INTRO

(page one)The seas have historically performed two important functions: first, as a medium ofcommunication, and secondly as a vast reservoir of resources, both living and non-living.Both of these functions have stimulated the development of legal rules.1 The fundamentalprinciple governing the law of the sea is that ‘the land dominates the sea’ so that the landterritorial situation constitutes the starting point for the determination of the maritimerights of a coastal state.2 The seas were at one time thought capable of subjection tonational sovereignties. The Portuguese in particular in the seventeenth centuryproclaimed huge tracts of the high seas as part of their territorial domain, but these claimsstimulated a response by Grotius who elaborated the doctrine of the open seas, wherebythe oceans as res communis were to be accessible to all nations but incapable ofappropriation.3 This view prevailed, partly because it accorded with the interests of theNorth European states, which demanded freedom of the seas for the purposes ofexploration and expanding commercial intercourse with the East. The freedom of thehigh seas rapidly became a basic principle of international law, but not all the seas wereso characterized. It was permissible for a coastal state to appropriate a maritime beltaround its coastline as territorial waters, or territorial sea, and treat it as an indivisiblepart of its domain. Much of the history of the law of the sea has centered on the extent ofthe territorial sea or the precise location of the dividing line between it and the high seasand other recognised zones. The original stipulation linked the width of the territorial seato the ability of the coastal state to dominate it by military means from the confines of itsown shore. But the present century has witnessed continual pressure by states to enlargethe maritime belt and thus subject more of the oceans to their exclusive jurisdiction.Beyond the territorial sea, other jurisdictional zones have been in process ofdevelopment. Coastal states may now exercise particular jurisdictional functions in thecontiguous zone, and the trend of international law today is moving rapidly in favour of

(foot notes one)

See e.g. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (eds. M. Nordquist et al.), The Hague, 6 vols.,1985–2003; D. Anderson, Modern Law of the Sea: Selected Essays, The Hague, 2007; Law of the Sea,

Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes (eds. T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum), The Hague, 2007;Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (eds. D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong), Oxford, 2006; L.B. Sohn and J. E. Noyes, Cases and Materials on theLaw of the Sea, Ardsley, 2004; E. D. Brown, TheInternational Law of the Sea, Aldershot,2 vols., 1994; Oppenheim’s International Law (eds. R. Y. Jennings and A. D.Watts), 9th edn, London,1992, chapter 6; Nguyen Quoc Dinh, P. Daillier and A. Pellet, Droit International Public, 7th edn, Paris,2002, p. 1139; T. Treves, ‘Codification du Droit International et Pratique des E´ tats dans le Droit de laMer’, 223 HR, 1990 IV, p. 9; R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edn, Manchester,1999; R. J. Dupuy and D. Vignes, Trait´e du Nouveau Droit de la Mer, Brussels, 1985; Le NouveauDroit International de la Mer (eds. D. Bardonnet and M. Virally), Paris, 1983; D. P. O’Connell, TheInternational Law of the Sea, Oxford, 2 vols., 1982–4; New Directions in the Law of the Sea, Dobbs Ferry,vols. I–VI (eds. R. Churchill, M. Nordquist and S. H. Lay), 1973–7; ibid., VII–XI (eds.M. Nordquist and K.Simmons), 1980–1, and S. Oda, The Law of the Sea in Our Time, Leiden, 2 vols., 1977. Seealso the series Limits in the Seas, published by the Geographer of the US State Department. 2 See e.g.Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ Reports, 2001, pp. 40, 97; North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Reports, 1969, pp.3, 51 and Nicaragua v. Honduras, ICJ Reports, 2007, paras. 113 and 126.( Mare Liberum, 1609. See also O’Connell, International Law of the Sea, vol. I, pp. 9 ff. The closed seasapproach was put by e.g. J. Selden, Mare Clausum, 1635.

