The Law of the Sea in a Nutshell
Authors:
Sohn, Louis B. / Juras, Kristen Gustafson / Noyes, John E. / Franckx, Eric
Edition:
2nd
Copyright Date:
2010
24 chapters
have results for sea
Chapter 2. The High Seas and High Seas Freedoms 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Article 1 of the 1958 High Seas Convention defined “high seas” as “all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state.” In contrast, the LOS Convention does not specifically define the term “high seas.” The term certainly includes the water column outside any zone of national jurisdiction. In drafting the LOS Convention, however, a dispute arose as to whether the high seas also included the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The new regime of the EEZ, as codified in Part V of the LOS Convention, extended coastal state jurisdiction and sovereign rights over certain resource-related activities in an area beyond the territorial sea, up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baseline. The extension of coastal state rights over the newly created EEZ had the effect of bringing significant portions of the high seas under a new form of coastal state authority. To protect their exercise of historical high seas freedoms within the EEZ,...
- In this Chapter we first discuss efforts to define the “high seas” (Section B), and then turn to the fundamental concept of freedom of the high seas (Section C). Section D addresses traditional limitations on the exercise of high seas freedoms, and Section E examines the duty to render assistance to those in distress on the high seas.
- “Due regard,” as used in the 1982 LOS Convention, art. 87, is a qualification of the rights of states in exercising the freedoms of the high seas. “Due regard” requires all states, in exercising their high seas freedoms, to be aware of and consider the interests of other states in using the high seas, and to refrain from activities that interfere with the exercise by other states of the freedom of the high seas. States are bound to refrain from any acts that might adversely affect the use of the high seas by nationals of other states. Article 87 recognizes that all states have the right to exercise high seas freedoms, and balances consideration for the rights and interests of all states in this regard.
- The high seas are an international common space available for lawful uses by all states and their citizens. No state may appropriate any part of the high seas or otherwise subject it to that state’s sovereignty. LOS Convention, Article 89; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 2. The legal framework governing the use of those areas of the oceans that are not subject to coastal state sovereignty has traditionally depended on the “freedom of the high seas,” which is based on two core principles. First, a ship of any state may freely navigate and engage in lawful activities on the oceans, without interference from other states. Second, the state of the ship’s nationality has exclusive jurisdiction over the ship on the high seas; with few exceptions, no other state may exercise jurisdiction over that ship. Nationality of vessels and jurisdiction over vessels are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4.
- The freedom of the high seas has been a basic precept of the law of the sea since the seventeenth century (see Chapter 1). All states, both coastal and land-locked, have the right to exercise the freedom of the high seas, which includes, inter alia:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. The Baseline for Determining Zones of National Jurisdiction 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea and of all the other zones of a coastal state’s maritime jurisdiction is “the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.” LOS Convention, Article 5; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 3. In the many geographical circumstances where internal waters (such as rivers) border a coastal state’s territorial sea, the line of demarcation between the internal waters and the territorial sea forms the baseline for measuring the zones of maritime jurisdiction. LOS Convention, Articles 9, 10; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Articles 7, 13.
- A state may not apply the system of straight baselines in such a manner as to cut off the territorial sea of another state from the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. LOS Convention, Article 7(6); 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 4(5). See also LOS Convention, Article 47(6) (concerning archipelagic waters) and Section I.
- A low-tide elevation is a naturally formed area of land surrounded by and above water at low tide, but submerged at high tide. Low-tide elevations situated wholly or partly within the distance of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island may be used as the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea. Low-tide elevations situated wholly beyond that distance have no territorial sea of their own. LOS Convention, Article 13; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 11. See Illustration 2. These provisions prevent a coastal state from “leap frogging” from low-tide elevation to low-tide elevation, in order to extend its baseline far from shore. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), 2001 I.C.J. 40, ¶ 207.
- Roadsteads are places at a distance from the coast used for the loading, unloading, and anchoring of ships. Roadsteads situated wholly or partially outside the outer limit of the territorial sea are included in the territorial sea. LOS Convention, Article 12; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 9. As they are considered a part of the territorial sea and not of the internal waters, their delimitation does not influence the baseline from which the areas of coastal jurisdiction are measured. See Myres S. McDougal & William T. Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 423–437 (1962). Deepwater ports established under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., do not affect the baseline. Concerning deepwater ports, see also Chapter 9, Section J.
- Archipelagic baselines are subject to certain limitations. The baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. Such baselines shall not be drawn to and from low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations that are permanently above sea level have been built on them or where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly within the territorial sea of the nearest island. The system of straight baselines shall not be applied in such a manner as to cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea of another state. If a part of the archipelagic waters lies
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Introduction 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- From the early times when sailors and fishermen first ventured into the sea, two principles traditionally governed the law of the sea: the right of the coastal state to control a narrow strip along the coast, and the freedoms of navigation and fishing in the high seas beyond that coastal area. Some states made attempts to appropriate vast areas of the sea. For example, centuries ago Rome and later Venice claimed dominion over the Mediterranean, and Great Britain over the North Sea. In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Portugal and Spain claimed control over the seas connecting America, Africa, and southern Asia. See Thomas Weymyss Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Sea 1–22 (1911; reprinted 2002). In the “battle of the books” in the seventeenth century the Dutchman Hugo Grotius (de Groot) advanced the concept of the freedom of the sea, debating the issue with the Englishman John Selden, who advocated “closed seas.” Grotius’s views prevailed, reinforced in the eighteenth and...
