The Adjacency Doctrine in the Negotiation of BBNJ: Creeping Jurisdiction or Legitimate Claim?

Abstract Adjacency, notwithstanding its status as a basis for generating maritime entitlements, has no place as a principle under the existing law of the sea. To endow it with such status in the negotiation of an agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is likely to upset the delicate balance between the rights of coastal states and those of the international community, which is essential to the widespread acceptance of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This article argues that the access regime for marine genetic resources (MGRs) straddling the boundary between areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and areas within national jurisdiction (AWNJ) should be location based, and adjacent coastal states should not be accorded preferential rights in the distribution of benefits. However, due regard should be paid to the rights and legitimate interests of adjacent coastal states when transboundary impacts may result from measures adopted for and activities conducted in ABNJ, including those that directly affect MGRs straddling the boundary between ABNJ and AWNJ. At the procedural level, coastal states should be allowed to participate, primarily through prior notification and consultation, in the adoption of area-based management tools (ABMTs) in ABNJ and the conduct of environmental impact assessment (EIA) with respect to activities therein.