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
26 chapters
have results for admiralty and maritime law
Chapter 8. The Territorial Sea, Straits, Archipelagic Waters, and Contiguous Zone 66 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Although the coastal state has the right to regulate activities concerning the salvage and excavation of shipwrecks, relics, and other items of underwater cultural heritage in its territorial sea and contiguous zone as described above, the coastal state does not necessarily own the shipwrecks or other underwater items salvaged. The law of salvage and the law of finds, which exist as a part of the general maritime law of nations, determine the ownership of such items, unless such laws are modified by applicable national laws of the coastal state or by international conventions to which the coastal state is bound. Article 303(3) of the LOS Convention specifically preserves “the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty.”
- The coastal state may adopt laws and regulations relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea with regard to certain specified subjects, so long as such laws and regulations are not discriminatory and are in conformity with the provisions of the LOS Convention and other rules of international law. LOS Convention, Articles 21(1), 24(1)(b). Furthermore, the coastal state regulations may not “have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage.” Id. at Article 24(1)(a). The laws and regulations may pertain to: the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic; the protection of navigational aids and other installations; the protection of cables and pipelines; the conservation of living resources; the enforcement of fisheries regulations; the preservation of the environment of the coastal state and the prevention, reduction, and control of pollution of this environment; marine scientific research; and the enforcement of customs,...
- In negotiating the LOS Convention, many maritime countries, including the United States, were vitally concerned that the proposed extension of the territorial sea to twelve miles would cause more than 100 international straits with a width of less than twenty-four miles to fall within the extended territorial seas of the states bordering those straits. These maritime states were unwilling to accept the extension of the breadth of the territorial sea to twelve miles without a guarantee of unimpeded passage through international straits. The regime of innocent passage as established for territorial seas was considered inadequate because, among other reasons, the coastal state could suspend innocent passage in certain situations. For a statement of the U.S. position, see 1976 Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 341–342. To address these concerns, the LOS Convention established a comprehensive regime governing transit passage through straits, separate from the regime of...
- Attempts by archipelagic states to limit or suspend the rights of archipelagic passage have drawn objections from maritime states. For example, when Indonesia temporarily closed Sunda and Lombok Straits in 1988 to permit the Indonesian navy to engage in maneuvers, several states objected, including Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and West Germany. See Donald R. Rothwell, The Indonesian Straits Incident: Transit or Archipelagic Sea Lanes Passage?, 14 Marine Policy 491, 492–494 (1990). See also the U.S. protest of the Philippines’ declaration that its archipelagic waters constituted internal waters through which no right of archipelagic passage exists, U.S. Dept. of State, Pub. No. 112, Limits in the Seas: United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims 77–78 (1992), and the U.S. protest of a proposal requiring compulsory pilotage through the Torres Strait that Australia had submitted to the IMO. 2005 Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 686.
- The right of a warship to pass through the territorial waters of another state remains a matter of controversy. Several countries have taken the position that passage of a foreign warship through territorial waters is inherently prejudicial to the security of the coastal state, and thus cannot be innocent. Many coastal states have enacted national legislation requiring prior notification or approval. 1981–1988 Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 1844–1854. In negotiations at the First and Second United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea, several proposals requiring previous notification or authorization for the innocent passage of a warship through the territorial sea were discussed. The proposed measures encountered strong opposition from many maritime states, including the United States, and were not adopted. See Marjorie M. Whiteman, 4 Digest of International Law 404–417 (1965); Reports of the United States Delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment 86 results (showing 5 best matches)
- be circumvented by allowing the government to pursue other forms of action, such as maritime tort, against the discharger. United States v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 627 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1980). Similarly, in South Port Marine, LLC v. Gulf Oil Ltd. Pshp., 234 F.3d 58, 65 (1st Cir. 2000), the court ruled that Congress intended enactment of the OPA to supplant existing federal admiralty and maritime law claims applicable to oil spills, and thus denied a claim for punitive damages.
- A coastal state also has the right to adopt and enforce nondiscriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction, and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of its EEZ, where particularly severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice for most of the year create obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation. Such laws and regulations are needed especially where pollution of the marine environment could cause major harm to, or irreversible disturbance of, the ecological balance. Id. at Article 234. This Article provides the only instance in the LOS Convention where national rules concerning vessel-source pollution do not have to conform to generally accepted international rules and standards. The potential commercial usage of the Northeast Passage (or Northern Sea Route, as it is called by Russia) and the Northwest Passage in the Arctic as a result of climate change will increase international attention on Article 234,...
- Several international conventions deal with the liability of persons responsible for the violation of international anti-pollution rules or standards. Although nuclear ships pose a special concern, comprehensive international regulation of nuclear-powered civilian vessels and warships has been difficult to achieve. A specific convention was concluded on the topic of nuclear ships in 1962. But this Convention on Liability for Operators of Nuclear Ships, which included warships in its scope of application, met with strong opposition from the United States as well as the Soviet Union and never entered into force. The 1963 Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, as amended, explicitly excludes nuclear-powered ships from its coverage. Article I(1)(j). Under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material was adopted in 1971. However, this Convention, which entered...
- States in an area affected by a maritime pollution disaster have the duty to cooperate in eliminating the effects of pollution and in preventing or minimizing the injury. To be better able to deal with such emergencies, neighboring states must develop and be ready to put into operation contingency plans for responding to pollution incidents affecting the marine environment in their vicinity. Id. at Article 199. On the global level, the International Maritime Organization adopted the 1990 Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, followed in 2000 by a protocol extending its field of application to hazardous and noxious substances. The United States, which is a party to ...Seas Program of the United Nations Environment Programme. See the 1978 Protocol concerning Regional Co-operation in Combating Pollution by Oil and other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency (Persian Gulf); the 1981 Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Pollution in Cases...
