OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS: INTERNATIONAL LAW ON REMOVAL (Hansard, 23 February 1987)

§ Viscount Davidson

Since the Answer I gave to the noble Lord's Question on 3rd December last and that given by my noble friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 28th January do not seem fully to have resolved his doubts on this matter, I will set out the Government's view more fully.

84WA

We start with the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. Article 5.1 of the convention provides that exploration of the continental shelf and exploitation of its natural resources must not result in any unjustifiable infererence with navigation, fishing or the conservation of the living resources of the sea. This is the basic principle, and part of customary international law. The principle is amplified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 5, including 5.7 on the avoidance of pollution and 5.5 regarding installations. Article 5.5 requires that any installations which are abandoned or disused must be entirely removed.

We accept that the convention as a whole, including Article 5.5, has not fallen into desuetude, nor is it obsolete. But it has to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the object and purpose of the convention and, so far as possible, with customary international law. So we must take into account the underlying purpose of the provision, which was to prevent unjustifiable interference with other users of the sea, including safety of navigation.

Furthermore, it is necessary to take proper account of the circumstances in which the provision was drafted. As has already been mentioned, in 1958 offshore oil operations were still at an early stage of development and took place in relatively shallow waters where the practical problems of removal were relatively modest. Today the technological and practical considerations which affect the removal of installations are very different.

Let me now turn to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 60.3 reflects the principle of no unjustifiable interference with other users of the sea. It does, however, spell out more clearly the obligations of signatory states in connection with the removal of platforms, in the following terms: ‥ Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards established in this regard by the competent international organisation. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other states. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position and dimensions of any installations or structures not entirely removed".

It will be evident from these words that less than total removal is envisaged in certain cases. While the 1982 Convention is not yet in force, and has not been signed by this Government, it is based on the principle of no unjustifiable interference with other users of the waters above the continental shelf, which, as I have said, is part of customary international law.

To sum up, therefore, it is our understanding that abandoned installations need only be removed to the extent required to take account of the legitimate interests of other users of the sea, including safety of navigation. In certain circumstances, therefore, partial rather than total removal would be justifiable. In the case of partial removal we should be obliged to establish some system for maintaining an appropriate warning of the presence of anything left in the water.