Abstract
Considering the fact that its existence is abundant while maintaining the ability to generate freshwater while burning, methane hydrates have been classified as sources of sustainable energy. China currently maintains an international role in developing technology meant to explore offshore methane hydrates buried under the mud of the seabed, their primary laboratory being the South China Sea.However, such a process does not come without its hazards and fatal consequences ranging from the destruction of the flora and fauna, the general environment, and – the greatest hazard of all – the cost of human life. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’), being an important international legal regime and instrument, has assigned damage control during the exploration of methane hydrates as being the responsibilities, and liability, of individual sovereign states and corporations. China adopted the Deep Seabed Mining Law (hereinafter the DSMLaw) on 26 February 2016, which came into force on the 1 of May 2016, a regulation providing the legal framework also for the Chinese government’s role in methane hydrate exploratory activities. This article examines the role of the DSM Law and its provisions, as well as several international documents intended to prevent transboundary environmental harm from arising as a result of offshore methane hydrate extraction. Despite the obvious risk of harm to the environment as a result of such activities, the DSM Law has made great strides in regulating exploratory activities so as to meet the criteria of the UNCLOS. However, this article argues that neither the UNCLOS nor the DSM Law are adequately prepared to address transboundary harm triggered by the exploitation of offshore methane hydrates. In particular, the technology of such extractionis still at an experimental stage, and potential risks remain uncertain – and even untraceable - for cross-jurisdictional claims. The article intends to seek available legal instruments, or models, to overhaul the incapacity within the current governing framework, and offers suggestions supporting national and international legislative efforts towards protecting the environment during methane hydrate extraction.
Full PaperSummary
Considering the fact that its existence is abundant while maintaining the ability to generate freshwater while burning, methane hydrates have been classified as sources of sustainable energy. China currently maintains an international role in developing technology meant to explore offshore methane hydrates buried under the mud of the seabed, their primary laboratory being the South China Sea.However, such a process does not come without its hazards and fatal consequences ranging from the destruction of the flora and fauna, the general environment, and – the greatest hazard of all – the cost of human life. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’), being an important international legal regime and instrument, has assigned damage control during the exploration of methane hydrates as being the responsibilities, and liability, of individual sovereign states and corporations. China adopted the Deep Seabed Mining Law (hereinafter the DSMLaw) on 26 February 2016, which came into force on the 1 of May 2016, a regulation providing the legal framework also for the Chinese government’s role in methane hydrate exploratory activities. This article examines the role of the DSM Law and its provisions, as well as several international documents intended to prevent transboundary environmental harm from arising as a result of offshore methane hydrate extraction. Despite the obvious risk of harm to the environment as a result of such activities, the DSM Law has made great strides in regulating exploratory activities so as to meet the criteria of the UNCLOS. However, this article argues that neither the UNCLOS nor the DSM Law are adequately prepared to address transboundary harm triggered by the exploitation of offshore methane hydrates. In particular, the technology of such extractionis still at an experimental stage, and potential risks remain uncertain – and even untraceable - for cross-jurisdictional claims. The article intends to seek available legal instruments, or models, to overhaul the incapacity within the current governing framework, and offers suggestions supporting national and international legislative efforts towards protecting the environment during methane hydrate extraction.