- No such global convention has yet been adopted, but at the regional level a number of specific protocols have been adopted under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas Program (see Section D). These include the 1989 Persian Gulf Protocol concerning Marine Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the 1994 Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf (not in force as of June 1, 2009). See also the 1992 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM), Annex VI, and the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North–East Atlantic (OSPAR), Annex III. Furthermore, several nonbinding documents have been adopted to address this topic, including: UNEP, Guidelines for Offshore Mining and Drilling (1982), available at http://www.unep.org/law/PDF/UNEPEnv–...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Boundaries of Maritime Jurisdiction Between Adjacent and Opposite States 59 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In an effort to analyze the practice of states in the delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf by agreement, several scholars have compiled and reviewed maritime boundary treaties. Important works include Yoshifumi Tanaka, Predictability and Flexibility in the Law of Maritime Delimitation (2006), and the multi-volume International Maritime Boundaries (Jonathan I. Charney, Lewis M. Alexander, David A. Colson & Robert W. Smith eds., 1993, 1998, 2002, 2005). These studies indicate that a significant percentage of states with opposite coasts rely on the equidistance principle in determining their maritime boundaries, with adjustments for special circumstances. The equidistance-special circumstances rule is used less frequently in maritime boundary agreements between adjacent states. The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law ...Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Secretariat has also compiled maritime boundary treaties at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/...
- [T]he concept of a single maritime boundary does not stem from multilateral treaty law but from State practice, and … finds its explanation in the wish of States to establish one uninterrupted boundary line delimiting the various—partially coincident—zones of maritime jurisdiction appertaining to them.
- The United States has entered into agreements with other countries concerning many U.S. maritime boundaries. The 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorized the U.S. Secretary of State to “initiate and conduct negotiations with any adjacent or opposite foreign nation to establish the boundaries of the EEZ of the United States in relation to any such nation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1822(d). Relying on this statutory authority, in 1977 and 1978 the U.S. government negotiated and executed maritime boundary agreements with Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela, establishing a single boundary line for both the EEZ and continental shelf. In various forms, the U.S. administration agreed to abide provisionally by the maritime delimitation treaties until such time as they entered into force. When the treaties were transmitted to the U.S. Senate in 1979 for ratification, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioned the legality under U.S. law of establishing maritime boundaries on a provisional
- It is possible, in applying Articles 74 and 83 of the LOS Convention, that the boundary established for the EEZ between adjacent or opposite states may vary from the boundary established for the continental shelf between those same states. As a practical matter, many states have entered into agreements to establish a single maritime boundary for the delimitation of their EEZ and continental shelf boundaries. See, for example, the 1994 Finland–Sweden Delimitation Agreement; Erik Franckx, Finland and Sweden Complete Their Maritime Boundary in the Baltic Sea, 27 Ocean Dev. & Intl. L. 291 (1996). Similarly, in submitting boundary disputes to various international tribunals and courts, many countries have requested the delimitation of a single maritime boundary for the various maritime zones involved in the dispute. When asked by Qatar and Bahrain to determine a single maritime boundary between their respective maritime areas of seabed, subsoil, and superjacent waters, the International...
- In 1993 the International Court of Justice applied the methodology of beginning with an equidistant line, subject to correction for relevant circumstances, to determine a single maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and fishery zones between the opposite coasts of Greenland and Jan Mayen. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), 1993 I.C.J. 38, ¶¶ 54–56. In yet another significant development, the method has been applied in the delimitation of boundaries between states whose coasts are adjacent. See, for example, Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), 2001 I.C.J. 40; Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; ...the Court found no relevant circumstances that required the adjustment of the equidistant line. Id. at ¶¶ 305–306. See also Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), 2009 I.C.J. ___,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Maritime Terrorism and Security 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Following the September 11, 2001 al-Qaida attacks, the United States made maritime security a top national priority and adopted many laws affecting the security of the “maritime domain.” The maritime domain is described as “all areas and things of, on, under, relating to, adjacent to, or bordering on a sea, ocean, or other navigable waterway, including all maritime-related activities, infrastructure, people, cargo, and vessels and other conveyances.” White House, National Maritime Strategy 1 n.1 (2005). As discussed below, several U.S. laws have been influential in shaping international maritime security strategies.
- Many countries have adopted legislation to enhance maritime security and prevent maritime terrorism. Some of these laws fulfill a state’s obligations under treaties, such as the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS); others are unilateral measures taken to protect the safety of a state’s ports and vessels and to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks.
- Section B discusses provisions of the LOS Convention and other international agreements that established a framework for the implementation of subsequent regional and global efforts to suppress maritime terrorism. Section C examines the post-UNCLOS III activities of states and international organizations in adopting both legally and nonlegally binding instruments to prevent maritime terrorism. Section D focuses on national laws and policies designed to enhance maritime security, particularly those of the United States, some of which have influenced international anti-terrorism efforts.
- 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).
- To achieve these objectives, the document identifies five strategic actions: enhance international cooperation; maximize awareness of the “maritime domain;” embed security into commercial practices; deploy layered security that “integrates the capabilities of governments and commercial interests throughout the world;” and assure continuity of the marine transportation system. Id. at 13, 20. Annex I of the Strategy, id. at 27, identifies eight supplementary plans to implement the national maritime strategy, including the National Plan to Achieve Maritime Domain Awareness, the Global Maritime Intelligence Integration Plan, the Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan, the International Outreach and Coordination Strategy, the Maritime Infrastructure Recovery Plan, the Maritime Transportation System Security Plan, the Maritime Commerce Security Plan, and the Domestic Outreach Plan, all of which are available at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0608.shtm. For a discussion of...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Exclusive Economic Zone 92 results (showing 5 best matches)
- When the OCSLA was proposed, conflict-of-laws questions arose concerning the law that would apply to individuals and activities on structures on the U.S. continental shelf. See Warren M. Christopher, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: Key to a New Frontier, 6 Stan. L. Rev. 23, 37–43 (1953). Although the answers to such questions have not been completely resolved, U.S. federal courts are directed to apply as federal law “the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State” on “artificial islands and fixed structures erected” on the continental shelf beyond the boundaries of state jurisdiction (see Chapter 5, Section A), to the extent that such state laws are not inconsistent with federal laws. 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A). Admiralty and maritime law apply to vessels, and it is thus essential to determine whether various types of drilling rigs are “vessels” or “structures.” See Chapter 3, Section E. See David W. Robertson, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act’s Provisions on... ...and...