2

(page two)even larger zones in which the coastal state may enjoy certain rights to the exclusion ofother nations, such as fishery zones, continental shelves and, more recently, exclusiveeconomic zones. However, in each case whether a state is entitled to a territorial sea,continental shelf or exclusive economic zone is a question to be decided by the law of thesea.4 This gradual shift in the law of the sea towards the enlargement of the territorial sea(the accepted maximum limit is now a width of 12 nautical miles in contrast to 3 nauticalmiles some forty years ago), coupled with the continual assertion of jurisdictional rightsover portions of what were regarded as high seas, reflects a basic change in emphasis inthe attitude of states to the sea. The predominance of the concept of the freedom of thehigh seas has been modified by the realisation of resources present in the seas and seabedbeyond the territorial seas. Parallel with the developing tendency to assert ever greaterclaims over the high seas, however, has been the move towards proclaiming a ‘commonheritage of mankind’ regime over the seabed of the high seas. The law relating to theseas, therefore, has been in a state of flux for several decades as the conflicting principleshave manifested themselves.

A series of conferences have been held, which led to the four 1958 Conventions onthe Law of the Sea and then to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.5 The 1958Convention on the High Seas was stated in its preamble to be ‘generally declaratory ofestablished principles of international law’, while the other three 1958 instruments canbe generally accepted as containing both reiterations of existing rules and new rules.The pressures leading to the Law of the Sea Conference, which lasted between 1974 and1982 and involved a very wide range of states and international organisations, includeda variety of economic, political and strategic factors. Many Third World states wished todevelop the exclusive economic zone idea, by which coastal states would have extensiverights over a 200-mile zone beyond the territorial sea, and were keen to establishinternational control over the deep seabed, so as to prevent the technologically advancedstates from being able to extract minerals from this vital and vast source freely andwithout political constraint. Western states were desirous of protecting their navigationroutes by opposing any weakening of the freedom of passage through international straits

particularly, and wished to protect their economic interests through free exploitationof the resources of the high seas and the deep seabed. Other states and groups of statessought protection of their particular interests.6

Examples here would include the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states,archipelagic states and coastal states. The effect of this kaleidoscopic range of interestswas very marked and led to the ‘package deal’ concept of the final draft. Accordingto this approach, for example, the Third World accepted passage through straits andenhanced continental shelf rights beyond the 200-mile limit from the coasts in return for

(footnotes two)4

El Salvador/Honduras (Nicaragua Intervening), ICJ Reports, 1990, pp. 92, 126; 97 ILR, p. 214.The 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone came into force in 1964; the 1958Convention on the High Seas came into force in 1962; the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservationof Living Resources came into force in 1966 and the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf came intoforce in 1964.6 See Churchill and Lowe, Law of the Sea, pp. 15 ff.

5

3

(page three)the internationalisation of deep sea mining.7The 1982 Convention contains 320 articles and 9 Annexes. It was adopted by 130 votesto 4, with 17 abstentions. The Convention entered into force on 16 November 1994,twelve months after the required 60 ratifications. In order primarily to meet Westernconcerns with regard to the International Seabed Area (Part XI of the Convention),an Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the 1982 Convention wasadopted on 29 July 1994.8 Many of the provisions in the 1982 Convention repeatprinciples enshrined in the earlier instruments and others have since become customaryrules, but many new rules were proposed. Accordingly, a complicated series ofrelationships between the various states exists in this field, based on customary rules andtreaty rules.9 All states are prima facie bound by the accepted customary rules, while onlythe parties to the five treaties involved will be bound by the new rules contained therein,and since one must envisage some states not adhering to the 1982Conventions, the 1958rules will continue to be of importance.10 During the twelve-year period between thesigning of the Convention and its coming into force, the influence of its provisions wasclear in the process of law creation by statepractice.11

(footnotes three)See e.g. H. Caminos and M. R.Molitor, ‘Progressive Development of International Law and the PackageDeal’, 79 AJIL, 1985, p. 871.8 See further below, p. 632.9 See the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Reports, 1969, pp. 3, 39; 41 ILR, pp. 29, 68; theFisheries Jurisdiction (UK v. Iceland) case, ICJ Reports, 1974, p. 1; 55 ILR, p. 238 and the Anglo-FrenchContinental Shelf case, Cmnd 7438, 1978; 54 ILR, p. 6. See also above, chapter 3, p. 7710 Note that by article 311(1) of the 1982 Convention, the provisions of this Convention will prevail asbetween the states parties over the 1958 Conventions.11 See e.g. J. R. Stevenson and B. H. Oxman, ‘The Future of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’, 88AJIL, 1994, p. 488.