- In the twentieth century the international law codification movement addressed both traditional and new law of the sea issues. The League of Nations in 1930 and then the United Nations in its 1958 and 1960 First and Second United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I and UNCLOS II) tried to solve the recurrent issue of the breadth of the territorial sea under the control of coastal states. These efforts proved unsuccessful, but UNCLOS I resulted in the codification of many other rules governing the territorial sea and the high seas in the 1958 High Seas Convention, The 1958 Fishing on the High Seas Convention, and the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention. A fourth convention, the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, added new rules relating to the oil-rich continental shelf, the submerged part of the land territory over which coastal states, led by the United States, started claiming jurisdiction in the 1940s.
- A wide range of forums interpret and apply traditional and new rules about the law of the sea. Many oceans issues arise before national courts, agencies, and military services; this book highlights many applications of the international law of the sea by U.S. and other forums. Law of the sea issues are also addressed in diplomatic correspondence and interstate negotiations. In addition, international organizations and international courts and tribunals interpret and apply the law of the sea. It is important to understand the process dimension of this body of law, as well as its substantive rules.
- – the territorial sea, extending up to twelve nautical miles from the baseline, over which a coastal state has sovereignty (subject to the right of other states to sail their vessels through the territorial sea in innocent passage);
- – the exclusive economic zone, located outside the territorial sea and extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, in which the coastal state has sovereign rights or jurisdiction over natural resources and specified economic uses, and in which other states enjoy specified high seas freedoms;
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. The Territorial Sea, Straits, Archipelagic Waters, and Contiguous Zone 67 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The territorial sea, a narrow band of water extending seaward from a coastal state’s baseline, is a long-standing feature of the law of the sea. Sections B and C address, respectively, a coastal state’s sovereignty over its territorial sea and the breadth of the territorial sea. Section D examines an important limitation on the coastal state’s exclusive authority in its territorial sea—the right of foreign vessels to engage in innocent passage—and the extent of a coastal state’s jurisdiction over vessels passing through its territorial sea.
- Although the United States initially resisted the extension of the territorial sea beyond three miles, in 1988 President Reagan extended the U.S. territorial sea to twelve miles from its baselines. Exec. Procl. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (Jan. 9, 1989). Very few states claim a territorial sea of less than twelve miles. Some states claim varied widths of territorial sea. For example, as of June 1, 2009, Turkey claimed a territorial sea of six miles in the Aegean Sea, and twelve miles in the Black and Mediterranean Seas. After the LOS Convention entered into force in 1994, several countries, such as Argentina, reduced their claims to a territorial sea to twelve miles. However, a few countries continue to assert territorial seas that exceed twelve miles. For a summary of national territorial sea claims as of May 28, 2008, see UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Summary of National Claims to Maritime Zones, available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/...
- Using the Corfu Channel Case criteria as a framework, the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention incorporated a right of innocent passage “through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State.” Article 16(4). Although this provision was included in the regime governing innocent passage through territorial seas, it differed significantly from territorial sea innocent passage in that a coastal state had no right to suspend the right of passage through straits. Id.
- The LOS Convention establishes a new regime governing archipelagic waters, under which all ships enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. Article 53. There are parallel rights for aircraft overflight along designated air routes. Id. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means navigation in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit between one area of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another area of the high seas or exclusive economic zone. Id. at Article 53(3). An archipelagic state may designate sea lanes or traffic schemes that conform to generally accepted international regulations, id. at Article 53(1), but any proposals for such sea lanes or traffic separation schemes must be submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for adoption. Id. at Article 53(8)–(9). See, for example, the adoption of certain archipelagic sea lanes for Indonesian archipelagic waters at IMO Res. MSC.72(69) (1998). If an archipelagic state...sea
- Subject to the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea and to special passage rights through straits and archipelagic waters, the coastal state has the same sovereignty over its territorial sea, and over the air space, seabed, and subsoil thereof, as it has with respect to its land territory. LOS Convention, Article 2; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Articles 1, 2.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Duties and Jurisdiction of the Flag State and Exceptions to Flag State Jurisdiction 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- International law has long recognized a general duty of all countries to cooperate in the repression of piracy. LOS Convention, Article 100; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 14. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel (other than a warship or noncommercial government vessel) is engaged in piracy, a warship may board the vessel on the high seas. LOS Convention, Article 110(1)(a); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 22(1)(a). In addition to this right to visit, a ship engaged in piracy on the high seas may be seized by a warship or government vessel of any state. However, where such a seizure has been effected without adequate grounds, the seizing state is liable for damages to the flag state. LOS Convention, Articles 105–107; 1958 High Seas Convention, Articles 19–21.
- In the Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), a French and Turkish vessel collided on the high seas, resulting in harm to Turkish citizens. 1927 P.C.I.J. Ser. A, No. 10. Turkey initiated a criminal action against the French officer. France argued that it alone had jurisdiction over this officer with respect to conduct occurring on the French vessel on the high seas. The Permanent Court of International Justice concluded that “there is no rule of law in regard to collision cases to the effect that criminal proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown.” Id. at 25. Although Turkish laws could apply to this accident, i.e., Turkey had “jurisdiction to prescribe,” the Court also emphasized traditional limitations on the exercise of “jurisdiction to enforce” on the high seas. (For a general discussion of the various categories of state jurisdiction under international law, see Restatement (Third) of U.S. Foreign Relations Law §§ 401 et seq. (1987...
- Both the LOS Convention and the 1958 High Seas Convention recognize the obligation of the flag state to take measures to prevent and punish the transport of slaves in ships authorized to fly its flag. LOS Convention, Article 99; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 13. A warship on the high seas may board any foreign nongovernment vessel if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such vessel is engaged in the slave trade. LOS Convention, Article 110(1)(b); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 22(1)(b). On boarding, officials from the warship be free.” LOS Convention, Article 99; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 13.
