Global Governance of Oil and Gas Resources in the International Legal Perspective. Joanna Osiejewicz

governance: Trade, infrastructure, and the diffusion of international organizations. International Interactions 2013, vol. 39, No. 2, p. 192–216; comprehensively: T. Van de Graaf, The Politics and Institutions of Global Energy Governance, Basingstoke 2013.

4 Notion defined by K. Raustiala, D. Victor, The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization 2004, t. 58, No. 2, p. 277–309.

5 Notion defined by F. Biermann, P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt, F. Zelli, The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis, Global Environmental Politics 2009, vol. 9, No. 4, p. 14–40.

6 Compare: M. Amstutz, V. Karavas, Weltrecht: Ein Derridasches Monster, (in): G.-P. Calliess, A. Fischer-Lescano, D. Wielsch, P. Zumbansen (ed.), Soziologische Jurisprudenz, Festschrift für Gunther Teubner zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2009, p. 645–672.

7 Compare: A. Hasenclever, P. Mayer, V. Rittberger, Theories of international regimes. Cambridge studies in international relations, vol. 55, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997, p. 162 et. seq.

8 A. Fischer-Lescano, G. Teubner, Fragmentierung des Weltrechts. Vernetzung globaler Regimes statt etatistischer Rechtseinheit, (in:) M. Albert, R. Stichweh (ed.), Weltstaat – Weltstaatlichkeit: Politische Strukturbildung nach der Globalisierung, Wiesbaden 2005, p. 10.

9 N. Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt 1997, p. 595. See also: N. Luhmann, Social Systems, Stanford 1995; N. Luhmann, Law as a Social System, Oxford 2004. See also: J. Osiejewicz, Harmonizacja prawa państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, Warsaw 2016, p. 7–9; J. Osiejewicz, La frammentazione del diritto mondiale come determinante della sua armonizzazione, Rivista Diritto e Processo/derecho y proceso – right & remedies 2016, p. 374–387; J. Osiejewicz, Antropocentryczna lingwistyka języków specjalistycznych, (in:) S. Grucza, M. Olpińska-Szkiełko, M. Płużyczka, I. Banasiak, M. Łączek (ed.), F. Grucza, Dzieła zebrane. Tom 1. O nauce prof. Franciszka Gruczy. Wydanie jubileuszowe z okazji 80. rocznicy urodzin, Warsaw 2017, p. 181–194.

10 See.: G. Teubner, A. Fischer-Lescano, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, Michigan Journal of International Law 2004, vol. 25, p. 999–1046; G. Teubner, The King’s Many Bodies: The Self-Deconstruction of Law’s Hierarchy, Law & Society Review 1997, vol. 31, p. 763–788; G. Teubner, Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law, Social & Legal Studies 2000, vol. 9, p. 339–417.

2. The principle of permanent sovereignty over wealth and natural resources

Sovereignty over natural resources is a derivative of two principles of international law: the self-determination of nations and the sovereignty of states. In the ruling in the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda,¹¹ the International Court of Justice stated that, having exceeded the framework of a non-binding concept, this principle became the rule of international customary law. Its formulation in Resolution No. 1803 of 14 December 1962, emphasizing its economic aspects, preceded further stages of its evolution, taking into account also the perspective of protection and rational use of natural resources. New trends, emerging in an increasingly interdependent world, bring about the creation of further duties and rights that require legislative efforts, including in the field of regulation of foreign investments, environmental protection, and sustainable development.

2.1 The historical context and evolution

The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources has basically two sources: on the one hand, the issue of economic development, especially in the so-called developing countries, and, on the other hand, the international principle of the right to self-determination and pacta sunt servanda, as well as the duty to cooperate for development.¹² Undoubtedly, it is also anchored in the principle of sovereign equality.¹³ The basis for the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources has already been established by the United Nations Charter.¹⁴ Article 2, paragraph 7, introduces the concept of territorial jurisdiction of states, and recital 2 confirms the belief in the equality of nations large and small. Recital 4 calls for promoting social progress and improving living conditions in larger freedom. Article 1, paragraph 2, lists the principles of equality and self-determination of nations. In addition, Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations introduces the principle of sovereign equality of states. Article 55 establishes the need to promote economic and social progress and development, as well as the development and respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The post-war period abounded in universal undertakings whose aim was to emphasize the importance of natural resources for the contemporary world. Post-war dependence on foreign raw materials was expressed in the Atlantic Charter of 1941 by the United States of America and the United Kingdom, which raised the issue of access on an equal basis to world trade and raw materials necessary for their economic development.¹⁵ Also the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development¹⁶ and the International Monetary Fund,¹⁷ established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, indicated in their founding files the need to develop the production of resources of all members. In 1947, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization organized an International Wood Conference to consider wood availability for the reconstruction of countries destroyed during the war.¹⁸ In 1949, the Economic and Social Council organized an academic conference on the protection and use of natural resources, the scope and goals of which were defined by the President of the United States, Harry Truman.¹⁹ The agenda included six main topics: land, water, forests, wild animals and fish, fuels, energy and minerals. The most urgent problem was the exhaustibility of basic raw materials in the world in confrontation with the needs of an ever-growing population. During the same period, interest in natural resources of the seabed and fisheries on the high seas intensified. By President Truman’s proclamation of 28 September 1945, the United States announced that the continental shelf adjacent to their land territory belongs to the United States, subject to their jurisdiction and rulership.²⁰ The justification argued that the exploitation of subsea deposits should be encouraged in view of the global need to access new oil and other mineral resources. Reasonable use of them will be possible if the given entity has the competence to decide on the manner of their exploitation. Furthermore, such competence is best granted to a coastal state, since the continental shelf is a geological extension of the land territory of a coastal state. In 1952, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru in the so-called Santiago Declaration on the maritime zone proclaimed the maintenance and protection of natural resources in their naval zones adjacent to their shores²¹.

The 1950s were also a period of the colonized states’ demands for independent control over