7

3

HIGH SEAS

The high seas289The closed seas concept proclaimed by Spain and Portugal in the fifteenthand sixteenth centuries, and supported by the Papal Bulls of 1493 and1506 dividing the seas of the world between the two powers, was replacedby the notion of the open seas and the concomitant freedom of the highseas during the eighteenth century.The essence of the freedom of the high seas is that no statemay acquiresovereignty over parts of them.290 This is the general rule, but it is subjectto the operation of the doctrines of recognition, acquiescence and prescription,where, by long usage accepted by other nations, certain areasof the high seas bounding on the territorial waters of coastal states maybe rendered subject to that state’s sovereignty. This was emphasised in theAnglo-Norwegian Fisheries case.291The high seas were defined in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention onthe High Seas, 1958 as all parts of the sea that were not included in theterritorial sea or in the internal waters of a state. This reflected customaryinternational law, although as a result of developments the definition inarticle 86 of the 1982 Convention includes: all parts of the sea that are notincluded in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in theinternal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagicstate.Article 87 of the 1982 Convention (developing article 2 of the 1958GenevaConvention on theHigh Seas) provides that the high seas are opento all states and that the freedom of the high seas is exercised under theconditions laid downin theConvention and by other rules of internationallaw. It includes inter alia the freedoms of navigation, overflight, the layingof submarine cables and pipelines,292 the construction of artificial islandsand other installations permitted under international law,293 fishing, andthe conduct of scientific research.294 Such freedoms are to be exercisedwith due regard for the interests of other states in their exercise of thefreedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights underthe Convention regarding activities in the International Seabed Area.295Australia and New Zealand alleged before the ICJ, in the Nuclear Testscase,296 that French nuclear testing in the Pacific infringed the principle ofthe freedom of the seas, but this point was not decided by the Court. The1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibited the testing of nuclear weaponson the high seas as well as on land, but France was not a party to thetreaty, and it appears not to constitute a customary rule binding all states,irrespective of the treaty.297 Nevertheless, article 88 of the 1982Conventionprovides that the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.Principles that are generally acknowledged to come within article 2include the freedom to conduct naval exercises on the high seas and thefreedom to carry out research studies.The freedom of navigation298 is a traditional and well-recognised facetof the doctrine of the high seas, as is the freedom of fishing.299 This wasreinforced by the declaration by the Court in the Fisheries Jurisdiction

cases300 that Iceland’s unilateral extension of its fishing zones from 12 to

50 miles constituted a violation of article 2 of the High Seas Convention,which is, as the preamble states, ‘generally declaratory of established principlesof international law’. The freedom of the high seas applies not onlyto coastal states but also to states that are landlocked.301The question of freedom of navigation on the high seas in times ofarmed conflict was raised during the Iran–Iraq war, which during itslatter stages involved attacks upon civilian shipping by both belligerents.Rather than rely on the classical and somewhat out-of-date rules of thelaws of war at sea,302 the UK in particular analysed the issue in terms ofthe UN Charter. The following statement was made:303

The UK upholds the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seasand condemns all violations of the law of armed conflicts including attackson merchant shipping. Under article 51 of the UN Charter, a state activelyengaged in armed conflict (as in the case of Iran and Iraq) is entitled inexercise of its inherent right of self-defence to stop and search a foreignmerchant ship on the high seas if there is reasonable ground for suspectingthat the ship is taking arms to the other side for use in the conflict. This isan exceptional right: if the suspicion proves to be unfounded and if the shiphas not committed acts calculated to give rise to suspicion, then the ship’sowners have a good claim for compensation for loss caused by the delay.This right would not, however, extend to the imposition of a maritimeblockade or other forms of economic warfare.

