Coastal State Jurisdiction Research Articles

Potential Contributions of IMO Area-Based Shipping Management and Port State Jurisdiction to the Regulation of Ship-Borne Tourism in Antarctica

Given the rapid growth of ship-borne tourism in Antarctica, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) area-based management tools (ABMTs) could be a timely and effective contribution to mitigate some of the associated risks. Utilization of IMO ABMTs in Antarctic waters, which constitute high seas, raises several legal and practical issues. The central challenge is how to ensure compliance with IMO measures on the high seas, given the lack of generally accepted coastal state jurisdiction in Antarctica and shortcomings in flag state control. This article addresses these questions and analyzes port state jurisdiction as a potential mechanism to enforce IMO ABMTs in the Antarctic. The article concludes that Antarctic port states have sufficient legal arguments to justify the exercise of jurisdiction in relation to IMO ABMTs, and that significant constraints lie in the economic and political dimensions of regulation rather than in regulation itself.

The implications of the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA) in the South China Sea: A Chinese perspective

The emergence of China as a major power and its adjustment of foreign policy have raised concerns in the U.S. The Quad, led by the U.S., aims to counterbalance China’s growing influence in East and Southeast Asia, and the Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA) acts as an important component of its strategy. However, this article notes that the endeavor faces significant challenges, including legal and geopolitical risks, as well as economic and technical limitations. Intelligence-gathering activities may infringe upon the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of coastal states, especially within disputed maritime areas. Cooperative enforcement under IPMDA can raise legal questions concerning the transfer of maritime jurisdiction under UNCLOS to non-contracting parties. China perceives the IPMDA initiative as a threat posed by the Quad. The Chinese government is concerned that it could spark renewed criticism of its fishing industry and strain diplomatic ties with neighboring countries. China’s response could entail the establishment of alternative mechanisms and increased transparency in maritime activities. Against the backdrop of intensifying competition between the U.S. and China and ongoing disputes in the South China Sea, the IPMDA could exacerbate existing tensions in the SCS area. The exclusivity of the IPMDA mechanism may not serve the best interests of maritime security and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. In this context, China is encouraged to play a more constructive role in defusing tensions.

The 2022 ICJ Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia: Towards a Theory of Exclusivity in Allocating Rights and Jurisdiction between the Coastal and Other States?

Abstract In Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the International Court of Justice delves into the matter of exclusivity when assessing alleged violations committed by foreign States within an Exclusive Economic Zone. Additionally, the Court examines the legality of legislative acts concerning the contiguous zone and outlines criteria for the drawing of straight baselines. The Court’s aim seems to be establishing a comprehensive theory of exclusivity, seeking to allocate and balance the rights and jurisdiction of coastal States and other States involved. In this context, it becomes apparent that the abstract notion of freedom of navigation imposes limitations on coastal States, preventing them from enacting legislation that expands the scope of their jurisdiction or adopts a liberal interpretation of permissible conditions within relevant regulatory frameworks. The implications of this theory for the evolution of the legal order pertaining to maritime spaces warrant significant attention.

Tuna: Investigations of value addition and potential EU investments in tuna fisheries in Africa