- On March 10, 1983, President Reagan issued Proclamation 5030, claiming a 200–mile EEZ in which the United States had rights and jurisdiction substantially similar to those of coastal states set forth in the LOS Convention. Exec. Procl. No. 5030, 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605 (1983). According to the statement of the President accompanying the Proclamation, the Proclamation was “consistent with those fair and balanced results in the Convention” that “generally confirm existing maritime law and practice.” 22 Intl. Leg. Materials 461, 464 (1983). As noted in Section A, the United States had much to gain from this new concept.
- A combined reading of both Truman proclamations nevertheless prompted a number of South American states to establish zones of up to 200 miles in which they claimed complete sovereignty over the seabed, its subsoil, and superjacent waters “in order to reserve, protect, preserve and exploit the natural resources of whatever nature found on, within and below the said seas.” 1947 Presidential Declaration of Chile, Marjorie M. Whiteman, 4 Digest of International Law 794, 795 (1965). See also 1947 Presidential Decree No. 781 of Peru, id. at 797; 1951 Ecuadorean Congressional Decree, id. at 799. The United States objected to these and similar decrees on the bases that the decrees asserted complete national sovereignty over the zones and failed to accord recognition to the rights and interests of other states. Id. at 796–801. In 1952, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador signed the Declaration of Santiago on the Maritime Zone, which proclaimed that each country possessed “sole sovereignty and... ...and...
- The establishment of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is closely related to negotiations at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The EEZ is one of the two novel maritime zones—the other being the Area, which is discussed in Chapter 11—that were created by the LOS Convention. The EEZ extends beyond the territorial sea up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline. LOS Convention, Articles 55, 57; see Illustration 1 at p. . The EEZ encompasses the seabed and the subsoil as well as the superjacent waters. However, the regime of the continental shelf, addressed in Chapter 10, also regulates the seabed and subsoil, id. at Article 56(3). The LOS Convention also contains numerous provisions relating to the protection and preservation of the marine environment of the EEZ, examined in Chapter 12.
- Abandoned or disused installations or structures must be removed by the coastal state to ensure safety of navigation. Such removal must be undertaken in accordance with applicable international standards or regulations and with due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment, and the rights and duties of other states. Id. at Article 60(3). The International Maritime Organization has promulgated guidelines for the removal of such installations and structures. See Guidelines and Standards for the Removal of Offshore Installations and Structures on the Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone, IMO Res. A.672(16) (1989). This issue will become increasingly significant as structures age: “[i]n the North Sea area alone there are approximately 440 steel and concrete installations with a total mass of nearly 8 [million tons] and 18,370 kilometres of pipeline.” ...Oil and Gas Installations in European Waters: The End of a Decade of Indecision?, 14 Intl. J... ...and...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Internal Waters and Ports 67 results (showing 5 best matches)
- For discussion of the choice-of-law rules that U.S. courts have used in various maritime settings, see Symeon C. Symeonides, Cruising in American Waters: Spector, Maritime Conflicts, and Choice of Law, 37 J. Mar. L. & Com. 491 (2006).
- For a summary of authorities for and against the existence of the principle of freedom of access as a matter of customary international law, see Vasilios Tasikas, The Regime of Maritime Port Access: A Relook at Contemporary International and United States Law, 5 Loy. Mar. L.J. 1 (2007).
- A coastal state may condition a foreign ship’s access to port on compliance with laws and regulations governing the conduct of the business of the port. Such laws and regulations may not discriminate against or among foreign vessels. 1923 Statute on the International Régime of Maritime Ports, Article 3. Such regulations may include, for instance: arrival and departure procedures, 46 U.S.C. §§ 60101–60109; tonnage duties, 46 U.S.C. §§ 60301–60312; and pilotage, 46 U.S.C. §§ 8501–8503.
- The treaties establishing access to ports typically set forth general, rather than specific, parameters governing port access. Commonly, the right of access is limited to those ports normally open to foreign trade; access to military or strategic ports may be restricted. 1923 Statute on the International Régime of Maritime Ports, Article 1. Most treaties grant freedom of access on the basis of equality with national vessels and most-favored-nation vessels, subject to reciprocity. However, land-locked states may not be denied freedom of access to ports solely because of their inability to reciprocate. LOS Convention, Article 131; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 3; Protocol to the 1923 Statute on the International Régime of Maritime Ports, ¶ 4. As discussed at Section C.3, access to ports is also regularly conditioned on compliance with coastal state and international laws governing port operations, customs, security, safety, and environmental matters.
- To facilitate maritime traffic, the 1965 Maritime Traffic Convention and its amendments establish mandatory standards and recommended practices with respect to documents that may be required to be submitted upon port entrance. Pursuant to the Convention, the International Maritime Organization has developed standardized shipping documents, including cargo declarations, crew lists, and passenger lists, as well as methods for delivering the data electronically. As of June 1, 2009, 114 states were parties to the Convention. Several other widely adopted conventions, including the 1966 Load Lines Convention, the 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and its 1978 Protocol (MARPOL), and the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention and its amendments (SOLAS), provide for standard certificates relating to loading regulations, pollution-prevention standards, safety standards, and tonnage. The certificates issued to a vessel pursuant to these conventions must be accepted at...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. The High Seas and High Seas Freedoms 54 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The 1970s and 1980s saw an increase in the use of vessels as a means of escape for refugees seeking asylum in other countries. Often these vessels were overcrowded and not equipped or supplied for lengthy sea voyages, resulting in many incidents requiring rescue at sea. Ship masters began to face difficulties in disembarking refugees rescued at sea, as states began to refuse to accept the refugees or to guarantee their resettlement. Ships incurred significant expenses in caring for the refugees on board and in the delays incurred in diverting to assist in the rescue and delivering the refugees to a port that would accept and accommodate the refugees. Concerned that ship masters were becoming reluctant to render assistance to these refugees, in December 1978, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the Inter–Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (now the International Maritime Organization (IMO)) issued a joint appeal to governments, shipowners, and ship masters to...
