Groningen Journal of International Law

International Law Under Construction


Leave a comment

The Legal Framework for the activities of the Ocean Cleanup: the freedom to use the high seas to protect and preserve the marine environment

Talitha Ramphal

1.         Introduction

Plastic marine litter is growing, negatively affecting ecosystems, biodiversity and human health globally, and luckily awareness of this issue has grown as well on the international stage. For example, the EU adopted the Single Use Plastic Directive, which states in its preamble that the ‘Union must play its part in preventing and tackling marine litter and aim to be a standard setter for the world’. With this Directive, the EU aims to achieve an ambitious and sustained reduction of single-use plastic products within its Member States. The private sector also pursues another way to tackle this issue, e.g., the  Ocean Cleanup, which is a foundation registered in the Netherlands that develops technologies to clean up ocean plastic pollution.

The objective of the Ocean Cleanup is to reduce the amount of floating plastic in the oceans. The Ocean Cleanup developed System 001/Bwhich captures and collect plastic debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. In addition, the foundation developed an interceptor, which intercepts the plastic pollution in rivers. The system, however, is used on the high seas.

The activities of the Ocean Cleanup raise a distinctive legal question: what international legal framework is applicable to the activities of the Ocean Cleanup on the high seas? For the activities of the Ocean Cleanup on the high seas, the Ocean Cleanup and the Netherlands agreed on a contractual legal framework that will be discussed in detail below.

2.         The Agreement between the State of the Netherlands and The Ocean Cleanup concerning the deployment of systems designed to clean up plastic floating in the upper surface layer of the high seas

The Ocean Cleanup’s System 001/B consists of a long floater, which sits at the surface of the water, and a skirt that hangs directly underneath the long floater. Because of the long floater, it floats independently from any ship. It isnot registered as a vessel under Dutch Law and therefore, it does not operate under the Dutch flag. It would, however, be possible since a vessel is defined in Article 1 of Book 8 of the Dutch Civil Code as ‘all things, other than aircraft, which, according to their construction, are destined to float and which float or have done so’. The system and interceptor fall within this definition as the system and interceptor floats. The non-registration of the system and the interceptor as a vessel leads to the non-applicability of the laws concerning vessels operating under a Dutch flag.

Notably, the System 001/B does carrythe Dutch flag for practical purposes instead of legal ones.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), the Netherlands is obliged to have a duty of care in relation to all activities that are conducted under its control outside those areas where they exercise sovereign rights.

For that reason, on June 8, 2018, an Agreement was concluded between the Netherlands and the Ocean Cleanup to provide for a clear legal framework for the Ocean Cleanup’s activities. This Agreement is as much as possible in line with Dutch maritime rules and the international rules concerning marine scientific research.

In the preamble of the Agreement, it is stated that ‘this agreement was drawn up, by analogy to the options presented under article 238 et seq. of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on marine scientific research’. It is very questionable whether the international legal framework on marine scientific research should be applicable to the activities of the Ocean Cleanup, considering the aim of the Ocean Cleanup and the place of those rules when the phase of scientific research for the working of the system is over.

3.         The aim and purpose of the Ocean Cleanup

The aim and the purpose of the Ocean Cleanup is to clean up the ocean plastic pollution in the waters. To achieve that aim, the Ocean Cleanup conducts scientific research. Scientific research is not an aim itself, but a means to achieve the aim.

Furthermore, in the commentary of the Agreement, it is stated that the key interests of the parties are: (i) the safety of the shipping; (ii) the protection of the marine environment; and (iii) the safeguarding of other uses of the high seas. Those interests must be taken into account in the preparation and implementation of the activities of the Ocean Cleanup. Marine scientific research is not mentioned as a key interest.

The question arises whether the Ocean Cleanup could do their activities in the high seas under another legal basis, which would be a better fit.

4.         The aim and the objectives of UNCLOS

The aim and purpose of the Ocean Cleanup is in line with the aim and objectives of the UNCLOS, since the preamble of the UNCLOS states that the legal order for the seas and the oceans promotes ‘the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment’.

5.         Article 87 UNCLOS and the right to use the high seas to protect and preserve the marine environment in the interests of mankind?

As Hugo Grotius argued, in his work Mare Liberum, the use of the high seas is a right that belongs to all nations. The freedom of the high seas is a right under customary international law accorded to the sovereign states. This is also codified in Article 87 UNCLOS that provides that the high seas are open to all States to make use of the freedoms in the interests of mankind. The freedoms stipulated in Article 87 UNCLOS are: (a) freedom of navigation, (b) freedom of overflight, (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations, (e) freedom of fishing and (f) the freedom of scientific research.