This research studies investment opportunities within the tuna fish pole and line fishery by the coast of the African Atlantic Façade (mainly SW–Senegal), and the associated value chains. Also, a section is dedicated to investigating the specific case of investment of French capital in tuna fisheries in Seychelles in the Indian Ocean. The investigation was conducted under the FarFish project, which overarching objective is to provide knowledge, tools and methods to support responsible, sustainable and profitable EU fisheries outside European waters, both within the jurisdiction (EEZ) of non-EU coastal states as well as in international waters/high seas. In order to achieve this, the aim of this research is to identify, study and potentially recommend investment opportunities for EU operators within some of the project’s case study countries. The investigations done into tuna fisheries were based on interviews with relevant stakeholders, including shipowners and key personnel from public bodies and institutions both in West Africa and Europe (see Appendix A for the list of stakeholders consulted). In addition, most of the data presented in this section was acquired from DG-Mare in a non-public dataset compiling every fishing lot from EU vessels operating within SFPAs in Senegal. A second case study in tuna fisheries in this case in the Indian Ocean, investigates the investment from the French company SAPMER to improve the land infrastructure in the Port of Victoria (Seychelles), as this would be the only notable investment by European interests in recent years for tuna fishing in Africa. These sections conclude that the fishing area where EU pole-and-line vessels are active is becoming less productive, decreasing the profitability of European flagged vessels, as well as of Senegalese flagged vessels that maintain close partnerships with Europe. As a response, they have attempted to extend their fishing grounds. Additional fishing opportunities are opening in The Gambia (whose EEZ is restricted) and other countries are expected to follow. Contrastingly, the EU sustainable partnership fisheries agreement with Senegal or Mauritania could include fewer fishing opportunities in terms of tonnage, as well as increasingly restrictive conditions for access and landings. European operators have reacted so far by considering the switch to private regime, instead of operating under SFPA, as a preferred strategy.

Coastal State Jurisdiction in the Contiguous Zone and Transnational Organised Crime

Coastal State Jurisdiction in the Contiguous Zone and Transnational Organised Crime

Coastal State Jurisdiction over Ships in Need of Assistance, Maritime Casualties and Shipwrecks, written by Iva Parlov

Coastal State Jurisdiction over Ships in Need of Assistance, Maritime Casualties and Shipwrecks, written by Iva Parlov

The New Italian Exclusive Economic Zone and Italy-Montenegro Maritime Boundary Delimitation

The paper examines the newly proclaimed Italian Exclusive Economic Zone and its impact on the delimitation of the maritime boundaries between Italy and Montenegro. By Law No. 91 of 14 June 2021, published in the Official Journal No. 148 of 23 June 2021, the Italian Parliament proclaimed its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to allow Italy to fully project its economic rights over an area of the sea extending up to 200 miles from its shores or up to the limit allowed by international law. In line with the trend of progressive extension of the jurisdiction of coastal states in waters beyond their territorial sea in the Mediterranean, this measure is taken in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to allow the country to protect its economic activities, and biodiversity protection. Anyway, even if the law authorizes the EEZ establishment, a further ad hoc measure is required to this aim. Its delimitation will take place primarily based on agreements: Italy is supposed to negotiate new agreements with the neighboring Countries, including Montenegro, in order to define its boundaries.

Coastal State Jurisdiction over Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone, written by Camille Goodman

Coastal State Jurisdiction over Living Resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone, written by Camille Goodman

The level of the World Ocean and International Law

As a result of the work of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, which adopted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a single international legal order was established in the oceans covering 2/3 of our planet and approved by virtually all States. An important part of it is the procedure for allocating from the common space of the World Ocean part of the waters and the bottom, lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of coastal States. With the warming of the climate on Earth, the water level of the World's oceans began to rise, and the established limits of the zones of jurisdiction are violated. Currently, two ideas have been formed for determining the limits of national jurisdiction: to fix the baseline for measuring zones of jurisdiction; to establish a fixed external limit of such zones. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is universally recognized and is not disputed by anyone.

The Conservation of Biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea through Marine Protected Areas: The Barcelona System Faced with the Expansion of Coastal State Jurisdiction

Abstract This paper tackles legal and policy issues concerning Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Mediterranean Sea. Since the 1970s, Mediterranean Countries have been at the forefront in international cooperation for the protection of marine ecosystems: notably, significant results have been achieved through the establishment of a network of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Interest (SPAMIs). After framing the general legal context, the paper examines the specificities of the above network, while at the same time pointing out its weakness when put to the test of facts. Accordingly, some proposals are made for improving the SPAMI system, which include a better allocation of jurisdiction among coastal States in the case of transboundary MPAs. It is argued that in a delicate phase of transition, characterized by the proclamation of EEZs and the ensuing maritime delimitation disputes, the creation of SPAMI may enhance the spirit of cooperation among Mediterranean States with opposite or adjacent coasts and possibly represent an alternative to the definition of a precise maritime boundary. Most notably, the creation of transboundary SPAMIs appears worth further exploration in the context of the negotiations aimed at defining the boundaries of the Italian EEZ.

