking to the future, the aforementioned develop- ments have contradictory implications for the short and long term. In the short term, states will continue the trend of seeking to maximize national authority in offshore areas to the extent m a d e
• . . tile wider world cotnllttl~tity permissible by c o n t e m p o r a r y interna- has verl/important interests tional law. Coastal and non-coastal
" states will test the limits to the
s o m e t i m e s v a g u e a n d imprecise balances laid out by the new regime for the law of the sea, with each state trying to protect its perceived interests in the juridical zones of ocean space.
Without doubt, during the past half century, the balance b e t w e e n the rights of coastal states vis-d-vis those of other states within the territorial seas, the continental shelf, archipelag- ic waters, and the exclusive economic zone has m o v e d toward the world's coastal states.
However, the wider world c o m m u n i t y has very impor- tant interests in the rules applied to such zones of national authority, such as those associated with navigational rights, and must remain vigilant to ensure that tendencies t o w a r d "creeping jurisdiction" are checked (Knauss, 1985b).
in the longer term the need for interstate cooperation, already recognized and noted above, will increasingly manifest itself and will be seen specifically in terms of:
Greater involvement of international organiza- tions in marine affairs
Developing states, especially, will call upon interna- tional organizations to provide assistance in several major w a y s to aid in the m a n a g e m e n t and d e v e l o p m e n t of sometimes extremely large tracts of ocean space n o w u n d e r national jurisdiction. But developed states as well need and benefit from the c o o r d i n a t i n g capabilities of international organizations.
O r g a n i z a t i o n s such as the Food a n d Agricultural Organization (FAO), the International Maritime O r g a n i z a t i o n (IMO), and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) will be looked to for their substantive expertise to provide technical assistance as attention increasingly turns to m a n a g e m e n t questions. The Intergovernmental O c e a n o g r a p h i c C o m m i s s i o n (IOC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), as well as FAO, will be called u p o n for scientific expertise on matters ranging from coastal m a n a g e m e n t to the impact of particular fishing gear on the marine e n v i r o n m e n t to the application of the precautionary approach to fisheries (Freestone and Hey, 1996; Garcia, 1994).
2 0 Oceanography • VoL 14 • No. 2/2001
Other international bodies such as the United Nations D e v e l o p m e n t Program (UNDP), the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) will be looked to as sources of m u c h needed fund- ing to allow states to take full advantage of and execute the legal rights and responsibilities they have acquired through the evolution of ocean law.
Further, institutions such as UNEP, FAO, and v a r i o u s regional fishery c o m m i s s i o n s will be expected to serve as catalysts or channels for required regional cooperation.
• An emphasis on regional cooperation in marine affairs
In the long term as states attempt to manage their new extended zones of offshore
jurisdiction, it will b e c o m e increasingly a p p a r e n t that in many, if not most, areas such man- agement cannot succeed without c o o p e r a t i v e and c o o r d i n a t e d efforts by states of a marine region (Alexander, 1994). National juris-
diction will, on m a n y occasions, be too limited in spatial reach for effective m a n a g e m e n t of marine resources and the marine environment; this is particularly true in the world's semi-enclosed seas as in the Mediterranean or the Baltic. In those areas the need for regional cooperation is already patent- ly obvious as the task of m a n a g e m e n t proceeds. The work of UNEP through its Regional Seas Program a n d the m a n y regional a g r e e m e n t s that h a v e already e m e r g e d underscore this trend.
• G r o w i n g i n t e r e s t i n e c o s y s t e m - b a s e d management
N o w that state jurisdiction has b e e n b r o a d l y d e t e r m i n e d , coastal states have strong positive incentives to manage offshore resources effectively.
Increasing awareness of the high cost of environ- mental d a m a g e and pollution to coastal states will contribute further to m a n a g e m e n t concerns. The burgeoning interest in protecting the marine envi- r o n m e n t and its resources will have to take into a c c o u n t e x p a n d i n g k n o w l e d g e of ecosystem dynamics.
That such considerations have already entered into the international political realm is seen, for example, in the Antarctic Convention on Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR, 1980) that defines the treaty area utilizing the Antarctic convergence, a b o u n d a r y based in ecosystem considerations. But the use of such a b o u n d a r y remains exceptional;
indeed, a basic problem that faces those concerned with ocean use m a n a g e m e n t issues is the lack of congruence b e t w e e n "politically defined space,"
that is, the geographic area encompassed by partic- ular h u m a n governance systems, and "ecologically
defined space," composed of the area over which natural ecosystems e x t e n d (Juda, 1999).
Contemplation of large marine ecosystems as a possible basis for effective ocean m a n a g e m e n t is but one example of ongoing concern with the need to address this matter (Alexander, 1993; Sherman, 1995).
C o n c l u s i o n
Whereas the c o n t e m p o r a r y law of the sea parcels out jurisdiction, authority, and responsibility a m o n g states, such compartmentalization will not prove successful in the absence of effective ocean m a n a g e m e n t efforts. Such efforts must factor in the natural systems of the oceans and encourage cooperation on an international scale.
• . . ocean goverllatlce may provide a major testing ~round
of h u m a n ability to cooperate on an international basis.
I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , in the sense that what happens in one place has impli- cations elsewhere, will be m o r e evident, as will the limited capability of states to achieve desirable outcomes individually. Accordingly, ocean g o v e r n a n c e m a y p r o v i d e a major testing g r o u n d of h u m a n ability to cooperate on an international basis for the m a n a g e m e n t of natural resources and the environment.