- Another exception to the exclusive right of a flag state to exercise jurisdiction over its ships on the high seas is the “right of hot pursuit.” A coastal ...zone, the violation must pertain to the laws of the coastal state applicable in such waters. The right of hot pursuit also applies to violations of a coastal state’s lawful regulation of its continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or authorized government vessels or aircraft of the coastal state, and may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been given in a manner that enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial waters of another state. Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances that do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it must be compensated...
- Robin R. Churchill & A. Vaughan Lowe, The Law of the Sea 214 (3d ed. 1999). See also Andrew W. Anderson, Jurisdiction over Stateless Vessels on the High Seas, 13 J. Mar. L. & Com. 323 (1982); Deirdre M. Warner–Kramer & Krista Canty, Stateless Fishing Vessels: The Current International Regime and a New Approach, 5 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 227 (2000).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Exclusive Economic Zone 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Until the middle of the twentieth century, all waters beyond the territorial sea and the contiguous zone were viewed as high seas over which no state had jurisdiction. G.H. Hackworth, 2 Digest of International Law 651 (1941); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 1.
- According to Articles 55 and 57 of the LOS Convention, the EEZ lies beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Thus, a state claiming a twelve-mile territorial sea may have a 188–mile EEZ beyond the territorial sea. The coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all the living resources in the EEZ. The coastal state also has such rights with respect to nonliving resources of the seabed, its subsoil, and superjacent waters, and with respect to other activities undertaken for the economic exploration and exploitation of the zone,
- The United States has always claimed exclusive sovereignty over the living (and nonliving) resources in its territorial sea. Traditionally, states of the United States regulated fisheries in the territorial sea; the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. § 1311(a), confirmed the jurisdiction of states extending to, in most cases, three miles from U.S. baselines. According to Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941), a state could also regulate fishing by its citizens beyond the territorial sea
- For further reading on the EC fisheries competence, see Daniel Vignes, La communauté européenne dans le domaine du droit général de la mer, in The Law of the Sea: The European Union and its Member States 7 (Tullio Treves & Laura Pineschi eds., 1997); Claire Bury & Jörn Sack, The European Union, in The Exclusive Economic Zone and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982–2000: A First Assessment of State Practice 67 (Erik Franckx & Philippe Gautier eds., 2003); Europe and the Sea: Fisheries, Navigation and Marine Environment 13–118 (Rafael Casado Raigón ed., 2005).
- to fisheries, but also for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, and managing all of the living and nonliving natural resources in that zone, was developed at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. See UN Doc. A/CONF./62/L.8/Rev.1 Annex II, 3–4 (1971). During these negotiations, several coastal states unilaterally enacted laws and regulations reserving exclusive rights for the purpose of conservation, management, and exploitation of the natural resources in waters adjacent to their territorial seas. See, for instance, the 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. (establishing a 200–mile fishery conservation zone); National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/18, 271–377 (1976) and UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/19, 349–394 (1980) (compiling the legislation of other states around that time period).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Continental Shelf 21 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the Government of the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control…. The character as high seas of the waters above the continental shelf and the right to their free and unimpeded navigation are in no way thus affected.
- In 1945 President Truman issued two proclamations, one pertaining to fisheries in the high seas contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States (see Chapter 9, Section B) and the second pertaining to the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf adjacent to the United States. In his Continental Shelf Proclamation,
- In 1958 the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, building on the preparatory work of the International Law Commission, concluded a Continental Shelf Convention. The Convention embodies the principle of sovereign rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring its seabed and subsoil and exploiting its natural resources. 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, Article 2. These rights do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters as high seas, and the exercise of these rights may not unjustifiably interfere with the exercise of the high seas freedoms by other states. Id. at Articles 3, 5(1). The LOS Convention incorporated these principles, which in some instances have been refined and expanded. In addition, the LOS Convention imposes some duties on the coastal state in favor of other states and the international community. LOS Convention, Articles 76–85. The rights and duties of coastal states relating to the continental...
- The LOS Convention expands the definition of the continental shelf to include “the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.” Article 76(1). Where the outer edge of the continental margin (which term includes not only the shelf, but the slope and rise) extends beyond 200 miles, the coastal state may determine the outer limit of its continental shelf by using either (1) a line drawn by reference to points no more than sixty nautical miles from the foot of the slope, or (2) a line drawn by reference to points at which the thickness of sediments is at least one percent of the shortest distance to the foot of the continental slope. Id. at Article 76(4...
- ...of the coastal state over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters and airspace. In exercising its rights, the coastal state may not infringe on or unjustifiably interfere with navigation and the other high seas freedoms of overflight, fishing, laying submarine cables and pipelines, and conducting scientific research. LOS Convention, Articles 78, 87; 1958 Continental Shelf Convention, Articles 3, 5(1). The coastal state may, however, take reasonable measures to prevent and control pollution from pipelines, and the delineation of the course of a pipeline (but not a submarine cable) is subject to the coastal state’s consent. Cables or pipelines constructed for exploitation or exploration of the natural resources of the continental shelf or for use in artificial islands, installations, and structures on the continental shelf or in the EEZ are subject to the coastal state’s jurisdiction, as are cables or pipelines that enter the coastal state’...sea
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. The Future of the Law of the Sea 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The modest caseload of many international courts and tribunals would increase significantly if their jurisdiction were modified to allow individuals to bring a range of law of the sea claims. Some international courts operating outside the law of the sea context hear cases involving individuals; the European Court of Human Rights (see http://www.echr.coe.int/echr), for example, handles over 10,000 such cases each year. The recognition that law of the sea issues may implicate individual rights could at some point increase pressure for changes in the jurisdiction of some international courts and tribunals that hear law of the sea cases.
