Round table: International law of the sea, maritime security and a proposal for an Ocean COP

Summary

Report of the round table on the international law of the sea held at the Symposium of European Marine Academies in Marseille in March 2025. Moderated by Eduard Somers, President of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy, it covered UNCLOS, the interplay between the BBNJ Agreement and the deep-seabed mining regime, the security of submarine cables and infrastructure, and the proposal for an “Ocean COP”.

General information

• Event title: Session 6: International Law of the Sea
• Organiser: Académie de marine
• Date: 25 and 26 March 2025
• Venue: Marseille, École nationale supérieure maritime (ENSM) and CMA CGM’s TANGRAM Center
• Moderator: Professor Dr Eduard Somers, President of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy
• Theme: State and prospects of the international law of the sea, interactions between the BBNJ Agreement and the deep-seabed mining regime, maritime security and the proposal for an “Ocean COP”
• Summary written by: Deep Blue

Presentation of the symposium

This round table, moderated by Professor Eduard Somers, brought together academics and practitioners of the law of the sea to present the general framework of UNCLOS (1982), analyse the interplay between the BBNJ Agreement (2023) and the deep-seabed mining regime, and then debate contemporary maritime security challenges. The second part of the discussion broadened to global ocean governance, with a proposal to create an “Ocean COP” and discussions on the effectiveness of multilateralism, the role of courts in the formation of customary law and expectations regarding the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC). The speakers took the floor in the following order: Eduard Somers (introduction), Klaas Willaert, Jean‑Louis Fillon (opening remarks), then a discussion on security prompted by a question from Marie Jacobsson, to which Jean‑Louis Fillon, Klaas Willaert and Eduard Somers responded, before exchanges with the audience (members of the audience, a student, Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu) and the moderator’s conclusion.

Participants

Moderator

• Eduard SOMERS — Professor, President of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy

Speakers

• Klaas WILLAERT — Professor, Director of the Maritime Institute, Faculty of Law, Ghent University
• Jean‑Louis FILLON — Delegate General of the Institut français de la Mer, President of the Law and Economics section of the Académie de marine
• Marie JACOBSSON — Ambassador, Royal Swedish Academy of Naval Sciences
• Louis LE HARDŸ DE BEAULIEU — Royal Belgian Marine Academy
• A member of the audience
• A student at the ENSM in Marseille

Report of the contributions

I. The contemporary law of the sea: architecture, dynamics and fundamental distinctions

Contribution by Eduard SOMERS, Professor, President of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy

Eduard Somers opens the session with an educational overview of UNCLOS and maritime zones, clearly distinguishing the public international law of the sea from private maritime law.

A. UNCLOS (1982) as the cornerstone and the zoning of maritime spaces

Somers recalls that UNCLOS organises the sovereignty and rights of States through zoning: internal waters, the territorial sea (with innocent passage), the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf (sovereign rights of exploration/exploitation). Beyond lie the high seas (freedoms of navigation, overflight, research) and the Area (the international seabed, designated as the common heritage of mankind).

B. High seas and the Area: principles and competent institutions

He highlights the principle of freedom of the high seas and the jurisdiction of the flag State. For the Area, he stresses the specific mining regime laid down in Part XI and administered by the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

C. A dynamic body of law beyond UNCLOS

Somers emphasises the broader normative ecosystem (IMO, FAO, specialised agreements), environmental protection, scientific research and dispute settlement (ITLOS), while recalling the distinction between the public law of the sea and private maritime law.

II. “Not to undermine”: the BBNJ Agreement and the deep-seabed regime

Contribution by Klaas WILLAERT, Professor, Director of the Maritime Institute, Faculty of Law, Ghent University

Klaas Willaert analyses the interaction between the BBNJ Agreement (2023) and the mining regime of the Area, focusing on the “not to undermine” clause.

A. Two parallel and partly overlapping legal frameworks

He recalls the seabed mining regime: the Area and its resources as common heritage, contracts through the ISA, a body of law made up of UNCLOS, the 1994 Agreement and the “Mining Code” (prospecting/exploration in force; commercial exploitation still under negotiation). The BBNJ Agreement covers the high seas and the Area around four pillars: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, EIAs, capacity building/transfer of marine technology; 60 ratifications required (21 to date).

