Advanced

Coastal state jurisdiction in offshore pipeline projects

Labaf, Arsalan LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
EU förbrukar och importerar mer och mer energi vilket leder till ett beroende av utländska producenter. Europa står inför stora utmaningar i och med ökad efterfrågan på naturgas. Historiskt sett har gasledningar varit den rådande metoden att transportera naturgas till Europa. Att dra en rörledning är en erkänd metod för kommunikation såsom sjöfart och flygtransport, vilket enligt jus communcationis är en rättighet för alla nationer. Olika regler gäller beroende på i vilken maritim zon gasledningen är avsedd att läggas och vilken nationalitet den juridiska personen har. Om en utländsk juridisk person vill dra en gasledning genom territorialhavet tillhörande en annan stat, så är den bunden av den statens relevanta nationella lagstiftning.... (More)
EU förbrukar och importerar mer och mer energi vilket leder till ett beroende av utländska producenter. Europa står inför stora utmaningar i och med ökad efterfrågan på naturgas. Historiskt sett har gasledningar varit den rådande metoden att transportera naturgas till Europa. Att dra en rörledning är en erkänd metod för kommunikation såsom sjöfart och flygtransport, vilket enligt jus communcationis är en rättighet för alla nationer. Olika regler gäller beroende på i vilken maritim zon gasledningen är avsedd att läggas och vilken nationalitet den juridiska personen har. Om en utländsk juridisk person vill dra en gasledning genom territorialhavet tillhörande en annan stat, så är den bunden av den statens relevanta nationella lagstiftning. Internationell rätt och havsrättskonventionen ger ingen rätt att lägga gasledning genom en annan stats territorialhav och en kuststat har absolut suveränitet över sitt territorialhav.

Om en utländsk juridisk person emellertid önskar lägga en gasledning på en annan stats kontinentalsockel eller exklusiva ekonomiska zon, minskar kuststatens jurisdiktion till en funktionell jurisdiktion, vilket ger kuststaten och den utländska juridiska personen de rättigheter som anges i Artikel 79 i havsrättskonventionen. En kuststat kan inte hindra utläggandet av en gasledning genom sin EEZ/kontinentalsockel i sig. Dock finns det möjligheter för en kuststat att vidta skäliga åtgärder för att bevara miljön och dess naturtillgångar samt påverka och fastställa villkor för rörledningens sträckning genom att föreslå en alternativ sträcka om det skulle anses vara lämplig ur miljömässiga skäl. Kuststatens rätt att vidta skäliga åtgärder omfattar rätten att värna om eventuell pågående utforskning och utvinning av kontinentalsockelns naturtillgångar. Följaktligen kan en regering kräva att den utländska juridiska personen väljer en annan sträcka om gasledningen påverkar utforskningen eller utvinningen. Dock är möjligheten för en kuststat att hindra dragningen av en gasledning begränsad såvida inte en miljökonsekvensbeskrivning tydligt illustrerar att effekten på miljön skulle vara uppenbart negativ. Miljökonsekvensbeskrivningen är trots detta ett instrument för en kuststat att skydda sina intressen till havs, samt ett hjälpmedel för att se till att den utländska juridiska personen tillämpar miljöhänsyn i planeringen och att miljöfaktorer beaktas i beslutsprocessen. Vidare är miljökonsekvensbeskrivningen ett instrument för att bedöma vilken potentiell inverkan en planerad verksamhet har på miljön. Havsrättskonventionen kräver i sin tur att en kuststat skall agera bona fide, vilket innebär att staten måste agera i god tro.

Konkurrerande jurisdiktion kan uppstå vid gränsöverskridande gasledningar. Olika stater med olika intressen i ett gränsöverskridande gasledningsprojekt kan kräva att utöva jurisdiktion inom olika frågor. Ledningens ursprungsstat, mottagande stat, en kuststat vars EEZ används som transitområde för ledningen och en utländsk juridisk persons registreringsland kan ha konkurrerande anspråk inom en fråga. Problemen och frågeställningarna som uppstår är i de fall gasledningarna är utlagda utanför en kuststats territorialhav, men inom statens EEZ. Kuststatens intresse av att skydda sina intressen till havs kan kollidera med andra staters rätt till kommunikation, enligt jus communcationis. Konkurrerande anspråk att utöva jurisdiktion kan uppstå och olika principer för jurisdiktion ger olika resultat, vilket leder till oförutsebarhet. Konkurrerande jurisdiktion kan dock inte undvikas då en gränsöverskridande gasledning alltid ansluter två olika jurisdiktioner. Ett sätt att lösa detta problem har varit genom att ingå bilaterala och multilaterala avtal. En kuststat är dock inte en part i dessa avtal, men har rätt att vidta åtgärder för att förhindra, begränsa och kontrollera föroreningar från gasledningar som har sitt ursprung utanför sitt territorium. Vidare får kuststaten vidta rimliga åtgärder för att skydda befintliga ledningar och kablar på havsbotten.