- What mechanisms will be used to change the law of the sea? A Fourth United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is unlikely any time in the near future; states appear reluctant to open the door to formal renegotiation of the full range of traditional and new law of the sea issues, a development that would be likely with another general treaty-making conference. The LOS Convention contains elaborate mechanisms for amendments (see LOS Convention, Articles 155, 312–314; 1994 Part XI Implementation Agreement, Annex, § 4), but observers have questioned whether these mechanisms will ever be used. The Meetings of States Parties to the LOS Convention lack any general authority to modify it. See Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The ...perhaps, additional agreements to “implement” the LOS Convention as discussed in Chapter 13, Section C. State practice and the practice of intergovernmental organizations will also continue significantly to shape the future of the law of the sea...
- One traditional tension in the law of the sea—that between the interests of coastal states and maritime powers—is likely to continue. At least in the foreseeable future, it seems probable that the law of the sea will retain the fundamental jurisdictional concepts of internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone, and the Area. The law usually changes incrementally, building on past traditions, rather than radically. These jurisdictional concepts, along with other core compromises and principles embodied in the LOS Convention, emerged as the product of intensive work. Numerous treaties, state practice, and judicial and arbitral decisions have reinforced these concepts. They will not be lightly abandoned, particularly now that the LOS Convention has received widespread acceptance. The possibility of a complete enclosure of the oceans into “national lakes” appears remote. See Mark W. Zacher & James G. McConnell, Down to the
- In addition, many law of the sea issues cannot be fully understood in isolation from other areas of international law, and this fact also poses challenges of regime coordination. The LOS Convention’s strong environmental provisions have been supplemented both by soft law and other treaties—relating for example to biodiversity and sustainability—that were developed initially within the framework of international environmental law, without sole regard to the oceans. The law governing unregulated, unreported, and illegal fishing derives both from the law of the sea and from international trade law, which informs the actions port states may take with respect to offending fishing vessels. The law concerning marine genetic resources relates not only to the law of the sea but to international environmental law and international intellectual property law. The legal regime for Antarctica and the surrounding Southern Ocean differs in significant respects from the main body of the law of the
- Note, for example, initiatives at the United Nations involving training programs, trust funds, fellowships, advisory services, and other steps to implement existing law. See Oceans and the Law of the Sea: Report of the Secretary–General, UN Doc. A/61/63, ¶¶ 43–56, 276–278 (2006), and Addendum, UN Doc. A/61/63/Add.1, ¶¶ 177–201 (2006). Effective implementation of the international law of the sea also will mean an increased emphasis on compliance mechanisms. National enforcement of the international law of the sea will undoubtedly continue, but unilateral compliance mechanisms may be increasingly supplemented by regional ones, such as the port state memoranda of understanding used to combat the problem of substandard vessels (see Chapter 7, Section E). Whether formal international organizations will themselves be given more effective enforcement powers in the foreseeable future is debatable, but commentators have noted the benefits that could flow from such a development. See Louis B....
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In the framework of the UNEP Regional Seas Program (see Section D), special protocols on dumping have also been adopted. These include: for the Mediterranean, the 1976 Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, as amended by the 1995 Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea (1995 Protocol not in force as of June 1, 2009); for the Pacific, the 1986 Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the South Pacific Region by Dumping; for the Black Sea, the 1992 Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution by Dumping; and for the Persian Gulf, the 1998 Protocol on the Control of Marine Transboundary Movements and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes.
- The First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea did not develop a comprehensive regime relating to the prevention of pollution and the preservation of the marine environment, but some general provisions relating to the obligations of states in this regard were adopted. Article 24 of the 1958 High Seas Convention imposes a general obligation on states to regulate the discharge of oil from ships or pipelines or resulting from the exploration or exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil. Article 25 requires states to take measures to prevent pollution of the seas from the dumping of radioactive waste, and it requires states to cooperate with the appropriate international organizations in taking measures for the prevention of pollution of the seas resulting from any activities with radioactive materials or other harmful agents. Article 5(7) of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention requires coastal states to undertake, in safety zones around artificial installations, all...
- Baltic Sea: 1974 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea, as replaced by the 1992 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM). This regional program was not established under the auspices of UNEP, but participates in global meetings, shares experiences, and exchanges policy advice and support. This type of program is referred to as an “independent partner program.”
- Black Sea: 1992 Protocol on Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment against Pollution from Land–Based Sources. This program is established under the auspices of UNEP but is not directly administered by it.
- The 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage established a system of strict liability for the shipowner for oil pollution damage caused in the territory and territorial sea of a contracting state as a result of an incident. Articles 2–3. The registered owner is obligated to maintain compulsory insurance. Id. at Article 7. A second tier of compensation was established in the 1971 Convention concerning an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. Contributions to the Fund are to be made by persons receiving shipments of oil by sea, in proportion to the tonnage received. Article 10. These conventions were ...) and the 1971 Oil Companies’ Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution (CRISTAL). See Susan Bloodworth, Student Author, Death on the High Seas: The Demise of TOVALOP and CRISTAL, 13 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 443 (1998). A new third tier of compensation has been added by means of a 2003 Protocol to the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Boundaries of Maritime Jurisdiction Between Adjacent and Opposite States 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Prior to the mid-twentieth century, most maritime boundary disputes involved the delimitation of the territorial sea, generally extending from three to twelve miles beyond the states’ baselines. Certain commonly applied methods of delimiting the territorial sea were incorporated into both the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention and the LOS Convention, and have become customary international law. The delimitation of the territorial sea is discussed in Section B.