B. Cooperation, coherence and the “not to undermine” clause

Willaert highlights the BBNJ obligations of cooperation/coordination/coherence, but above all the “not to undermine” clause, which prohibits undermining relevant instruments/bodies (including the ISA). He suggests understanding “undermining” as encroachment on competences and a subversive influence weakening a regime. Noting that the ISA’s environmental mandate is limited to “activities in the Area”, he sees room for manoeuvre for the BBNJ, while stressing the subjectivity of the undermining test. Too broad a reading would paralyse the BBNJ, since any measure on the high seas may affect the seabed.

C. Real scope: a break in governance or sectoral support?

He asks: will the BBNJ be a “game changer” towards holistic governance, or a mere complement to a fragmented landscape in which sectoral organisations (ISA) remain in control? In his view, the immediate added value of the BBNJ lies in political momentum and public pressure. He refers to his article published in Ocean Development & International Law.

III. Opening remarks and transition to global governance

Contribution by Jean‑Louis FILLON, Delegate General of the Institut français de la Mer, President of the Law and Economics section of the Académie de marine

Jean‑Louis Fillon speaks briefly after the introductory presentations, in an allusive and humorous tone, before developing his arguments later in the discussion on governance.

A. Opening

Fillon takes the floor after the two Belgian speakers and punctuates his remarks with a humorous comment, without immediately addressing the substance.

B. Transition to the rest of the debate

His contribution serves as a transition to a broader reflection on adapting the law of the sea and on the governance arrangements to be devised, which is detailed in the following segments.

IV. Ocean security: integrating threats and clarifying the tools for action

Contribution by Marie JACOBSSON, Ambassador, Royal Swedish Academy of Naval Sciences

Marie Jacobsson opens the sequence on security with a framing question to the panellists, set against the history of the UN ocean conferences.

A. A security dimension long overlooked

She recalls that at the 2017 UN Ocean Conference (Sweden/Fiji), security was absent, and notes the same caution in the programme of the upcoming Nice conference, even though this symposium puts security at the forefront.

B. Two priorities: submarine cables and maritime trade

Jacobsson identifies the protection of cables (98% of Internet traffic) and the continuity of maritime trade as operational priorities, calling for actions, resources and responsibilities to be specified.

C. UNCLOS: a static framework or an evolving matrix?

She challenges the idea of a “static” UNCLOS, arguing that it has enabled later developments (drugs, straddling stocks, BBNJ). She asks: are new treaties, soft law or extensive interpretations needed? Should UNCLOS be kept and supplemented, or should its revision be considered?

V. Breaking down silos and innovating: for an “Ocean COP” and parallel avenues of change

Contribution by Jean‑Louis FILLON, Delegate General of the Institut français de la Mer, President of the Law and Economics section of the Académie de marine

Responding to Jacobsson, Jean‑Louis Fillon argues for overcoming silos and using a variety of normative tools, inspired by the IMO, to develop the law without reopening UNCLOS.

A. Correcting silos and rebalancing priorities

Fillon criticises the compartmentalised treatment of maritime issues and the overweighting of environmental concerns, which he considers a source of “unrealistic” proposals. He wants to bring geostrategic and criminal realities back to the forefront.

B. Drawing on the IMO: from soft law to positive law

He highlights the IMO’s range of instruments (soft law, codes, para-normative instruments) as a process of acculturation and gradual legitimisation of norms.

C. Getting around the rigidity of 1982 through soft instruments

Considering the revision of UNCLOS unrealistic — “a miracle that will not happen again”, and the BBNJ “a miracle within the miracle” —, he proposes adopting resolutions and codes, in particular to rethink the scope of the exceptions to exclusive flag State jurisdiction (art. 110 UNCLOS), and calls for regular meetings covering all maritime topics. He sets out his “Ocean COP” proposal in more detail later.

VI. Submarine infrastructure and jurisdictional gaps: what basis for action?

Contribution by Klaas WILLAERT, Professor, Director of the Maritime Institute, Faculty of Law, Ghent University

Using the case of cables and pipelines, Klaas Willaert illustrates the inadequacy of the current legal bases for effective protection, and the dilemma between new treaties and new interpretations.

A. UNCLOS silent on the security of cables and pipelines

He notes that UNCLOS governs the laying of cables and the repair of accidental damage, but provides no clear basis for preventing or responding to threats/attacks, especially on the high seas.