International Legal Issues of Preventing Unregulated Fishing in the Arctic

INTRODUCTION. At various times, the sustainable use of marine living resources in the high seas outside exclusive economic zones, as well as in areas under the jurisdiction of Arctic coastal states, has been severely damaged by illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. As the climate warms, the threat of unregulated fishing has also emerged on the high seas in the Central Arctic Ocean. As a result of multi-round negotiations on October 3, 2018 in Ilullissat (Greenland, Denmark) in the so-called «five plus five» format – representatives of five Arctic and four non-Arctic states, as well as the European Union, the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean was signed. This new international legal document reflects national interests in the optimal use of marine living resources of the Arctic states, the Arctic indigenous peoples and residents, as well as interested states. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article shows the evolution of international legal instruments to prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in the high seas. Particular attention is paid to the study of normative and doctrinal materials revealing the treaty practice of states in the Arctic enclaves. The legal interpretation of the provisions of the 2018 Agreement is also given. In the study the authors used historical, comparative-legal and some other general scientific and special legal methods. RESEARCH RESULTS. From an international perspective, the 2018 Agreement is an innovative legal document that reflects the interests of not only the Arctic states but also non-Arctic states. Despite concerns about the participation of the latter (China, in particular)on the part of Western states, the Agreement was nevertheless signed and ratified before possible commercial fishing on the high seas in the Central Arctic Ocean starts. This would prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in advance and thus prevent the depletion of marine living resources in this part of the Arctic Ocean, unlike it happened in other enclaves of the high seas in the Northern Hemisphere. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The entry into force of the 2018 Agreement marked the beginning of cooperation among interested states in prevention of unregulated high seas fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean. Besides the general purpose of the Agreement, scientific cooperation between the Parties will contribute to better understandingof the least-explored area of the high seas. It is likely that the environmental cooperation in the Central Arctic Ocean will expand considerably in the future.

박통항금지해역 설정에 관한 법리적 고찰 - 유조선통항금지해역을 중심으로 -

In the past, the sea has been a space where routes are designed fornavigation like roads on land, or where freedom of navigation is guaranteed.However, as the jurisdiction of coastal states has been expanded for variousreasons such as resource development and security, there was growing concernthat the high seas, the waters where the freedom of passage of ships isguaranteed, will gradually decrease, which may limit the passage of ships. As aresult, a system such as the right of innocent passage was prepared to ensurefreedom of navigation even in the waters within the sovereignty of the coastalstate. The right of innocent passage literally means that when a vessel isharmless to the coastal state when it passes through the waters under thejurisdiction of the coastal state, it guarantees the passage of the vessel.However, the traffic-prohibited sea area for oil tankers established along thecoast of Korea prohibits passage regardless of whether or not oil tankerspassing through the sea area are harmless, which may violate the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, it is considered that it isnecessary to change the area to a cautionary zone for oil tankers to ensurecareful navigation of oil tankers and active management of coastal states rather than unilaterally prohibiting the passage of oil tankers. By doing so, it will bepossible to achieve the legislative purpose of the traffic-prohibited sea area foroil tankers and to solve the problem of conflicts with international law.

Legal Status of Offshore (Deep-Water) Oil Rigs: Coastal State Jurisdiction and Countering Oil Spills Threats