- Unless otherwise agreed between them, where the coasts of two states are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither state is entitled to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. However, this rule does not apply where historic title or other special circumstances require a different delimitation. LOS Convention, Article 15; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 12.
- In 1999 an arbitral tribunal, for which the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration served as the registry, determined the maritime boundaries between the opposite states of Eritrea and Yemen in the Red Sea. Although most of the maritime boundary delimited the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf between Eritrea and Yemen, in one area islands belonging to Eritrea and islands belonging to Yemen were situated four to five miles apart, resulting in overlapping territorial seas. Yemen argued that the tribunal, rather than drawing a boundary between these Eritrean and Yemeni islands, should disregard the Eritrean islands on the grounds that they were uninhabited small rocks located outside of Eritrea’s twelve-mile territorial sea. The tribunal, however, treated these rocks as islands entitled to their own territorial sea under Article 121 of the LOS Convention. Because of their location within twenty-four miles of Eritrea’s mainland baseline, the territorial
- TERRITORIAL SEA
- The Court also noted that the delimitation should “leave as much as possible to each Party all those parts of the continental shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the land territory of the other.” Id. However, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 10, under Article 76 of the LOS Convention all states are allowed a 200-nautical-mile continental shelf, even if it extends beyond the state’s geological continental shelf. As a result of this development of a “juridical” (versus geological) continental shelf, the “natural prolongation” criterion of the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases would only appear to apply where the geological continental shelf extends beyond the 200-nautical-mile juridical limit. Libya–Malta Continental Shelf Case, 1985 I.C.J. 13, ¶ 39.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Conservation and Management of High Seas Living Resources 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Complex challenges remain with respect to devising an effective system for the conservation and management of high seas living resources. One challenge is the lack of cooperation among the different regional fisheries management organizations, a deficiency that has only just recently been squarely placed on the international agenda. Other issues that loom large include the impact of deep-sea fishing activities on vulnerable marine ecosystems, including sea mounts, hydrothermal vents, and cold water corals, and the exact legal regime applicable to marine genetic resources found in the deep oceans. See Chapter 11, Section G. The subject of conservation and management of high seas living resources is far from settled. This subject may well be one particular area of the law of the sea where another “implementing” agreement could seriously be considered in the not-too-distant future.
- The topic of “conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas” has sometimes been considered the missing chapter of the LOS Convention. This assertion is not totally correct, for the LOS Convention has a section in Part VII (High Seas) bearing exactly the same title. As will be seen, however, that section is neither elaborate nor does it reflect much progressive development from the 1958 Fishing on the High Seas Convention. The LOS Convention provisions quickly proved ill-adapted to new pressures on high seas living resources created by technological developments and the establishment of the concept of the exclusive economic zone (Chapter 9).
- This Chapter begins by explaining the marked similarities between the regimes governing the conservation and management of high seas living resources established at the First (UNCLOS I) and Third (UNCLOS III) United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea (Section B). The insufficiency of these provisions has resulted in the creation of a number of new instruments (Section C). Section C first discusses several legally binding and nonbinding instruments adopted specifically to address the conservation and management of the high seas living resources, and then turns to other conventions that have been applied to protect these resources, even though their original focus was not the law of the sea.
- Affairs in 1992, the LOS Convention lacks clarity with respect to high seas living resources, giving rise to a need for an “enhanced understanding” of the rights of coastal and distant water fishing states. The Law of the Sea: The Regime for High-seas Fisheries: Status and Prospects, UN Pub. Sales No. E.92.V.12, 98 (1992). The commercial importance of straddling and highly migratory species has led to developments concerning the conservation and management of high seas living resources outside of the LOS Convention, as discussed in Section C.
- One effect of the LOS Convention’s extension of coastal state jurisdiction over living resources beyond the territorial sea was to increase pressure on high seas resources. As a result of the creation of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in which the coastal state was attributed sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of the living resources, most of the commercially exploited fish resources lost their high seas status. The high seas freedom of fishing no longer applied to them. Many distant water fishing fleets, confronted with the choice between having to buy their way into the EEZ of coastal states or relocating their fishery efforts for stocks beyond that zone, opted for the latter course of action. This tactic resulted in increased catch efforts for straddling and highly migratory fish stocks beyond the 200–mile limit, as well as for so-called discrete high seas stocks, i.e., those stocks that are found entirely in the high seas. A recent Food and Agriculture...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Maritime Terrorism and Security 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Historically, each state was responsible for the protection of its maritime security interests, including the safety of its ports and vessels and the security of its shipping routes. Several law of the sea rules facilitate a state’s ability to protect its national interests, including a coastal state’s sovereignty over its ports and territorial sea. See Chapters 7 and 8. Concern for coastal state security was one impetus behind the origins of the territorial sea and its expansion to twelve miles. Although some states have argued for even broader territorial seas, it can be difficult for a coastal state to police effectively its territorial sea. Coastal state authority does not, in and of itself, ensure maritime security.
