Abstract
Scholarship often explains the structure of the law of the sea as a contestation and coordination of the coastal states versus the international community and the user states in terms of inclusivity and exclusivity. They tend to underscore inclusivity, as the ocean is an integrated domain. This argument is also based on the embedded idea of universality. However, such an assumption should not be taken for granted and it necessary to clarify the significance and limitations of this universality. As a part of a study for this purpose, this paper focuses on cases of incidents at sea caused by non-parties of UNCLOS that were informed by specific regional tensions and histories. It will empirically study the cases of Turkey, Venezuela and Iran, where they undertake harassing or provocative actions against foreign ships and installations. It will then reflect the significance and limits of the theories of law of the sea.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
