At the end of the session, a revised text (SG/LOS/CRP.1/Rev.1) of 3 June 1994 was presented to delegations. This document has elicited a number of editorial observations that are reflected in the text of the resolution and the draft agreement on the application of Part XI of the Un Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, which is contained in Appendix I of this report. A solution to the question of representation within the Council is proposed in the unofficial Annex II agreement. [x] D. Bandow, “Faulty Repairs: The Law of the Sea Treaty is Still Unacceptable” CATO (Article, September 12, 1994) . On 1 February 2011, the Maritime Litigation Chamber of the International Sea Tribunal (ITLOS) issued an opinion on the legal responsibilities and obligations of the States Parties to the Convention with regard to the promotion of activities in this area, in accordance with Part XI of the Convention and the 1994 Convention. [21] The notice was issued in response to a formal request from the International Seabed Authority, after the Authority`s Legal and Technical Commission received requests from the Republics of Nauru and Tonga for planned activities (a polymetallic nodule research plan) to be conducted in the region by two state-subsidized contractors, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (sponsored by the Republic of Nauru) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (sponsored). The Opinion outlined the international legal responsibilities and obligations of the supporting states and the Authority to ensure that sponsored activities do not harm the marine environment, in accordance with the provisions in part XI of the UNCLOS, administrative rules, ITLOS jurisprudence, other international environmental treaties and principle 15 of the Rio Declaration.

[22] Part XI of the UNCLOS outlined the rights and obligations of states in the seabed, including the treatment of resources and the settlement of disputes. The main objector of Part XI was the United States (the United States), which refused to recognize it despite the 168 States Parties to the Convention. The Raegan administration consistently opposed Part XI on the grounds that it did not reflect the economic needs of the United States. It also implies that they consider it a “vehicle to promote an agenda supported by the Soviet Union”. As a result, the United States did not ratify UNCLOS or the 1994 convention. [vi] From 1982 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as international law, while attempting to establish an alternative regime for the exploitation of seabed minerals. An agreement has been reached with other seabed mines and licences have been granted to four international consortia. At the same time, the preparatory commission was set up to prepare for the eventual entry into force of applications accepted by the convention from applicants supported by the signatories of the convention. The overlaps between the two groups have been resolved, but a decrease in demand for minerals from the seabed has made the seabed regime much less relevant. In addition, the decline of socialism and the fall of communism in the late 1980s removed much of the support for some of the most controversial provisions of Part XI. While the 1994 agreement sought international support from major industrialized states to promote the CNSM, some initial objections remain partially unanswered.

While the original regulators continue to monitor, act and regulate in the implementation of CNULOS, the changes are not significantly reflected in existing ambiguities. In the first part of this phase, nine issues were identified as problematic during the consultations: costs for contracting states; The company Decision-making The review conference; Technology transfer Limiting production; Compensation funds; The financial terms of the contract Environmental.