Jurisdiction on the high seas 304

The foundation of the maintenance of order on the high seas has restedupon the concept of the nationality of the ship, and the consequent jurisdictionof the flag state over the ship. It is, basically, the flag state thatwill enforce the rules and regulations not only of its own municipal lawbut of international law as well. A ship without a flag will be deprived ofmany of the benefits and rights available under the legal regime of the highseas.Each state is required to elaborate the conditions necessary for thegrant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territoryand for the right to fly its flag.305 The nationality of the ship will dependupon the flag it flies, but article 91 of the 1982 Convention also stipulatesthat there must be a ‘genuine link’ between the state and the ship.306 Thisprovision, which reflects ‘a well-established rule of general internationallaw’,307 was intended to check the use of flags of convenience operated bystates such as Liberia and Panama which would grant their nationality toships requesting such because of low taxation and the lack of applicationof most wage and social security agreements. This enabled the ships tooperate at very lowcosts indeed.However,what precisely the ‘genuine link’consists of and howonemay regulate any abuse of the provisions of article5 are unresolved questions. Somecountries, for example theUnited States,maintain that the requirement of a ‘genuine link’ really only amounts toa duty to exercise jurisdiction over the ship in an efficacious manner, andis not a pre-condition for the grant, or the acceptance by other states of

the grant, of nationality.308An opportunity did arise in 1960 to discuss the meaning of the provisionin the IMCO case.309 The International Court was called upon todefine the ‘largest ship-owning nations’ for the purposes of the constitutionof a committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime ConsultativeOrganisation. It was held that the termreferred only to registered tonnageso as to enable Liberia and Panama to be elected to the committee. Unfortunately,the opportunity was not taken of considering the problems offlags of convenience or the meaning of the ‘genuine link’ in the light of thetrue ownership of the ships involved, and so the doubts and ambiguitiesremain.TheUNConference on Conditions of Registration of Ships, held underthe auspices of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, convenedin July 1984 and an agreement was signed in 1986. It attempts to deal withthe flags of convenience issue, bearing in mind that nearly one-third of theworld’s merchant fleet by early 1985 flew such flags. It specifies that flagstates should provide in their laws and regulations for the ownership ofships flying their flags and that those should include appropriate provisionfor participation by nationals as owners of such ships, and that suchprovisions shouldbe sufficient topermit the flag state toexercise effectivelyits jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag.310The issue of the genuine link arose in the context of the Iran–Iraq warand in particular Iranian attacks upon Kuwaiti shipping. This promptedKuwait to ask the UK and the USA to reflag Kuwaiti tankers. The USAagreed in early 1987 to reflag eleven such tankers under the US flag and toprotect them as it did other US-flagged ships in the Gulf.311 The UK alsoagreed to reflag some Kuwaiti tankers, arguing that only satisfaction ofDepartment of Trade and Industry requirements was necessary.312 Bothstates argued that the genuine link requirement was satisfied and, in viewof the ambiguity of state practice as to the definition of genuine link insuch instances, it is hard to argue that the US and UK acted unlawfully.The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in M/V Saiga (No. 2)has underlined that determination of the criteria and establishment of theprocedures for granting and withdrawing nationality to ships arematterswithin the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state, although disputes concerningsuch mattersmay be subject to the dispute settlement proceduresof the 1982 Convention. The question of the nationality of a ship was aquestion of fact to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by theparties.313 The conduct of the flag state, ‘at all timesmaterial to the dispute’,was an important consideration in determining the nationality or registrationof a ship.314 The Tribunal has also confirmed that the requirementof a genuine link was in order to secure effective implementation of theduties of the flag state and not to establish criteria by reference to whichthe validity of the registration of ships in a flag state may be challengedby other states.315Ships are required to sail under the flag of one state only and are subject

