Originally ABLOS had been set up to discuss legal and technical issues associated with maritime boundary delimitation and in recent years attention has been mainly focused on Article 76 of the UNCLOS Convention. That article describes the method of delineating the legal continental shelf and is a masterpiece of complexity, both for lawyers and geoscientists. The most recent ABLOS Conference broke new ground by primarily addressing the legal aspects of marine scientific research as they are outlined in Section XIII of the convention. This also is a complex subject and relates to the requirement that permission be given by the coastal state for other states to carry out research in the waters of the former. It brings out such matters as the definition of marine scientific research, in particular, whether hydrography is considered as such. It also brings out the matter of exactly where the requirement applies geographically – just in the territorial sea, the Economic Zone or the Continental Shelf, including those areas where the shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles.

The participants were welcomed by Rear Admiral Maratos, the President of the IHB and this was followed by a keynote address by Rear Admiral Neil Guy on ‘Rights and Responsibilities – Time for a Re-think.’ Other papers followed discussing Marine Scientific Research (MSR) and its legal regime in general and also how it applies to particular parts of the world. It became clear that considerable uncertainty exists on the application of some of the articles of Section XIII and some of the papers even went so far as to suggest that the existing convention had a number of imperfections that needed to be addressed, although the idea of making actual changes to the convention seemed out of the question.. In some ways the discussions were more applicable to the concerns of oceanographers than to hydrographers. While oceanographic research vessels sometimes range the world’s oceans, a very limited number of countries have hydrographic vessels working in foreign waters. Consequently the problems of obtaining permission to work in foreign waters are more commonly a problem for those involved in oceanographic cruises.

The latter stages of the conference moved on to discuss a broad range of Law of the Sea subjects, including further discussions on Article 76 and its application, how the selection of geo-graphic names are considered under UNCLOS and technical issues in various regional areas. The last of these included discussion on Indonesian and Japanese activities and investigations in the Arctic and Antarctic related to Article 76.

The conference provided a fascinating exchange of ideas on both technical and legal issues. It also took an IHO Committee into a much broader sphere of marine scientific interest than it has done previously. One may wonder if this was, in fact, filling a void in the activities of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO. However hydrography today seems to be taking on a broader and broader mandate and perhaps this move of ABLOS was to be expected.