B. Who has jurisdiction to act?

Even if a creative jurisdictional basis is accepted, uncertainty remains as to which State has jurisdiction to intervene. Bilateral agreements would only provide partial solutions.

C. New norms or extensive interpretations?

Willaert leaves the alternative open: negotiating new treaties or interpreting existing law more broadly; neither path is simple.

VII. The stability of UNCLOS and the need for operational security

Contribution by Eduard SOMERS, Professor, President of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy

Eduard Somers responds by emphasising UNCLOS as a stabilising factor, while supporting the call for practical responses on security.

A. UNCLOS as a stabilising foundation

Somers states that UNCLOS codified customary rules and enabled later developments; it does not prevent the creation of new norms, as the work of the IMO shows.

B. Putting security on the international agenda

He agrees with Jacobsson on the need for an operational approach, particularly in the face of threats in the Baltic, and hopes that the Nice conference will fully address maritime security.

C. Awareness and moving to action

Recalling that “you may not be interested in the law, but the law will always be interested in you”, he calls for concrete measures in response to the threats.

VIII. A dual strategy: immediate action and long-term mobilisation

Contribution by a member of the audience

A speaker proposes combining rapid responses with building a broader international consensus, including through an “Ocean COP”-type dynamic.

A. Geopolitical urgency and an international coalition

In the face of Russia–China–Iran cooperation, he argues for effective short-term solutions and, at the same time, for rallying long-term partners in support of a liberal order.

B. Using existing instruments: the SUA Convention

For the immediate term, he suggests using the SUA Convention (1988) and its 2005 Protocol to board suspect ships and suppress unlawful acts (terrorism, sabotage). The EU could make port access conditional on compliance with these obligations.

C. Taking proportionate sovereign action

He recalls that a State may act, in a sovereign and proportionate manner, to protect the environment and critical infrastructure; a mistake engages its responsibility, but inaction in the face of danger is not an option.

IX. For an “Ocean COP”: a diagnosis of stagnation and a pragmatic way forward

Contribution by Jean‑Louis FILLON, Delegate General of the Institut français de la Mer, President of the Law and Economics section of the Académie de marine

In a structured contribution, Fillon argues for the creation of an “Ocean COP” to overcome the gradual marginalisation of UNCLOS in global governance.

A. A law of the sea frozen compared with the climate/biodiversity COPs

He contrasts the vitality of the COPs (29 on climate, 16 on biodiversity) with the absence of an equivalent body for the ocean. UNCLOS, untouchable since 1994, has not been amended; its governance relies on light administrative mechanisms (annual UNGA resolution, DOALOS, a limited meeting of States Parties). The major environmental and security issues are dealt with elsewhere.

B. The need for updating: threats and shortcomings

He lists urgent issues: infringements of freedom of navigation (e.g. the China Sea), Arctic governance still pending, crime at sea (drug trafficking, illegal immigration, trafficking), seabed security (oil pipelines, gas pipelines, cables) and the “Dark Fleet”. He insists: “at sea, everything is connected”; a global, multidisciplinary forum is needed.

C. A pragmatic approach: turning the UNOC into an Ocean COP

Since UNCLOS cannot be amended, he proposes an Ocean COP not limited to the Convention, taking up all ocean issues. The UNOC would offer the right forum for gradual change, moving from soft law to potentially binding instruments. He calls on France, host of UNOC 2025, to champion this project.

X. Multilateralism, youth and intellectual tools: what mobilisation?

Contribution by a member of the audience

A speaker supports Fillon’s proposal and stresses the mobilisation of society and young people, as well as the need for a multidisciplinary “maritime think tank”.

A. Weakened multilateralism and the limits of existing frameworks

He notes the risk of institutions being blocked by uncooperative States, hence the value of new, complementary dynamics.

B. Involving young people and breaking down silos

The references of 1982 mean little to new generations; an Ocean COP could bring together environment, geopolitics and industry.

C. Creating a think tank

He proposes a “maritime think tank” to pool knowledge and disseminate it to civil society, an essential support for a future COP.

XI. UNOC: scope, methods and expectations

Contribution by a student at the ENSM in Marseille

The student reports that a diplomat anticipates Russia’s probable absence from the UNOC in Nice and is concerned about the effectiveness of new regulations without the participation of certain States.

A. The risk of ineffectiveness in the absence of major actors

The question concerns the feasibility of progress without universal participation.