- As a parallel to the obligation of a ship master to render assistance, Article 98(2) of the LOS Convention requires every coastal state to promote the establishment, operation, and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service in its waters, and to cooperate with neighboring states for this purpose. The 1979 Maritime Search and Rescue Convention, which entered into force in 1985, obligates states to provide search and rescue plans in the area of their coasts, and to cooperate with neighboring states in establishing and implementing coordinated search and rescue plans. Revisions to the Maritime Search and Rescue Convention adopted in 1998 clarify the obligations and roles of contracting governments, emphasize the importance of regional cooperation, and better coordinate maritime and aeronautical activities. Concurrently with the 1998 revisions to the Maritime Search and Rescue Convention, the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil...
- incident, the IMO developed amendments to both the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) and the 1979 Maritime Search and Rescue Convention. These amendments were adopted in 2004 and entered into force on July 1, 2006. Among other matters, the amendments specify that contracting states are obligated to assist ship masters in delivering persons rescued at sea to a place of safety. In 2004, the IMO adopted Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea to provide further guidance to states in fulfilling their obligations under international law to provide a place of safety to persons rescued at sea. MSC Res. 167(78) app. P 1, MSC Doc. 78/26/Add.2 Annex 34 (2004). See Barbara Miltner, Irregular Maritime Migration: Refugee Protection Issues in Rescue and Interception, 30 Fordham Intl. L.J. 75 (2006).
- During the 1982 conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom regarding the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), both the United Kingdom and Argentina established maritime “exclusion zones.” The United Kingdom and Argentina expressed their intent to fire on certain foreign vessels entering or transiting the exclusion zones. Unlike the “warning zones” discussed above, exclusion zones impede or prohibit entry of a vessel into the zone. Commercial and fishing vessels of neutral countries were seized or attacked both within and outside of these exclusion zones. See, for example, the claim brought by the owners of a commercial vessel injured outside of Argentina’s exclusion zone in Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 830 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1987), rev’d, 488 U.S. 428 (1989). The legality of exclusion zones has been much debated. See W.J. Fenrick, The Exclusion Zone Device in the Law of Naval Warfare, 24 Can. Y.B. Intl. L. 91 (1986); G.P. Politakis, Waging War at Sea: The...
- ...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,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Introduction 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Although the law of the sea still reflects the traditional tension between the rights of coastal states to exercise authority near their shores and the rights of other states to use the oceans freely, broader perspectives have evolved on many oceans issues. Marine pollution and the depletion of living resources are matters of regional and global concern. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg have led to the development of widely accepted treaties, broad declarations of principles, and increased attention to the interconnected nature of the marine ecosystem. Individuals and states have increasingly recognized that the law of the sea addresses human rights, including the rights of laborers on board ships, slaves, crew members detained in foreign ports, and those claiming property interests in...
- Consequently, in the late 1960s, the world was faced with a nightmare of conflicts over maritime rights. Not only did disparate views arise between developed and developing countries, coastal and land-locked states, and large and small maritime powers, but also within these groups. The only logical solution was the establishment of a new international legal regime, a code of international law for the oceans. Therefore, the states arranged for the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III). Over a period of nine years, 1973–1982, UNCLOS III hammered out a convention on the law of the sea, a complex document of some 400 articles (approximately 300 in the main text and 100 in annexes), containing provisions on ...seventy percent of the surface of the earth. In the final division of spoils, the coastal states were able to obtain jurisdiction (as a rule, diminishing in proportion to distance from land) over the resources and uses of approximately one-third of the ocean...
- This book first explores traditional concepts that continue to influence the modern law of the sea: high seas freedoms (Chapter 2), the nationality of vessels (Chapter 3), and the duties and jurisdiction of flag states with respect to vessels of their nationality (Chapter 4). Flag state jurisdiction has been one central mechanism for implementing law of the sea rules. Coastal zones also remain essential to an understanding of the modern law of the sea, and the next two chapters address foundational concepts concerning such zones: the baseline for determining zones of national jurisdiction (Chapter 5) and boundaries of maritime jurisdiction between adjacent and opposite states (Chapter 6). The book then examines the rights and responsibilities of coastal states and other states in various coastal zones, including internal waters and ports (Chapter 7), the territorial sea and contiguous zone (Chapter 8), the exclusive economic zone (Chapter 9), and the continental shelf (Chapter 10)....
- The LOS Convention established new international institutions, which are fully operational. These include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (http://www.itlos.org), the International Seabed Authority (http://www.isa.org.jm), and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm). Other specialized and regional international organizations, many of which predate UNCLOS III and the LOS Convention, engage in a wide range of study, advice-giving, treaty-making, and policy-making functions concerning oceans matters. Global intergovernmental organizations involved with the law of the sea include the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (http://www.unep.org), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (http://www.imo.org), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (http://www.fao.org), the International Labor Organization (ILO) (http://www.ilo.org), and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (...
- The practice of the United States, a major maritime power with an extensive coastline, has and likely will continue to influence the international law of the sea, and U.S. measures concerning the law of the sea are noted throughout this text. Although the United States is not a party to the LOS Convention, it has accepted many of the dozens of other international treaties that address specific law of the sea issues and that complement the LOS Convention. In addition, U.S. administrations have continued to promote the LOS Convention itself. The Clinton administration signed the 1994 Implementation Agreement and sent it, together with the 1982 LOS Convention, to the Senate, recommending that the Senate give its advice and consent to U.S. acceptance of the modified Convention. Sen. Treaty Doc. No. 103–39 (1994). The George W. Bush administration also urged U.S. acceptance of the Convention. 2001 Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 676, 683; President’s Statement on Advancing U...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. The Baseline for Determining Zones of National Jurisdiction 52 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Three types of delimitations are involved in determining the zones of a coastal state’s maritime jurisdiction. This Chapter addresses the first type—the “baseline” from which the breadth of a coastal state’s various maritime jurisdictions is measured. The second type of delimitation determines the outer limit of each zone of maritime jurisdiction; it is discussed in Chapters 8 (territorial sea and contiguous zone), 9 (exclusive economic zone), and 10 (continental shelf). The final type of delimitation, discussed in Chapter 6, determines the boundaries of maritime jurisdiction between states with adjacent or opposite coasts.