to its exclusive jurisdiction (save in exceptional cases).Where a ship doessail under the flags of more than one state, according to convenience,it may be treated as a ship without nationality and will not be able to

claim any of the nationalities concerned.316 A ship that is stateless, anddoes not fly a flag, may be boarded and seized on the high seas. Thispoint was accepted by the Privy Council in the case of Naim Molvan v.Attorney-General for Palestine,317 which concerned the seizure by theBritish navy of a stateless ship attempting to convey immigrants intoPalestine.The basic principle relating to jurisdiction on the high seas is thatthe flag state alone may exercise such rights over the ship.318 This waselaborated in the Lotus case,319 where it was held that ‘vessels on the highseas are subject to no authority except that of the state whose flag theyfly’.320 This exclusivity is without exception regarding warships and shipsowned or operated by a state where they are used only on governmentalnon-commercial service. Such ships have, according to articles 95 and 96of the 1982 Convention, ‘complete immunity fromthe jurisdiction of anystate other than the flag state’.321

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of

the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that

resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which

took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and

responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for

businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The

Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958treaties. UNCLOS came into force in

1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th state to sign the treaty.[1] To date, 161 countries

and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to

what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.

While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and

accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the

UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however,

a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization,

the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter

being established by the UN Convention).

Historical background

The UNCLOS replaces the older and weaker 'freedom of

the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century: national

rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending

from a nation's coastlines, usually three nautical miles,

according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by

the Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek. All waters

beyond national boundaries were considered international

waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of them

(the mare liberum principle promulgated by Grotius).

In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to extend national claims: to

include mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the means to

enforce pollution controls. (The League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague,

but no agreements resulted.) Using the customary international law principle of a nation's

right to protect its natural resources, President Truman in 1945 extendedUnited States control

to all the natural resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were quick to follow suit.

Between 1946 and 1950, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their rights to a

distance of 200 nautical miles to cover their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations

extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles.

By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old three-mile limit, while 66 nations had set a 12-mile

territorial limit and eight had set a 200-mile limit. As of May 28, 2008, only two countries still

use the three-mile limit:Jordan and Palau.[3] That limit is also used in

certain Australian islands, an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua

New Guinea, and a few British Overseas Territories, such as Anguilla.

International OwnershipTreatie

s

Antarctic Treaty System

Law of the Sea

Outer Space Treaty

Moon Treaty

International waters

Extraterrestrial real estate

UNCLOS I

In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I)

at Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958:

Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into force: 10

September 1964

Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964

Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entry

into force: 20 March 1966

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of

territorial waters.

UNCLOS II

In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS

II"); however, the six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new agreements.

Generally speaking, developing nations and third world countries participated only as clients,

allies, or dependents of United States or the Soviet Union, with no significant voice of their

own.

UNCLOS III

Sea areas in international rights

The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo,

of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was

convened in New York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states

dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority

vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The resulting

convention came into force on November 16, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state,Guyana,

ratified the treaty.

The convention introduced a number of provisions. The most significant issues covered were

setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic

zones(EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime,

protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of disputes.

The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline.

(Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply

indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The

areas are as follows:

Internal waters

Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal

state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no

right of passage within internal waters.

Territorial waters

Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws,

regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent

passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of

military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain

postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by

the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner,

which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state.

Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines

and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show

their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of

their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

Archipelagic waters

The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines

how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the

outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently

close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic

Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but

foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like

territorial waters).

Contiguous zone

Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit there was a further 12 nautical miles or 24 nautical

miles from the territorial sea baselines limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state

could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs,

and immigration.

Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)

These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from

the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all

natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the

continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes

over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an

offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in

the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres

deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the

regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and

cables.

Continental shelf

The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to

the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s

baseline, whichever is greater. A state’s continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical

miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical

miles from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles beyond the 2,500

meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have

the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental

shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living

resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water

column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention

establishes general obligations for safeguarding the marine

environment and protecting freedom of scientific research on the

high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for

controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas

beyond national jurisdiction, through an International Seabed

Authority and the Common heritage of mankind principle.[4]

Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea,

without taxation of traffic through transit states.