This research aims to assess and find possible ways to improve the international legal framework to exercise state jurisdiction to prevent pollution from offshore oil rigs. In effect, the paper analyzes the legal status of offshore rigs to provide for the necessary jurisprudential, geo-political, and energysecurity dimensions. While doing so, the pertinent provisos (sections) of all the international conventions relatable to offshore oil & gas production have been examined. The study has found that the legal status of offshore rigs is not clear in international law, and as such, it concludes that the 1982 UNCLOS convention has addressed specific issues, albeit not in an extensive way. The extant international regulations for the protection of offshore oil rigs have not been effective, even in cases of allision and collision. Right from the legal status of offshore rigs to security zones, they have been debated much and have been the subject of dispute for over 40 years. There are specific and pivotal jurisdictional issues in matters to do with the location of oil rigs in the high seas, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, which has proved to be an area of contention. The Legal status of offshore rigs has become a source of much disagreement in International Law. There are fundamental questions about whether a type of rig could be considered a ship under national and international law. Should an oil rig be considered a ship, some international law rules relatable to ships, such as the law of flag, allision, collision, and pollution, would become applicable in equal verve to oil rigs as well? As a natural corollary of those above, a query would come up: how else can oil rigs be classified? Traditionally, oil rigs, offshore installations, artificial islands have been dubbed to be part of one category. A meticulous examination of the legal status of offshore rigs would reveal that it is one of the most contumacious and troublesome areas of International Law. The aforementioned is significant because there are many practical and legal consequences, given specific situational dictates. Indeed, the legal status could directly impact issues with the jurisdiction a state may have in matters relatable to the exercise of the states’ legal prowess over offshore rigs, and the applicability of certain maritime law principles and rules centric to offshore rigs need to be studied astutely. As an indicative archetype, should an offshore rig be located at an exclusive economic zone, it could be considered a ship in the eyes of the law, and hence, the flag state would have exclusive jurisdiction over it. Nonetheless, the coastal state would have exclusive jurisdiction if it were considered an installation. Quintessentially, the legal status of offshore oil and gas rigs would determine the rights, duties, and obligations of the different states, and hence the subject could throw up some complicated issues.

The ‘Due Regard’ of Article 234 of UNCLOS: Lessons From Regulating Innocent Passage in the Territorial Sea

Article 234 of UNCLOS is in many ways exceptional, but it is not unique in the sense that it grants to the coastal state “complete” legislative power. Arguably, “complete” coastal state jurisdiction exists in the territorial sea for the purposes enumerated in Article 21(1), allowing coastal states to adopt ship reporting systems, pilotage, and other routing measures unilaterally. The analysis of state practice reveals that states often decide to engage the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in different ways, even when such a course of action is not mandatory. This article advocates for meaningful deliberation as both a suitable method of meeting Article 234’s due regard standard, and a practice that can be expected from a steward.

Seabed Mining within National Jurisdiction: An Assessment of the Relevant Legislation of the Cook Islands

Beyond the boundaries of national jurisdiction, the seabed and its mineral resources are governed by a comprehensive international regime, which determines by whom and under what conditions these natural resources can be exploited. However, the same mineral resources that deep sea mining actors are keen to exploit in the Area, are also available within zones falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of coastal states. So even if strict rules and precise standards would be enforced with regard to seabed mining operations in the Area, similar activities within a coastal state’s national jurisdiction remain unchecked by international law. Therefore, the question can be raised whether this might lead to substandard exploitation of the minerals of the seabed without adequate supervision? This article tests this assumption in a detailed case study of the relevant legislation of the Cook Islands, comprising the 2017 Marae Moana Act and the 2019 Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Act. Following a concise analysis of the competences of coastal states on their continental shelf, the domestic laws of the Cook Islands are critically compared with the international legal framework governing the Area, to assess whether they contain equivalent rules, mechanisms and safeguards.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF NON-COMMERCIAL GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND DUE REGARD: CHINA COAST GUARD IN THE NATUNAS