- As noted throughout this Chapter, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions rely on rules of international law, both to determine the baseline from which U.S. state and federal zones of jurisdiction are measured, and to ascertain the existence of “historic waters” along the U.S. coast. The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., confirms a U.S. state’s title to the seabed and coastal waters (including the natural resources therein) extending three miles from its coastline. Id. at § 1311. The Act allows an extended boundary of up to three marine leagues (nine miles) into the Gulf of Mexico, id. at § 1301(b), if such boundary “was so provided by [the state’s] constitution or laws prior to or at the time such State became a member of the Union, or if it has been heretofore approved by Congress.” Id. at § 1312. Texas and Florida have established maritime boundaries of three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico. The maritime boundaries of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama...
- Under its Freedom of Navigation Program, the United States also demonstrates its objections to excessive claims arising from the inappropriate use of straight baselines by sending its warships into the contested waters. U.S. Dept. of State, Pub. No. 112, Limits in the Seas: United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims 6–8 (1992); William J. Aceves, The Freedom of Navigation Program: Study of the Relationship between Law and Politics, 19 Hastings Intl. & Comp. L. Rev. 259 (1996). A state could also choose to challenge excessive straight baseline claims through the dispute resolution provisions of the LOS Convention, discussed at Chapter 15. See John E. Noyes, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 32 Cornell Intl. L.J. 109, 154–158 (1998). In the Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), the International Court of Justice, noting that the straight baseline provisions of the LOS Convention “must be applied restrictively,”...
- In 2009 the International Court of Justice considered Romania’s use of the seaward end of the 7.5-kilometer (4.66-mile) Sulina dike for purposes of determining its maritime boundary with Ukraine. Romania had previously notified the United Nations of its use of the seaward end of the dike as a basepoint for drawing the baseline for its territorial sea; Ukraine did not contest the use of the basepoint for this purpose. The Court stressed that the determination of baselines for measuring the breadth of maritime zones and the identification of basepoints for delimitation purposes between states are two different issues. Because the dike did not serve any direct role in port activities, and thus could not be regarded as “permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system” under Article 11 of the LOS Convention, the Court concluded that the seaward end of the dike was not an appropriate basepoint for purposes of delimitation. However, the Court did use the landward...
- The United States had in the past objected to the right of archipelagic states to draw straight baselines. The U.S. position had been that the baselines for measuring the territorial sea and other maritime zones were to be drawn around each island. See 1978 Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law 943. In connection with the issuance of the U.S. proclamation of an exclusive economic zone in March 1983, however, the President stated that the Law of the Sea Convention “fairly balances the interests of all states … relating to the traditional uses of the oceans—such as navigation and overflight,” and that the United States stood ready to accept and act in accordance with this balance. He announced that in this respect “the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states.” 22 Intl. Leg...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. The Future of the Law of the Sea 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- coastal state authority might some day lead to a “national lakes” division of the oceans, the world would still need an international law of the sea. Maritime boundaries would still need to be legally delimited. International law would remain essential for a host of other reasons too: as just noted, to manage and conserve vulnerable fish stocks that do not observe international maritime boundaries; to regulate the extraction of oil and mineral resources that overlap those boundaries; to regulate the vessels that cross those boundaries; to address cross-boundary pollution; and to facilitate countless other cooperative oceans endeavors.
- The traditional picture of the law of the sea as involving tradeoffs between the interests of coastal states and maritime powers has been supplemented and in places essentially transformed by the evolution of global values. Influential actors emphasize the importance of sustainable development, an ecosystem-based approach to environmental issues, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Some values have initially been articulated through nonbinding “soft law,” which in turn influences public opinion, political agendas, and treaty negotiations. International law of the sea decision makers may also rely on global values, in order, for example, to fill gaps in treaty law.
- The expansion of coastal zones, and of the authority of coastal states within those zones, has not cured all the problems that such expansion was intended to cure. Threats to maritime security may not best be dealt with by relying on the exercise of coastal state sovereign authority over broad territorial seas, especially when many coastal states lack extensive maritime enforcement capacity. Rather, upholding navigational freedoms for military vessels in coastal zones and engaging in cooperative enforcement programs may better further the goal of maritime security. The “nationalization” of most living resources through the exclusive economic zone concept (see Chapter 9) has thus far not brought a long-term conservation and management solution for those resources, as many had initially hoped. Cooperative international measures to manage and conserve living resources that swim across international maritime boundaries will continue to be necessary, as will more effective national...
- One continuing challenge will be to build solid regimes of treaty law—often dealing with specific regions or specific oceans topics—not only to give concrete expression to community values, but also to implement the law. International lawyers and government officials will increasingly seek to develop mechanisms to implement oceans law agreements, both regionally and globally. States, nongovernmental organizations, the United Nations, and specialized agencies and organs such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the United Nations Environment Programme are moving beyond the stages of norm creation and institution building. They now emphasize implementation and capacity building, to enable all states, and developing states in particular, to carry out their legal obligations. Note, for example, initiatives at the United Nations involving training programs, trust funds, fellowships, advisory services, and other steps to implement existing
- The law of the sea will change. New threats, such as climate change and collapsing fish stocks, demand legal attention. More intensive uses of the oceans and increased strains on ocean resources seem inevitable. These pressures have already led to much new law not anticipated a third of a century ago when the 1982 LOS Convention was being negotiated. See, for example, legal developments concerning the marine environment (Chapter 12), high seas fisheries (Chapter 13), and maritime terrorism (Chapter 14). New technologies will also prompt calls for new legal regimes. It is now possible to navigate unmanned vehicles at great depths, conduct marine scientific research by deploying automated devices able to steer their own drift, harvest marine genetic resources, produce energy from waves and offshore windmills, and recover underwater cultural heritage from vast ocean depths. See generally Bringing New Law to Ocean Waters (David D. Caron & Harry N. Scheiber eds., 2004).