However, the freedoms stipulated in Article 87 UNCLOS are not exhaustive. As discussed above, the Agreement is based on the freedom of scientific research. The question arises whether there is a freedom that covers the main activity of the Ocean Cleanup which is to clean up the ocean plastic pollution.

6.         Protection and the preservation of the marine environment

6.1 The protection and the preservation of the marine environment is in the interests of the entire international community

According to the Commentary to the draft articles of the International Law Commission concerning the law of the sea (1956), of which article 27 is similar to article 87 UNCLOS,  the rights relative to the conservation of the living resources of the high seas safeguards the interests of the entire international community. This also means that the protection and preservation of the marine environment is in the interests of the entire international community. As in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea held that the conservation of the living resources of the sea is an element in the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

6.2 The UNCLOS obligations concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment

Part XII of UNCLOS deals with the protection and preservation of the marine environment, which also provides for an obligation of the States to protect and preserve the marine environment by e.g. taking all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source (article 194 UNCLOS).

The obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment indicates a further obligation than to prevent substantive pollution. It also means that existing pollution should be diminished, as the term preservation also implies that the present condition must be improved.

7.         The freedom to use the high seas for the protection and preservation of the marine environment

Considering that the protection and preservation of the marine environment is in the interest of the international community and it provides for the obligation of States to improve the current state of the high seas in relation to the plastic pollution, there should be a right on the other side of the coin. The right to use the high seas to protect and preserve the marine environment, for example, to improve its current state by diminishing existing pollution. To diminish the existing pollution should not depend on whether scientific research is conducted. It should be a freedom of itself.

8.         Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned above, a ground for the use of the high seas should be the freedom to protect and preserve the marine environment, which consist of inter alia the right to use the high seas to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from any source and the right to use the high seas to conserve the living resources. Such a ground flows from the obligations of the States in the Law of the Sea and would adhere to the activities of the Ocean Cleanup.

_DSC0500Talitha Ramphal is currently working at a Law Firm in Rotterdam. In 2018, she graduated cum laude in Public International Law from Leiden University. She obtained a master’s in Dutch Private Law as well. During her studies, she has worked as a student-assistant and completed multiple international-oriented interships.


Leave a comment

Discussing the Difference in the Pre-Charter and Post-Charter Modalities of ASEAN

Harsh Mahaseth

There has been a shift in how ASEAN has been functioning pre and post the ASEAN Charter. ASEAN was initially a political creature which mainly reached agreements through an informal process called the ASEAN Way. Continue reading


Leave a comment

The Missing Human Rights Nexus in Climate Change Governance

Aisha Binte Abdur Rob \ aisha.rob@bracu.ac.bd

I.  Introduction

There is increasing recognition of the human costs of climate change as cumulating evidence is solidifying the links between, for instance, rising global temperatures and destroyed livelihoods. The adverse impacts on health, food, housing and other fundamental human needs are now manifest. Continue reading


Leave a comment

The Acquittal of Gbagbo and Blé Goudé and the ICC Prosecutor’s Appeal

Dr Douglas Guilfoyle | douglas.guilfoyle@adfa.edu.au

On three occasions the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has sought to bring proceedings against heads of State or government, these being the situations inCôte D’Ivoire, Kenya and Darfur, Sudan. None have thus far met with much success. The (now former) President of Sudan, Mr Al Bashir, has been ruled to have no immunity from the Court’s processes but is not in custody after more than 10 years. The case against President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya collapsed in 2014. Continue reading


1 Comment

TRICI-Law Project

Prof. Panos Merkouris | p.merkouris@rug.nl

In international law, interpretation is ubiquitous and is the process through which the interpreter attempts to determine the meaning of the rule that is being interpreted. Every case brought before international courts and tribunals raises questions of interpretation. For written agreements between States, this process has been codified in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Based on these articles, some of the elements that are taken into consideration are the text, the context of the treaty, and its object and purpose as evidence of the intention of the parties. However, a key issue is that these VCLT articles refer only to interpretation of treaties and not of customary international law (CIL).
Continue reading


Leave a comment

International Law and India’s National Register of Citizens

Arun Chauhan | archauhan9984@gmail.com

The final National Register of Citizens (NRC) list, which establishes the individual statuses of more than 30 million applicants, was released online on 31 August 2019. Amnesty International in its report has noted that over 1.9 million people were omitted from the final list, pushing them to the brink of statelessness. Inarguably, this is going to make India witness one of the country’s largest upheavals of people and the worst humanitarian crisis unfolding in Assam. Previously, the Supreme Court of India extended the deadline for the final publication of the Assam National Registry of Citizens due to allegedly wrongful inclusions and exclusions. The other demands of Centre and Assam, such as a 20 percent sample verification of NRC to find out the discrepancies over inclusions, was rejected by the Apex Court.

Continue reading