Law of the Sea and Southeast Asian Problems

Abstract

Introduction By paragraph 2 of Resolution 2750C (XXV) the United Nations General Assem bly decided to convene in1973 a Conference on the Law of the Sea. The conference would deal with the establishment of an international r?gime, including an interna tional machinery for the area and resources of the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. It would also attempt to arrive at a precise definition of the area as well as discuss a broad r?gime of related issues such as those concerning the r?gime of the high seas, the continental shelf, the territorial zone, fishing and conservation measures, the preservation of the marine environment and the question of scientific research. It is interesting to note that Russia and its East European allies were opposed to this resolution whereas China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore voted for it. The need for a new Conference on the Law of the Sea is obvious when it is realized that only a third of the international community have adopted the Geneva Conven tions on the Law of the Sea. Over the years, there have been claims made by states which are not in accord with the Geneva Conventions. Some Latin American countries have consistently claimed a 200-nautical-mile territorial sea. Other Latin American countries have been claiming an exclusive economic zone or patrimonial extending to 200 nautical miles. Indonesia and the Philippines have once again raised their claims for a separate r?gime for archipelagic states. There is also the problem relating to freedom of transit through straits used for international navigation. Additionally, the question arises whether the continental shelf r?gime ought to be retained if'the patrimonial concept is recognized. Would the coastal state be entitled to enact pollution laws respecting straits used for international navigation which is part of its territorial sea? What would be the best method of effectuating the 1970 Declaration of Principles relating to the sea and resources of the sea and sea-bed and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction? The recent cod war between Iceland on the one hand and United Kingdom and Germany on the other serves to illustrate once again the inadequacies of the Geneva Conventions. Can a coastal state unilaterally extend its fishery jurisdiction? Does a coastal state have preferential fishing rights in the area of the high seas adjacent to its coast? What about the interests of land-locked and other geographically dis advantaged states and distant-water fishing countries that have traditionally fished in those waters? It can thus be gathered that there is widespread discontent with the existing legal r?gime in the seas. It is the belief of some countries that their present or anticipated interests are not adequately protected by the present r?gime. The view held by some countries is that there is a need for a thorough revision of the question