- Open Chapter
Outline 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Cooperative International Efforts to Prevent Maritime Terrorism and Enhance Maritime Security
- Chapter 6. Boundaries of Maritime Jurisdiction Between Adjacent and Opposite States
- Chapter 14. Maritime Terrorism and Security
- 1. U.S. 2002 Maritime Safety and Transportation Act
- 1. 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Duties and Jurisdiction of the Flag State and Exceptions to Flag State Jurisdiction 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Several states have entered bilateral agreements for the suppression of drug trafficking. Some treaties allow law enforcement officials of one state party to board a vessel flying the flag or claiming registration of another state party without prior approval, if reasonable grounds exist to suspect that the vessel is engaged in illicit drug trafficking. See, for example, the 1997 United States–Haiti Illicit Maritime Drug Traffic Agreement, Article 14. Other treaties require the consent of the flag state prior to stopping and boarding a vessel suspected of illegal drug trafficking. See, for example, the 2000 United States–Honduras Implementing Agreement Concerning Cooperation for the Suppression of Illicit Maritime Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Article VI(1). For discussion of the varying levels of authority for nonflag state action provided in the U.S. Model Maritime Agreement, which has served as the framework for several bilateral treaties, see Joseph E....
- Although several international organizations have worked to draft and implement international agreements and regulations regarding “administrative, technical and social matters concerning the ship,” the International Maritime Organization (IMO), formerly the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, has been particularly influential. The IMO was established as a specialized agency of the United Nations pursuant to the 1948 Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, which entered into force in 1958. As of June 1, 2009, 169 states were parties to the IMO Convention. The IMO’s primary purposes are to adopt measures to improve the safety and security of international shipping and to prevent marine pollution from ships. The IMO has also introduced important measures regarding liability and compensation for damages, including pollution, caused by ships. Some widely-accepted IMO conventions include the 1966 Convention on Load Lines, the 1972...
- was seized by members of the Palestine Liberation Front who had boarded the ship in Genoa, posing as tourists. They held the ship’s crew and passengers hostage, and threatened to kill the passengers unless Israel released fifty Palestinian prisoners. The hijackers shot and threw overboard one American passenger. Although widely acknowledged as an act of terrorism, considerable debate arose as to whether the incident could be properly characterized as an act of piracy, subjecting the incident, the International Maritime Organization initiated efforts that culminated in the drafting and adoption of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. See generally Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety, 82 Am. J. Intl. L. 269 (1988). Issues of jurisdiction relating to maritime terrorism are discussed further in Chapter 14.
- Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.N. General Assembly adopted in 1948, declares that slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. GA Res. 217(III), UN GAOR, 3d Sess., Supp. No. 13, UN Doc. A/810 (1948). For discussion of the development of the prohibition of slavery into customary international law, see Renee Colette Redman, Freedom: Beyond the United States: The League of Nations and the Right to be Free from Enslavement: The First Human Right to be Recognized as Customary International Law, 70 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 759 (1994). For discussion of the development of rules against the maritime slave trade, see Louis B. Sohn, Peacetime Use of Force on the High Seas, in The Law of Naval Operations 38, 39–59 (Vol. 64, International Law Studies; Horace B. Robertson, Jr. ed., 1991).
- case to allow a nonflag state to apply its laws to prosecute the officer of a foreign flag vessel involved in a collision could result in delays in maritime transport as well as conflicts among states. Several international agreements have provided exclusive jurisdiction in the event of collisions to the flag state of the vessel alleged to be responsible for the collision or to the state of nationality of the accused. See, for example, LOS Convention, Article 97; 1952 Convention on Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision; 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 11. For discussion of the development of international law regarding collisions at sea and U.S. legislation waiving sovereign immunity where government vessels are involved in collisions, see J. Michael Lennon, The Law of Collision and the United States Navy, 50 Buff. L. Rev. 981 (2002).
- Open Chapter
About the Authors 3 results
- 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, Scientific and Cultural Organization; and as an expert in maritime boundary delimitation...
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Table of Treaties 144 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Convention and Statute on the International Régime of Maritime Ports, and Protocol of Signature thereto (Dec. 9, 1923), 58 L.N.T.S. 285
- Agreement Between Qatar and Abu Dhabi on the Settlement of Maritime Boundaries and Ownership of Islands (Mar. 20, 1969), www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONAND TREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/QATARE1969MB. PDF
- Treaty Concerning Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the Area between the Two Countries, Including the Area Known as Torres Strait, and Related Matters (Dec. 18, 1978), 1429 U.N.T.S. 207
- Agreement Between the United States and the Republic of Honduras Concerning Cooperation for the Suppression of Illicit Maritime Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Mar. 29, 2000), State Dept. No. 02–4, 2001 WL 1729637
- 1979 Maritime Search and Rescue Convention
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. The Deep Seabed and Its Mineral Resources 49 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Wrecks of historical and archaeological interest have been found in the Area. Recovery of objects from these wrecks has traditionally been governed under the general maritime law of salvage. See R.M.S. Titanic v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 435 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2006); R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 825 (1999). In addition, Article 49 of the LOS Convention generally provides that “objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in the Area shall be preserved or disposed of for the benefit of mankind as a whole.” The ISA requires that contractors prospecting or exploring for polymetallic nodules notify the ISA when they find any object of an historical or archaeological character, and that they take reasonable efforts not to disturb the object. The ISA in turn will notify the Director–General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization about the discovery. ...and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules...
- 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).
- 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).