- Although traditionally maritime security was not promoted through global collaboration, the repression of piracy emerged as an exception to this rule. For centuries, states have recognized the importance and necessity of international cooperation in safeguarding the right of all vessels to exercise the freedom of navigation without disruption by pirates. Accordingly, all states have an obligation to cooperate in repressing piracy. LOS Convention, Article 100; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 14. See Chapter 4, Section D.2. The law of the sea developed a framework to implement this duty, granting warships of all countries the right to board a vessel on the high seas (other than a warship or noncommercial government vessel) when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the vessel is engaged in piracy. LOS Convention, Article 110(1)(a); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 22(1)(a). In addition to this right to visit, a ship engaged in piracy on the high seas may be seized by a...Seas
- The Convention applies to a ship (other than a warship or ship used as a naval auxiliary or for customs or police purposes) that “is navigating or is scheduled to navigate into, through or from waters beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea.” Id. at Articles 2, 4. The Convention does not apply to ships that do not intend to travel outside of the territorial sea of one or more states.
- Other traditional law of the sea rules that can promote a state’s maritime security include the principle of freedom of navigation for warships as well as merchant fleets and the jurisdiction of a flag state over its vessels. See Chapters 2 and 4. Many countries, including the United States, have relied heavily on naval power as an integral component in protecting maritime and other national security interests. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, maritime security was achieved primarily through the development of the law of naval warfare, naval arms limitation agreements, and collective defense agreements. See generally James Kraska, Grasping “The Influence of Law on Sea Power,” 62 Naval War College Rev. 113, 116–120 (2009).
- The LOS Convention provides frameworks for regional and global cooperation in other areas of criminal law, including the suppression of illegal trafficking in drugs, LOS Convention Article 108, and the suppression of unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas. Id. at Article 109. The LOS Convention also grants warships the right to visit a vessel flying another state’s flag (other than a warship or noncommercial government vessel) when reasonable grounds exist to believe that the vessel is engaged in the slave trade. LOS Convention, Article 110; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 22. Several other international agreements complement the LOS Convention in these matters. See, for example, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, which implement the duty of states to cooperate in the suppression of illegal drug trafficking.
- Open Chapter
About the Authors 3 results
- is the Roger J. Traynor Professor of Law at California Western School of Law. He has also taught international law or law of the sea classes at the University of Connecticut School of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law, Suffolk University Law School, Wake Forest University School of Law, Victoria University (Wellington) in New Zealand, and the University of San Diego Institute of International and Comparative Law. His books include International Law Cases and Commentary (3d ed. 2006) (with Mark W. Janis) and Cases and Materials on the International Law of the Sea (2004) (with Louis B. Sohn), and he has written numerous other publications about the international law of the sea and international dispute settlement. Professor Noyes is the President of the American Branch of the International Law Association and the former Chair of the American Bar Association’s Law of the Sea Committee, and he has been an American Branch, ILA representative on three International Law...
- is the coauthor, with Louis B. Sohn, of the first edition of Law of the Sea in a Nutshell (1984). She teaches property, business, tax, and commercial classes at the University of Montana School of Law and has taught classes on the law of the sea at the Marco Polo Institute of Xiamen University in Xiamen, China. Professor Juras has been active in the Jessup International Moot Court Competition as a judge and coach, and has participated in the drafting of the American Bar Association’s White Paper on International Environmental Issues and the Rule of Law. Prior to teaching, Professor Juras practiced for more than twenty years, including the representation of clients in international transactions.
- is President of the Department of International and European Law and Director of the Center for International Law at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (V.U.B.). Professor Franckx teaches at several other institutions, including Vesalius College (V.U.B.), the Université Libre de Bruxelles, the Brussels School of International Studies (University of Kent at Canterbury), the Program on International Legal Cooperation (Institute of European Studies, V.U.B.), and the Université Paris–Sorbonne Abu Dhabi. He has been appointed by Belgium as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, The Netherlands; as an expert in marine scientific research for use in special arbitration under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; as a legal expert in the Advisory Body of Experts of the Law of the Sea of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, ...Franckx is the author of numerous writings on the international law of the sea...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Nationality of Vessels 21 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A corollary of the principle of the freedom of the seas is that a ship on the high seas is assimilated to the territory of the State the flag of which it flies, for, just as in its own territory, that State exercises its authority upon it, and no other State may do so.
- The European Community and its Member States understand that the term “States whose nationals fish on the high seas” shall not provide any new grounds for jurisdiction based on the nationality of persons involved in fishing on the high seas rather than on the principle of flag State jurisdiction.
- A ship may fly the flag of one state only. LOS Convention, Article 92(1); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 6(1). If a ship flies more than one flag, it is rendered stateless. LOS Convention, Article 92(2); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 6(2); United States v. Passos–Paternina, 918 F.2d 979, 981–982 (1st Cir. 1990). See Section D regarding certain dual registration procedures for bareboat charters.
- a general definition failed, the 1958 High Seas Convention does not define “ship” or “vessel.” Although several commentators argue that a single definition of “ship” or “vessel” for purposes of the LOS Convention is preferable, many others believe that in view of the encompassing nature of the LOS Convention, it is more appropriate to define the term “ship” or “vessel” in light of the purposes of particular provisions. For contrasting views, see George K. Walker, Definitions for the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (Revised Tentative Draft No. 1., Feb. 10, 2003), 33 Cal. W. Intl. L.J. 196, 217–218 (2003); John E. Noyes, Definitions for the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the Importance of Context: “Ships” and Other Matters, 33 Cal. W. Intl. L.J. 310, 316–322 (2003). The latter position favoring context-based definitions is supported by current state practice, as evidenced by the differing definitions of “ship” or “vessel” contained in national legislation as well as international...