REFERENCES
Alexander, L.M., 1983: The Ocean Enclosure Movement:
Inventory and Prospect. San Diego Law Review, 20, 561-594.
Alexander, L.M., 1986: Navigational Restrictions Within the New LOS Context: Geographical Implications for the United States. Peace Dale, Offshore Consultants, Inc.
Alexander, L.M., 1993: Large Marine Ecosystems: A N e w Focus for Marine Resources M a n a g e m e n t . Marine Policy, 17, 186-198.
Alexander, L.M., 1994: N e w Trends in Marine Regionalism. In: Ocemz Yearbook 11. E.M. Borgese, et al., eds., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1-8.
Attard, D., 1987: The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Ball, W.S., 1996: The Old Grey Mare: National Enclosure of the Oceans. Ocean Development & International Law, 27, 97-124.
CCAMLR, 1980: Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. International Legal Materials, 19, 837-859.
Eckert, R., 1979: The EtlcJosllre of Ocean Resources.
H o o v e r Institution Press, Stanford.
Freestone, D. and E. Hey (eds.), 1996: The Precautionary Principle and International Law: the Challenge of Implementation. K l u w e r Law International, The Hague.
Garcia, S.M., 1994: The Precautionary Principle: Its Implications in C a p t u r e Fisheries M a n a g e m e n t . Ocean & Coastal Management, 22, 99-125.
Juda, L, 1996: IHtertzational Law and Ocean Use Management: The Evolution of Ocean Governance.
Routledge, London.
Juda, L., 1999: Considerations in Developing a Functional Approach to the Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development &
International Law, 30, 89-125.
Knauss, J., 1985a: The Effects of the Law of the Sea on Future Marine Scientific Research and of Marine Scientific Research on the Future Law of the Sea.
Louisiana Law Review, 45, 1201-1219.
Knauss, J., 1985b: Creeping Jurisdiction and Customary International Law. Ocean Development & International Law, 15, 209-216.
Orrego Vicu6a, F. (ed.), 1984: The Exclusive Economic Zone:
A Latin American Perspective. Westview Press, Boulder.
Prescott, J.R.V., 1985: The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World. Methuen, London.
Roach, J.A. 1996: Marine Scientific Research and the N e w Law of the Sea. Ocean Development &
International Law, 27, 59-72.
Sherman, K., 1995: Achieving Regional Cooperation in the Management of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the Large Marine Ecosystem Approach. Ocean &
Coastal Management, 29, 165-185.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982:
International Legal Materials, 21, 1261-1354.
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995-- International Legal Materials, 34, 1547-1580.
J o h n Knauss has a lot of facets. From 1968-1987, while I was at La Spezia and Woods Hole, he was just an
"important name" I had seen on ocean circulation papers, in charge of conferences, as the University of Rhode Island (URI) Dean, etc. He attended a few of the Friday night biweekly Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Seminars that rotated between Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard, with occasional forays to Yale, Brown, and URI. He did not engage in the usual mathe- matical questions-and-answers, but saved his bullets for probing questions like "Why do you think that?" and
"How did you come to that conclusion?" and "So what?"
These are paraphrases, not quotes: I do not remember the details of his comments, but remember being impressed that he was not apparently enamored of or swayed by all the integral signs; I sensed a kindred spirit.
Then I joined the Office of Naval Research (ONPO.
One of my very first jobs - at a URI Site Review - was to tell John we weren't going to give him all the money he had asked for, which involved some remote sensing data of the Brazil CurrenL The "important name" turned out to be a gentleman as well, and helped me get through the meeting gracefully as we negotiated.
I moved to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1991, while John was its Administrator. He turned the tables almost immediately and showed he held no grudge: he gave me some start-up money to try and kick off some of the early activities in the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). The important name and gentleman became a benefactor. His words of guidance on GOOS were quite simple; in effect he said this is worth doing, and it is time to do it, so get
~ together with people who want to make it happen and
work with them. John then left NOAA, and so did I a f e w years later. He returned to a split life in Rhode Island and La Jolla, and I returned to ONR.
We keep crossing paths via the Ocean Studies Board and various governmental committees like the Ocean Research Advisory Panel of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. He always strikes me as someone who is wise and is ready with his counsel, but never quite believing of the ponderous nature of getting things done in Washington. The senior citizen-oceanographer delivers a boyish enthusiasm about new ideas, and never seems to lose his optimism for things like GOOS. I'm sure he thinks it is still a good idea, and it is still time to do it.
Another NOAA person when I was there with John was the late Ned Ostens0. One of Ned's sayings was that
"you can lead with a carrot or you can lead with a stick, but you can't lead with a tin cup." John Knauss proves another alternative is viable: he leads with a quiet but forceful intellectual strength, an avoidance of ]quff, and a focus on defensible objectives.
The Washington Post recently reported on a document making the rounds of Washington, called "Rumsfeld's Rules." One of them is quite elegant: "Remember: A's hire A's and B's hire C's." The quality of people at URI attests to John's tenure there and to his being an A.
These are a lot of facets, plus he has won the much- coveted Albatross Award from the American Miscellaneous Society. We are all fortunate to know him.
Melbourne G. Briscoe Office of Naval Research Arlington, VA USA
22 Oceanography • Vol. 14 • No. 2/2001