Nord Streamprojektet har gett upphov till debatt i Östersjöstaterna som berörts av projektet. De argument som framförts av motståndarna till projektet har bland annat varit miljömässiga skäl eftersom Östersjön är starkt förorenat av tungmetaller, kemiska vapen och ammunition som dumpats. Dock är möjligheterna att hindra utläggandet av en gasledning genom Östersjön mycket begränsade såvida inte en miljökonsekvensbeskrivning tydligt visar att miljöpåverkan skulle vara alltför skadlig. (Less)
Abstract
EU is consuming more and more energy and importing more energy products leading to dependency on a limited number of foreign producers. Europe is facing big challenges with a growing demand for natural gas. Historically, pipelines have always been the prevailing way to supply gas to Europe. The laying of offshore pipelines is recognised as a method of communication like shipping and air transportation, according to jus communcationis, which is a right of all nations. Depending on in which maritime zone a pipeline is proposed being laid and the nationality of the entity wishing to lay an offshore pipeline, different sets of rules apply. International law and LOS (Law of the Sea) gives no rights to a foreign entity to lay a pipeline in... (More)
EU is consuming more and more energy and importing more energy products leading to dependency on a limited number of foreign producers. Europe is facing big challenges with a growing demand for natural gas. Historically, pipelines have always been the prevailing way to supply gas to Europe. The laying of offshore pipelines is recognised as a method of communication like shipping and air transportation, according to jus communcationis, which is a right of all nations. Depending on in which maritime zone a pipeline is proposed being laid and the nationality of the entity wishing to lay an offshore pipeline, different sets of rules apply. International law and LOS (Law of the Sea) gives no rights to a foreign entity to lay a pipeline in another states territorial sea. A coastal state enjoys absolute sovereignty over its territorial sea and the relevant domestic law governs the foreign entity that wishes to lay a pipeline there.

However, if a non-coastal entity wishes to lay an offshore pipeline on the continental shelf or EEZ (Exclusive economize zone) of another state, the coastal state’s jurisdiction decreases to a functional jurisdiction, which gives the coastal state and the non-coastal entity the rights given in LOS, Art 79. The coastal state may not impede the laying of pipelines per se in the EEZ/Continental shelf, but it can safeguard its interests offshore by taking reasonable measures to preserve the environment and its natural resources, and influence the delineation of the pipeline by proposing an alternative route if it would be found suitable with reasonable environmental grounds. This gives a coastal state the right to control and affirm conditions concerning the route. The coastal state’s right to take reasonable measures comprises to protect offshore development areas and ongoing exploration and exploitation of its natural resources on the continental shelf. Consequently, the coastal state can require an entity to reallocate the route of the pipeline if it endangers these projects. The possibility for a coastal state to prevent the laying of an offshore pipeline is very limited if an EIA (Environmental impact assessment) not clearly demonstrates that the impact on the environment would be negative. The EIA is nevertheless an instrument for the coastal state to use to safeguard its interest to make sure that environmental considerations are implemented in the planning, investigation and selection of the most appropriate solution, construction, pre-commissioning and operation. LOS requires however that a coastal state must act bona fide, meaning that the state must act in good faith with honest intentions and beliefs.

Conflicts of jurisdiction may arise when cross-border pipelines are constructed and operated in different maritime zones. Different states with different interests in a cross-border pipeline project can claim jurisdiction in diverse matters. States such as a sending state, where the pipeline originates, a receiving state, a transit/coastal state and a state of the incorporation/registration of an entity can have conflicting jurisdiction claim. The problems and questions arise in situations where the offshore pipelines are located outside the territorial sea and in the shelf or the EEZ of the coastal state. There is a conflict of jurisdiction between the coastal state and other states which are interested in using their communicative freedom.
Conflicting jurisdiction regarding different issues may occur, and different principles of jurisdiction give different result, which gives little opportunity to predict the outcome. Conflicts of jurisdiction cannot be avoided since a cross-border pipeline always connects two separate areas of jurisdiction. One way of solving this problem has been through bilateral and multilateral pipeline agreements. If a pipeline crosses the continental shelves and EEZ of other states, the governments of the transit states are not parties of the pipeline agreement. However, coastal states such as a transit state in an offshore pipeline project can take reasonable measures to protect the production of its natural resources, protect existing cables and pipelines and protect the marine environment. The coastal state can take protective measures to control pollution from pipelines even though the pollution occurs outside its territory.