- In 1982, UNCLOS III approved the LOS Convention by 130 votes to 4 (Israel, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela), with 17 abstentions. The United States refused to sign the LOS Convention on the basis that the deep seabed mining regime provisions of the LOS Convention were “hopelessly flawed.” White House Office of Policy Information, The Law of the Sea Convention, Issue Update No. 10 (Apr. 15, 1983), 8. The United States considered this text unacceptable because it would: deter future development of deep seabed mineral resources (because of lack of certainty with regard to the granting of mining contracts, the artificial limitations on seabed mineral production, and the imposition of burdensome financial requirements); not give the United States an adequate role in the decision-making process; allow amendments to the Convention to enter into force for the United States without its approval; provide for mandatory transfer of private technology related to seabed mining; and...
- The main focus of international law concerning the “Area” (defined in Article 1(1) of the LOS Convention as “the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”) has been nonliving resources. Section B surveys early legal developments respecting the deep seabed and its mineral resources. Section C describes the 1982 LOS Convention’s seabed mining regime, along with U.S. objections to it. Section D discusses efforts to modify or replace the LOS Convention provisions, and Section E then sets out the current international seabed mining regime. As of June 1, 2009, no commercial exploitation of deep seabed minerals had yet occurred.
- Open Chapter
Index 93 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 15. Settlement of Disputes 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 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 Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Article 16; 1996 Protocol to the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of 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... ...Law...
- A state is not bound to go to an international tribunal unless it has accepted previously that tribunal’s jurisdiction or agrees by a special agreement (a so-called “compromis”) to submit a particular dispute to the tribunal. States have, for example, used special agreements to ask arbitral tribunals or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to help resolve maritime boundary disputes. See the cases noted in Chapter 6. Prior to the entry into force of the LOS Convention, when a state had a dispute with another state about an alleged violation of a law of the sea rule, usually no international tribunal would have jurisdiction to decide the issue. If negotiations between two governments did not lead to a settlement of the dispute, and if the states did not agree to submit the dispute to a tribunal by special agreement, then the dispute might linger, disturbing relations between the two states for a long time.
- efficiencies or because of the particular expertise of the ITLOS judges comprising the chambers. A Chamber of Summary Procedure can deal expeditiously with any case that could be submitted to the full Tribunal. The ITLOS has also formed chambers for fisheries disputes, marine environment disputes, and maritime delimitation disputes. In addition, parties to a dispute may request an ad hoc chamber. Despite the flexibility for parties that chambers could provide, as of June 1, 2009 only one case had been submitted to a chamber at the request of parties. Case Concerning Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Commission), ITLOS Case No. 7, Order 2000/3 (2000).
- 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,...
- 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.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Continental Shelf 54 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Approximately three-fourths of the situations in which the legal continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles from baselines involve situations requiring maritime boundary delimitations among adjacent or opposite states. See Chapter 6. The actions of the CLCS cannot “prejudice matters relating to delimitation of boundaries between states with opposite or adjacent coasts.” LOS Convention, Annex II, Article 9; see LOS Convention, Article 76(10). The CLCS has determined that it will not consider state submissions if they implicate a land or maritime dispute, although the Commission may do so if all states that are parties to such a dispute consent. Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, CLCS/40/Rev.1, Annex I, ¶ 5(a) (2008). The CLCS could make its recommendations in situations involving disputed boundaries if all states concerned with an area of the continental shelf jointly made a submission. Five of the fifty-one submissions the CLCS had...
- In 1953, the United States enacted the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to regulate the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq. See Section H. Other countries also enacted laws regulating activities on the continental shelf. See, e.g., Australia, Pearl Fisheries Act and Regulations of 1952–54, Supplement to Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the High Seas, UN Doc. ST/LEG./SER.B/8, 4, 8 (1959).
- 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 coastal state does not have sovereign rights over the continental shelf for purposes other than the exploration or exploitation of its natural resources. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1978) (U.S. jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as modified by the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention does not extend to nonresource-related material in the shelf area and does not cover objects such as wrecked ships and their cargoes lying on or under the seabed). For consideration of the law of salvage and finds and other law applicable to wrecked ships and underwater cultural heritage, see Chapter 8, Section I.
- At the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the drafting of a definition of “continental shelf resources” was highly controversial. Marjorie M. Whiteman, 4 Digest of International Law 856–864 (1965). As finally drafted, it was not clear whether certain species of crustacea and other organisms fell within the definition. See S.V. Scott, The Inclusion of Sedentary Fisheries Within the Continental Shelf Doctrine, 41 Intl. & Comp. L.Q. 788 (1992). In 1960 the U.S. Department of State stated that “clams, oysters, abalone, etc. are included in the definition, whereas shrimp, lobsters, and finny fish are not.” Sen. For. Rel. Comm., Hearings on the Law of the Sea Conventions, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 82, 88 (1960). But see the 1953 Submerged Lands Act definition of “natural resources” noted in Section E, which includes shrimp and lobster. In 1964 Congress enacted the Bartlett Act, Pub. L. No. 88–308, 78 Stat. 194 (1964) (superseded in 1976 by the Fishery Conservation and...
- Open Chapter
Preface and Dedication 4 results
- 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 from 1974 to 1982, he was one of the primary architects 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...
- 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 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 Weathers, Bobbi Weaver, Shanshan Xue, and Xiping Zhou provided essential research support, and the technical support of Wendy Owens, Diane Sopko, and Joyce Stallworth was invaluable.
- PREFACE AND DEDICATION
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Nationality of Vessels 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The U.S. Code generally describes the term “vessel” to mean “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.” 1 U.S.C. § 3. In Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this statutory definition to determine whether a large platform dredge that was not capable of self-propulsion, but that was towed by a tug to various locations to remove silt, was a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq. The Supreme Court, after a comprehensive discussion of statutory and case law, ruled that the dredge was a vessel, stating that the definition encompasses “any watercraft practically capable of maritime transportation, regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment.” 543 U.S. at 497. See also In re Complaint of Sedco, Inc., 543 F.Supp. 561 (S.D. Tex. 1982), vacated in...