B. Response by Jean‑Louis FILLON

Fillon explains that the UNOC is not a COP with normative power: it assesses SDG 14 through ten items (to which seven round tables of the symposium correspond). The UNOC produces findings and wishes, not sanctions. Its strength is the legitimacy that comes from a universal gathering; it does not aim to “sanction Russia”, but consensus is not guaranteed.

XII. Customary law and the role of courts: a complementary lever

Contribution by Louis LE HARDŸ DE BEAULIEU, Royal Belgian Marine Academy

Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu proposes making use of the formation of customary law resulting from the repeated use of soft law, by engaging the courts.

A. From soft law to customary law

He observes that “green law”, applied repeatedly, crystallises customary norms.

B. Raising awareness among national courts

Domestic judges are often unfamiliar with the law of the sea; targeted education is needed.

C. A coordinated message to supreme courts

He suggests that the European marine academies send supreme courts a document summarising the contemporary development of customary maritime law, to be passed on to the lower courts.

XIII. The moderator’s conclusion: multiplying levers, combining stability and innovation

Contribution by Eduard SOMERS, Professor, President of the Royal Belgian Marine Academy

Eduard Somers closes the session by bringing the proposals together and sending a message to the Nice conference.

A. Using every avenue of change

Somers endorses Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu’s suggestion and recalls the role of the International Law Commission (ILC) as a crucible of innovation. He declares himself in favour of the idea of an Ocean COP, without giving up the parallel avenues already available.

B. Message to the UNOC/Nice

He stresses the urgency of pursuing the development of the law of the sea “by all possible means” without “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”: preserving the stability of UNCLOS while strengthening operational security and the protection of biodiversity.

General discussion with the audience

A. Questions on State participation, the feasibility of an Ocean COP and legal levers

• Questions about the possible absence of certain States from the UNOC and the impact on the effectiveness of decisions.
• Feasibility of an Ocean COP outside UNCLOS and possible outcomes through the UNOC.
• Legal bases for protecting submarine infrastructure and coordinating State action.

B. Speakers’ responses

• Jean‑Louis Fillon: the UNOC is evaluative (SDG 14), not prescriptive; the Ocean COP aims at a broader, evolving and inclusive forum.
• Klaas Willaert: current gaps in the protection of cables on the high seas; the treaties/interpretation dilemma remains open.
• Eduard Somers: UNCLOS remains a foundation; at the same time, operational responses and investment in existing forums (IMO, ILC) are needed.

C. Issues still under debate

• Scope of the BBNJ “not to undermine” clause with regard to the ISA regime.
• Choice between new sectoral treaties and extensive interpretations of existing law.
• Concrete architecture and mandate of a possible Ocean COP.

General conclusion

The discussions confirm three major lessons. First, UNCLOS is recognised as a stabilising foundation (Eduard Somers, Marie Jacobsson), while revealing operational gaps on certain issues such as the security of cables and pipelines (Klaas Willaert). Second, the tension between the protection of biodiversity (BBNJ) and the exploitation of the deep seabed crystallises around the “not to undermine” clause, whose interpretation determines the articulation with the ISA regime (Klaas Willaert). Finally, several avenues of change are emerging: soft and para-normative instruments inspired by the IMO (Jean‑Louis Fillon), the use of existing instruments against threats (SUA Convention) and, in the longer term, the pragmatic creation of an “Ocean COP” building on the UNOC, in order to break down silos and involve all stakeholders, including young people.

Differences remain on method. Marie Jacobsson and Eduard Somers defend the capacity of the current framework to evolve; Jean‑Louis Fillon favours parallel avenues and a new political forum; Klaas Willaert stresses how difficult the choice between new treaties and extensive interpretations is. Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu additionally proposes strengthening customary law through coordinated action by national and international courts.

The open questions concern multi-level governance: how far can interpretation go without “undermining” existing mandates? How can the imperative of immediate security be reconciled with building lasting normative legitimacy? What concrete form should an Ocean COP take to be at once inclusive, effective and compatible with UNCLOS? These are all areas identified as priorities to be addressed in the run-up to the UNOC and beyond.

Bibliographic information

Type

Conference

Date

March 2025

Author

Deep Blue Foundation

Editor

Deep Blue Foundation

Study Centres

DMGO · SMGM

Original language

French

Original document

PDF, 12 pages

Full text

Transcription of the original document

← All publications