(intro)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. It enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole.

    The Convention was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 in Montego Bay, Jamaica. This marked the culmination of more than 14 years of work involving participation by more than 150 countries representing all regions of the world, all legal and political systems and the spectrum of socio/economic development. At the time of its adoption, the Convention embodied in one instrument traditional rules for the uses of the oceans and at the same time introduced new legal concepts and regimes and addressed new concerns. The Convention also provided the framework for further development of specific areas of the law of the sea.

    The Convention entered into force in accordance with its article 308 on 16 November 1994, 12 months after the date of deposit of the sixtieth instrument of ratification or accession. Today, it is the globally recognized regime dealing with all matters relating to the law of the sea.

    The Convention (full text) comprises 320 articles and nine annexes, governing all aspects of ocean space, such as delimitation, environmental control, marine scientific research, economic and commercial activities, transfer of technology and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters.

Some of the key features of the Convention are the following:

* Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage" through those waters;* Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit passage" through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage;* Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through such designated sea lanes;

* Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection;* All other States have freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;* Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ's of coastal States of the same region or sub-region; highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection;* Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and more under specified circumstances;* Coastal States share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 miles;* The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf shall make recommendations to States on the shelf's outer boundaries when it extends beyond 200 miles;* All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures to manage and conserve living resources;* The limits of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of islands are determined in accordance with rules applicable to land territory, but rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf;* States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas are expected to cooperate in managing living resources, environmental and research policies and activities;* Land-locked States have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States;* States are bound to prevent and control marine pollution and are liable for damage caused by violation of their international obligations to combat such pollution;* All marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State, but in most cases they are obliged to grant consent to other States when the research is to be conducted for peaceful purposes and fulfils specified criteria;

* States are bound to promote the development and transfer of marine technology "on fair and reasonable terms and conditions", with proper regard for all legitimate interests;* States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention;* Disputes can be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the Convention, to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration. Conciliation is also available and, in certain circumstances, submission to it would be compulsory. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over deep seabed mining disputes.

PREAMBLE

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Convention,

Prompted by the desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea and aware of the historic significance of this Convention as an important contribution to the maintenance of peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world,

Noting that developments since the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea held at Geneva in 1958 and 1960 have accentuated the need for a new and generally acceptable Convention on the law of the sea,

Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole,

Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will

promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,

Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declaredinter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,

Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of the sea achieved in this Convention will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations in conformity with the principles of justice and equal rights and will promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter,

Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law,

Have agreed as follows:

International Tribunal for the Law of the SeaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ITLOS seen from the river Elbe

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is an intergovernmental

organization created by the mandate of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the

Sea. It was established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed

at Montego Bay, Jamaica, on December 10, 1982. The Convention entered into force on

November 16, 1994, and established an international framework for law over "all ocean space, its

uses and resources". The Convention also established the International Seabed Authority, with

responsibility for the regulation of seabed mining beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, that is

beyond the limits of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the continental shelf.

The Tribunal has the power to settle disputes between states parties (there are currently 161: 160

states plus the European Union ).

[edit]Composition

According to its founding statute, the Tribunal has a set of 21 serving judges from a variety of

states parties in three primary bodies:

The Chamber of Summary Procedure

The Chamber for Fisheries Disputes

The Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes

In addition, at the request of Chile and the European Union, the Tribunal also set up a special

chamber to deal with the case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of

Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Union).

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is based in Hamburg, Germany.

Definition

In maritime law, the waters lying outside the territorial waters of any and all states. In the Middle Ages, a number of maritime states asserted sovereignty over large portions of the high seas. The doctrine that the high seas in time of peace are open to all nations was first proposed by Hugo Grotius (1609), but it did not become an accepted principle of international law until the 19th century. Activities permitted on the high seas include navigation, fishing, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and overflight of aircraft.

For more information on high seas, visit Britannica.com.