- Each state that authorizes a ship to fly its flag must maintain a register of ships containing the name and description of each ship so authorized. LOS Convention, Article 94(2); 1986 Registration Convention, Article 11. The state must also issue documents to ships verifying such authorization. LOS Convention, Article 91(2); 1986 Registration Convention, Article 5(3); 1958 High Seas Convention, Article 5(2). Neither the LOS Convention nor the 1958 High Seas Convention requires the flag state to maintain information regarding the ownership of the vessel. Article 6 of the 1986 Registration Convention requires states to maintain information regarding the owners of ships, and to take such measures as are necessary to ensure that the owners and operators of a ship can be easily identified by persons having a legitimate interest in obtaining such information. As noted in Section C.3, the 1986 Registration Convention had not entered into force ...been some recent national and... ...maritime...
- In 2002 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration by the European Court of Justice that the Netherlands’ statutory requirements for registering and managing a ship in that state violated European Community law. The Netherlands’ registration law required a ship to be owned by at least two-thirds natural persons or companies having European Community or European Economic Area nationality. The Netherlands asserted that the ship-registration measures were justified by its obligations to establish a genuine link and to exercise effective control and jurisdiction over ships flying the Netherlands’ flag, as required by LOS Convention Articles 91(1) and 94(1). The court, in an opinion that found the Netherlands’ requirements inconsistent with European Community law (namely the freedoms of movement and establishment), concluded that Articles 91(1) and 94(1) did not obligate the Netherlands to adopt the restrictive nationality requirements it had enacted....
- for alleged violations of Guinea’s laws. The vessel (owned by a Cypriot company, managed by a Scottish company, manned by a Ukrainian crew, and chartered to a Swiss company) had been provisionally registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, but the provisional registration had expired at the time of the vessel’s arrest. In the first case before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines pursued a variety of claims related to the alleged illegality of Guinea’s arrest of the . Guinea argued that the claims of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were inadmissible, due to the lack of a valid Vincentian registration at the time of the arrest. The Tribunal did not find the lack of registration on the day of arrest dispositive regarding the issue of the ship’s nationality. In ruling that the claims of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines were admissible, the Tribunal considered additional evidence, including the “consistent conduct of Saint Vincent
- The term “nationality” has long been used to define the legal relationship between a state and a ship that is authorized by the state to fly its flag. It is used in both the 1958 High Seas Convention, Articles 5–6, and the LOS Convention, Articles 91–92. Several national laws and international agreements refer to the “registration” or “documentation” of a ship rather than its nationality in describing the special relationship between a ship and the state under whose flag it sails (the “flag state”). Discussions in the International Law Commission in 1951 reflected concern that the use of the term “nationality” in reference to ships was misleading as it implied similarity to the term’s use in defining the legal relationship between a state and its citizens. UN Doc. A/CN.4/42 (1951); 1951–1 Y.B. Intl. L. Commn. 328–329. Nonetheless, the term has continued to be the one most often employed in describing the relationship between a ship and its flag state. It is important to realize,...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Conservation and Management of High Seas Living Resources 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Modern treaty law is based on state consent. Sometimes, however, nonlegally binding documents may become the basis for the emergence of a new legally binding norm if sufficient converging state practice presents itself. Nonbinding documents, often termed “soft law,” are normally easier to adopt than binding treaties. States and nongovernmental organizations nevertheless may, through soft law, ultimately influence the creation of new legally binding norms. Soft law may help set the scene for future treaty negotiations or may influence national legislation and policy. In addition, soft law may well develop into rules of customary international law if the conviction of legal obligation (opinio juris) can be demonstrated for those states implementing the rules in question.
- A third convention, which originally did not focus on the high seas, treats an issue that the LOS Convention does not address—biological diversity. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity was the direct result of UNCED. This Convention’s relationships with the LOS Convention and the 1995 Fish Stocks Convention are rather complex, especially if one tries to determine an hierarchical order among these documents. See Rüdiger Wolfrum & Nele Matz, The Interplay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity, 4 Max Planck Y.B. U.N. L. 445 (2000); Nele Matz, The Interaction Between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Marine Issues: From a Scientific, Political and Legal Perspective 203 (Peter Ehlers, Elisabeth Mann Borgese & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., 2002); Alan Boyle, Relationship between International Environmental Law and Other Branches of International Law, in The Oxford Handbook of...Law
- 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.
- A number of nonlegally binding documents relating to the conservation and management of high seas fisheries have been drafted, foremost by the FAO. This Organization has prepared a nonbinding Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted by consensus in 1995, of which the 1993 FAO Flag State Compliance Agreement forms an integral part. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 1(1), available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm. Since 1999, the FAO has also adopted four voluntary International Plans of Action relating to: the conservation and management of sharks (1999); the reduction of incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries (1999); the management of fishing capacity (1999); and the prevention, deterrence, and elimination of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (2001). See http://www.fao.org/fishery/ccrf/2,3/en. For a discussion of these and other nonbinding documents in the area of fisheries, including the gray zone between binding
- Effective compliance and enforcement mechanisms remain one of the weak links in the regulatory chain established to conserve the living resources of the high seas. In the quest for more effective compliance and enforcement, regimes established under conventions whose main focus is not the law of the sea may look attractive if they have a wide membership and an effective enforcement mechanism. The 1973 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) fulfills these requirements. Its convenient system of import and export permits and certificates could provide a useful alternative to cost-intensive enforcement at sea. Even though commercially exploited aquatic species had not initially been considered as within the CITES field of application, the situation started to change at the end of the 1990s. Since then an increasing number of proposals under CITES have been aimed specifically at the protection of certain economically important species of fish. In lieu...
- Open Chapter
Title Page 5 results
- President, Department of International and European LawDirector, Center for International Law
- Late Bemis Professor of International Law Emeritus, Harvard Law School Late Woodruff Professor of International Law, University of Georgia School of LawThe George Washington University Law School
- Roger J. Traynor Professor of Law, California Western School of Law
- LAW OF THE SEA
- University of Montana School of Law
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, Hastings College of the Law
- Dean and Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
- Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus,
- Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law,
- Professor of Law, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 2 results
- Thomson Reuters created this publication to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered. However, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. Thomson Reuters does not render legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- and the Nutshell Logo are trademarks registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
- Open Chapter
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.