The Nord Stream project has been subject to debate in the Baltic Sea states affected by the project. The arguments used have been, among others, environmental concerns since the Baltic Sea is heavily polluted by heavy metals, chemical weapons and dumped ammunition. However, the possibility for the affected states to prevent the laying of the Nord Stream pipeline is very limited if the EIA does not evidently show that the impact on the environment would be harmful. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Labaf, Arsalan LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Folkrätt, Transporträtt, Sjörätt
language
English
id
1628033
date added to LUP
2010-07-13 11:51:20
date last changed
2010-07-13 11:51:20
@misc{1628033,
  abstract     = {EU is consuming more and more energy and importing more energy products leading to dependency on a limited number of foreign producers. Europe is facing big challenges with a growing demand for natural gas. Historically, pipelines have always been the prevailing way to supply gas to Europe. The laying of offshore pipelines is recognised as a method of communication like shipping and air transportation, according to jus communcationis, which is a right of all nations. Depending on in which maritime zone a pipeline is proposed being laid and the nationality of the entity wishing to lay an offshore pipeline, different sets of rules apply. International law and LOS (Law of the Sea) gives no rights to a foreign entity to lay a pipeline in another states territorial sea. A coastal state enjoys absolute sovereignty over its territorial sea and the relevant domestic law governs the foreign entity that wishes to lay a pipeline there. 

However, if a non-coastal entity wishes to lay an offshore pipeline on the continental shelf or EEZ (Exclusive economize zone) of another state, the coastal state’s jurisdiction decreases to a functional jurisdiction, which gives the coastal state and the non-coastal entity the rights given in LOS, Art 79. The coastal state may not impede the laying of pipelines per se in the EEZ/Continental shelf, but it can safeguard its interests offshore by taking reasonable measures to preserve the environment and its natural resources, and influence the delineation of the pipeline by proposing an alternative route if it would be found suitable with reasonable environmental grounds. This gives a coastal state the right to control and affirm conditions concerning the route. The coastal state’s right to take reasonable measures comprises to protect offshore development areas and ongoing exploration and exploitation of its natural resources on the continental shelf. Consequently, the coastal state can require an entity to reallocate the route of the pipeline if it endangers these projects.  The possibility for a coastal state to prevent the laying of an offshore pipeline is very limited if an EIA (Environmental impact assessment) not clearly demonstrates that the impact on the environment would be negative. The EIA is nevertheless an instrument for the coastal state to use to safeguard its interest to make sure that environmental considerations are implemented in the planning, investigation and selection of the most appropriate solution, construction, pre-commissioning and operation. LOS requires however that a coastal state must act bona fide, meaning that the state must act in good faith with honest intentions and beliefs. 

Conflicts of jurisdiction may arise when cross-border pipelines are constructed and operated in different maritime zones. Different states with different interests in a cross-border pipeline project can claim jurisdiction in diverse matters. States such as a sending state, where the pipeline originates, a receiving state, a transit/coastal state and a state of the incorporation/registration of an entity can have conflicting jurisdiction claim. The problems and questions arise in situations where the offshore pipelines are located outside the territorial sea and in the shelf or the EEZ of the coastal state. There is a conflict of jurisdiction between the coastal state and other states which are interested in using their communicative freedom.
Conflicting jurisdiction regarding different issues may occur, and different principles of jurisdiction give different result, which gives little opportunity to predict the outcome. Conflicts of jurisdiction cannot be avoided since a cross-border pipeline always connects two separate areas of jurisdiction. One way of solving this problem has been through bilateral and multilateral pipeline agreements. If a pipeline crosses the continental shelves and EEZ of other states, the governments of the transit states are not parties of the pipeline agreement. However, coastal states such as a transit state in an offshore pipeline project can take reasonable measures to protect the production of its natural resources, protect existing cables and pipelines and protect the marine environment. The coastal state can take protective measures to control pollution from pipelines even though the pollution occurs outside its territory. 

The Nord Stream project has been subject to debate in the Baltic Sea states affected by the project. The arguments used have been, among others, environmental concerns since the Baltic Sea is heavily polluted by heavy metals, chemical weapons and dumped ammunition. However, the possibility for the affected states to prevent the laying of the Nord Stream pipeline is very limited if the EIA does not evidently show that the impact on the environment would be harmful.},
  author       = {Labaf, Arsalan},
  keyword      = {Folkrätt,Transporträtt,Sjörätt},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Coastal state jurisdiction in offshore pipeline projects},
  year         = {2010},
}