- The concept of nationality of ships has developed over the centuries on lines parallel to those of the concept of freedom of the high seas. As stated by the Permanent Court of International Justice:
- Open Chapter
Table of Treaties 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Agreement on the Delimitation of the Boundary Between the Continental Shelf and Fishery Zone of Finland and the Economic Zone of Sweden in the Åland Sea and the Northern Baltic Sea (Feb. 6, 1994), 1887 U.N.T.S. 229
- 1995 Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea
- Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea (June 10, 1995), UN Doc. UNEP(OCA)/MED IG.6/4 (1995)
- 1882 North Sea Fisheries Convention
- Convention for Regulating the Police of the North Sea Fisheries (May 6, 1882), 160 Consol. T.S. 219
- Open Chapter
Outline 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
Index 38 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See Boarding and Arrest of Ships and Crews; Coastal State Jurisdiction; Contiguous Zone; Continental Shelf; Exclusive Economic Zone; Flag State; High Seas; Port State Jurisdiction; Territorial Sea
- ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES PASSAGE,
- See also Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage Archipelagic waters, 127
- High seas, 26
- See also Boarding and Arrest of Ships and Crews; High Seas
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Settlement of Disputes 21 results (showing 5 best matches)
- From the beginning of the negotiations leading to the LOS Convention, several states (including the United States) insisted that effective means be provided for settling law of the sea disputes. See Louis B. Sohn, U.S. Policy Toward the Settlement of Law of the Sea Disputes, 17 Va. J. Intl. L. 9 (1976); see generally A.O. Adede, The System for Settlement of Disputes Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1987). A strong system of dispute settlement could help reinforce Convention rules. In addition, in such a complex document, there would be some ambiguous compromises and conflicting provisions, requiring clarification and reconciliation through future decision making. Difficult negotiations led to an intricate system for the settlement of law of the sea disputes, which was spelled out in more than 100 articles scattered throughout the LOS Convention and several annexes.
- As cases cited throughout this book have shown, a variety of forums may hear and help to resolve law of the sea disputes. National courts decide many such disputes involving private parties, as do some international courts, such as the European Court of Justice. Interstate disputes may be resolved informally, through negotiation or responses to diplomatic protests, or with the assistance of a third-party mediator or conciliator. States sometimes bring cases to third-party tribunals that are authorized to render binding decisions. Arbitral tribunals, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which is a court created by the LOS Convention, have heard many law of the sea cases. This Chapter focuses primarily on binding third-party dispute settlement mechanisms in interstate cases. Section B provides an overview of third-party dispute settlement. Section C then introduces the dispute settlement provisions of the LOS...
- The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), a court created by the LOS Convention, is located in Hamburg, Germany. See http://www.itlos.org. The ITLOS’s twenty-one members, law of the sea experts from around the world, are elected by the parties to the LOS Convention for renewable nine-year terms. Unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ITLOS may hear cases involving the European Community, which is a party to the LOS Convention, as well as states. In addition, in limited circumstances described below, the ITLOS or its Seabed Disputes Chamber may also hear cases involving private parties. Despite these features, and despite the ITLOS’s demonstrated efficiency and expertise, the ITLOS has had only fifteen cases between 1996, when its judges were first elected, and June 1, 2009. None of the cases involved private parties. The low number of cases may be explained in part by the fact that the ICJ and arbitral tribunals continue to hear law of the sea cases,...
- Thomas A. Mensah, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Review of the First Five Years, in Globalism: People, Profits and Progress 106, 115 (2003). For analysis of the work of the ITLOS and the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention, consult the Select Bibliography of Settlement of Disputes Concerning the Law of the Sea, available at http://www.itlos.org/start2_en.html.
- To avoid this situation, many treaties relating to law of the sea issues contain a so-called compromissory clause by which the parties to the treaty agree to submit to the ICJ or an international arbitral tribunal any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of that treaty. See, e.g., 1969 Convention on High Seas Intervention in Oil Pollution Casualties, Article 8 and Annex, Articles 13–19; 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful ...Wastes from Ships and Aircraft, Article 16. At the 1958 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, no agreement could be reached on obligatory submission of disputes to adjudication; instead, an optional protocol was prepared allowing states to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ for the purpose of deciding any dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the four conventions adopted by the Conference. 1958 Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Fewer than forty states accepted this...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. The Deep Seabed and Its Mineral Resources 22 results (showing 5 best matches)
- While the doctrine of the continental shelf emerged in the mid-twentieth century and was recognized at the First United Nations Conference of the Law of the Sea (see Chapter 10), the general belief that the exploration and exploitation of the seabed and subsoil beyond national jurisdiction would not be technologically possible in the near future precluded serious consideration of the issue at that time. See The Régime of the High Seas and Régime of the Territorial Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.4/97 (1956), 1956–2 Y.B. Intl. L. Commn. 1, 9 (comments of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission), and 6 UNCLOS I Off. Rec. 40 (1958) (comments of U.S. delegate).
- The legal status of “bioprospecting” for organisms found at geothermal vents is a matter of debate. Under one view, activities related to marine genetic materials in the Area are an exercise of high seas freedoms. In particular, the freedoms of navigation, fishing, and marine scientific research may apply. According to this view, living resources are not “resources” as defined in Article 133(a) of the LOS Convention. That definition restricts the meaning of the term to mineral resources for the purposes of Part XI of the Convention; Part XI and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) do not govern living resources. See Craig H. Allen, Protecting the Oceanic Gardens of Eden: International Law Issues in Deep–Sea Vent Resource Conservation and Management, 13 Geo. Intl. Envtl. L. Rev. 563 (2001). However, high seas freedoms must be exercised “with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area,” LOS Convention, Article 87(2), which suggests that...