Coastal states possess sovereign rights and jurisdiction within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction against foreign vessels conducting violations within the EEZ. However, certain ships are granted sovereign immunity and thus are not subject to coastal state’s jurisdiction. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) only stipulated that injuries to the coastal state caused by activities conducted by a sovereign immune vessel will engage that vessel’s flag state responsibility. Indonesia had witnessed numerous violations within its EEZ, especially in waters around Natuna Islands. These violations are conducted by Chinese fishing vessels, which were escorted by China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels. Consequently violations by Chinese vessels would hamper Indonesia’s exercise of enforcement jurisdiction against Chinese fishermen caught committing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUUF), thus violating Indonesia’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This article discusses to what extent sovereign immunity applies to non-commercial government vessels, and whether they can be subjected to coastal state jurisdiction, should they hamper the exercise of coastal state’s enforcement jurisdiction within its EEZ. The article applies normative legal research by utilizing applicable regulations, theories, and existing practices. Sovereign immune vessels are required to pay due regard to other states, including coastal state. Activities constituting ‘abuse of rights’ jeopardizing coastal state’s exercise of enforcement jurisdiction will result in their flag state responsibility being invoked by the coastal state. This article recommends peaceful settlement of dispute through bilateral means, or multilateral means in the spirit of the 2002 Declaration of Conduct by pursuing a regional fisheries agreement.

Multilateral Creeping Coastal State Jurisdiction and the BBNJ Negotiations

Abstract The interrelated notions of adjacency and creeping coastal State jurisdiction have been a key driver in the historical development of the international law of the sea. Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) managed to bring an end to unilateral coastal State claims to new and broader maritime zones, creeping coastal State jurisdiction per se continued, both unilaterally and multilaterally. This article focuses on so-called multilateral creeping coastal State jurisdiction – which originates predominantly from intergovernmental bodies – and in particular on the role of this phenomenon in the currently ongoing negotiations on an agreement on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction under the LOSC (BBNJ Agreement). The article contains a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions in the draft BBNJ Agreement of 18 November 2019 and subsequent text proposals by delegations, in light of the historical development of the law of the sea.

Transboundary Fisheries Management

Abstract The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea created the exclusive economic zone regime, which makes more than 90 per cent of the world’s commercial fish stocks under the national jurisdiction of coastal States. The biological characteristics of fish demonstrate that the long-term sustainability of fisheries can only be achieved through cooperation and coordination among States, especially for the conservation of transboundary fish stocks. However, the ocean may have more than 1,500 transboundary fish stocks, only a limited number are subjected to effective cooperative management. This article provides an overview of the international legal framework on transboundary fisheries and China’s practice on shared stocks and distant water fisheries, and argues that current bilateral fisheries agreements are not sufficient enough to manage transboundary fish stocks and China still has much to do on regulating distant water fisheries.

THE PRESCRIPTIVE AND ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION OF A COASTAL STATE IN RELATION TO SHIP SOURCE POLLUTION OCCURS IN ITS VARIOUS MARITIME ZONES, UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA AND THE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

The coastal state jurisdiction is the jurisdiction enjoyed by a coastal state in relation to breaches of regulations and laws by foreign flagged ships that take place within its various jurisdictional zones. The prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction comprise the main power of a coastal state. Prescriptive is the jurisdiction to prescribe laws and regulations, while enforcement is the jurisdiction to enforce such laws. The rights and obligations of a state in relation to navigation and pollution are determined primarily by international conventions and customary international law. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) is the most widely ratified convention in this field of law, outlining the rights and obligations of the states in relation to their variousmaritmezones as well as with respect to environmental protection.States have under UNCLOS the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment and they are also under an obligation to take measures jointly or individually to reduce and prevent, control and reduce pollution of the marine environment from any source including the atmosphere and from vessels.In relation to ship source pollution there are various obligations.

The Exclusive Economic Zone, Territory, and Territorial Jurisdiction in the Rome Statute

Abstract This article responds to the position adopted by the icc’s Office of the Prosecutor in 2020, that criminal conduct which takes place in the Exclusive Economic Zone (eez, Zone) is in principle outside the territory of coastal states, and is not encompassed under Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute. Having considered the genesis and function of the Zone, and reviewed the law of the sea jurisprudence, the article identifies a tension between the Prosecutor’s goal of reconciling ‘human realities’ and territorial jurisdiction in general terms, and the manner by which the Office has approached the specific question of territory and jurisdiction with regards the Zone. The article proposes that while coastal state jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes in the Zone was not enumerated in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the exercise of such jurisdiction is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.