ocean acidification, etc, that are induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere? And secondly, whether state parties have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment in the context of climate change impacts, including sea-level rise, ocean warming and ocean acidification?The tribunal answered both points in the affirmative by deriving its jurisdiction on the issues within the UNCLOS. The tribunal broadly relied on Article 194, which enumerates state parties' obligations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment.
In its elaborate ruling, the tribunal laid down certain important legal aspects that will dictate future policy actions.Anthropogenic GHG emissions as pollution under UNCLOS: Interpreting anthropogenic GHG emissions as pollution under ‘pollution of the marine environment’ (Article 1, para 1, subpart 4 of the UNCLOS) was the precondition for ascertaining state parties’ obligations. The definition of ‘pollution of the marine environment’ uses the phrase “…introduction by man, directly or indirectly of substances or energy" without specifying the nature of such an introduction.Often, marine environment pollution refers to pollutants carried by water.
The tribunal elaborated that the word “substance" refers to a particular kind of matter with uniform properties. A gas qualifies as a substance with uniform properties (as distinct from liquid and solid matter).
The word “energy" was also understood to include thermal energy or heat within its fold.The International Law Commission’s commentary on the definition of “atmospheric pollution" corroborated the interpretation of gas as a source of marine pollution. The tribunal also cited scientific
. Read more on livemint.com