- One view asserted that the mineral resources of the deep seabed were the common heritage of humankind and could be exploited only by or under the auspices of an international authority acting on behalf of all countries. Until the establishment of such an authority, no state or person could claim, explore, or exploit these resources. A second view defined the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources of the deep seabed as a freedom of the high seas. Under this view, no state could claim or acquire sovereign or exclusive rights over any part of the deep seabed or its mineral resources. However, unless or until a state agreed to be bound otherwise, it could authorize or engage in the exploration and exploitation of deep seabed mineral resources, provided that such activities were conducted with reasonable regard for the rights of other states or persons to engage in similar activities and to exercise the freedoms of the high seas. A third view, which came to have little...
- For discussion of the deep seabed mining regime after the 1994 changes, see David H. Anderson, Resolution and Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: A General Assessment, 55 Zeitschrift für ausländisches Recht und Völkerrecht 275 (1995); Bernard H. Oxman, The 1994 Agreement and the Convention, 88 Am. J. Intl. L. 687 (1994). For the consolidated text of Part XI of the LOS Convention and the 1994 Implementation Agreement, see 6 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary 875 (Satya N. Nandan ed.-in-chief, 2002).
- even before it entered into force in 1996, one highly respected commentator concluded that the position that “deep seabed mining is a freedom of the high seas” is “no longer tenable, in light of the fact that almost all the major technologically advanced countries have adopted and signed” the 1994 Agreement. L.D.M. Nelson, The New Deep Sea–Bed Mining Regime, 10 Intl. J. Marine & Coastal L. 189, 202 (1995).
- Open Chapter
Preface and Dedication 3 results
- Much has changed in the law of the sea in the quarter century since the 1984 publication of the first edition of Law of the Sea in a Nutshell, by Louis B. Sohn and Kristen Gustafson Juras. The goal of this second edition nevertheless remains the same as that of the first edition: to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction for students and professionals to the rules, concepts, institutions, and processes underlying the international law of the sea. Some aspects of European law, U.S. law, and other national law are analyzed to illustrate how countries implement their international legal obligations and address oceans issues, but the primary focus is on international law.
- The authors of this second edition dedicate it to the memory of their colleague and mentor, Louis B. Sohn (1914–2006), who greatly influenced modern international law. Louis Sohn participated in the 1945 San Francisco drafting conference that established the United Nations and, during 1969–1971, worked as the first Counselor on International Law at the U.S. Department of State. His vision, dedication, vast knowledge, and skill made him instrumental in the development of the modern law of the sea. In his capacity as a U.S. delegate to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea ...of the dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. Louis Sohn also contributed significantly to many other areas of international law, including human rights, international environmental law, international organizations, arms control and disarmament, and dispute settlement. Those active in the International Law Section of the American Bar Association, the American...
- The authors are grateful as well to many other colleagues, far too numerous to mention, who have supported their work and influenced their views about the law of the sea. William Aceves, Craig Allen, Caitlyn Antrim, Coalter Lathrop, and Steven Smith were particularly helpful with issues related to this volume. Andres Haladay, Jamie Howard, Amy Lord, Omar Nassar, Emily Von Jentzen, Linda
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Internal Waters and Ports 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Internal waters are the waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea, such as lakes, rivers, bays, and ports. LOS Convention, Article 8; 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 5. See Chapter 5 with regard to the determination of the baseline. A port is “a place where ships are in the habit of coming for the purpose of loading or unloading, embarking or disembarking.” The Möwe, 1915 P. 1, 15; 2 Lloyds Prize Cas. 70.
- prohibit landings and transshipments where it has been established that the catch has been taken in a manner which undermines the effectiveness of subregional, regional or global conservation and management measures on the high seas.” For an analysis of port access measures adopted under various multilateral fishery treaties, see Rosemary Gail Rayfuse, Non–Flag State Enforcement in High Seas Fisheries (2004). See Chapter 13 for further discussion of the conservation of high seas fisheries.
- Subject to the provisions of applicable treaties and other rules of international law, a coastal state has sovereignty over its internal waters and ports, as if they were part of its land territory. Similarly, an archipelagic state has sovereignty over the internal waters of the archipelago (as distinguished from archipelagic waters). LOS Convention, Article 50. Foreign flag vessels have no right of innocent passage through internal waters, whereas such vessels enjoy this right in the territorial sea (as discussed in Chapter 8). However, if the use of straight baselines has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas not previously considered as such, a right of innocent passage exists in those waters. LOS Convention, Article 8(2); 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, Article 5(2).
- The dependence of states on sea trade raises the issue of access of foreign merchant vessels to ports. Approximately ninety percent of the world’s trade by volume is transported by sea. U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Transport Newsletter No. 38 (4th Quarter 2007/1st Quarter 2008), 14, UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/MISC/2008/1. Global seaborne trade has grown steadily in the 21st century, surpassing 8.0 billion tons of loaded goods in 2007. UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport 2008, at 5, UN Doc. UNCTAD/RMT/2008, E.08.II.D.26 (2008).
- , Article 2, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter, extends to the internal waters and territorial sea of every State and to the air space above its territory.
- Open Chapter
Illustrations and Tables 2 results
Title Page 1 result
Half Title 1 result
- Publication Date: January 5th, 2010
- ISBN: 9780314169419
- Subject: Ocean and Coastal Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This comprehensive guide summarizes the current principles and rules governing the international law of the sea. Topics include the rights and responsibilities of states in various zones of the oceans, fisheries and nonliving resources, vessel nationality and jurisdiction over vessels, maritime terrorism and security, maritime boundary delimitation and baselines, marine environment, and dispute settlement mechanisms. The text discusses the widely accepted United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other relevant treaties, legislation, and jurisprudence, including U.S. and European laws, cases, and practice.