The Concept of “Territorial Sea” in the Talmud

1975 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne

One of the central, and most controversial, issues of historic international law concerns the distinction between the territorial sea, over which the sovereignty of the coastal State extends (and by implication also its legal system), and the high seas which are subject to the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. Involved in that controversy is first and foremost the very idea of a division of the waters of the sea into two distinct juridical institutes. In the present century alone this question has been unsuccessfully tackled by a whole series of major international conferences on the law of the sea, held in 1930 under the auspices of the League of Nations, and in 1958, 1960 and 1973–75 under the auspices of the United Nations—this latter conference being still in progress at the time of writing.

Author(s):  
Talitha Ramphal

Abstract Activities to tackle marine debris are conducted on the high seas by The Ocean Cleanup. The high seas are open to all States and may be used as long this is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) and other rules of international law. This article argues that the LOSC provides for the freedom to use the high seas to protect and preserve the marine environment, including tackling marine debris, when interpreting Article 87 of the LOSC in light of present day needs.


1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 739-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigeru Oda

Under the traditional rules of international law, the sea was divided into the high seas and the territorial seas and in each case different rules and regulations obtained. As for the exploitation of fishery resources, the coastal state possessed unquestioned rights to regulate any such exploitation within its territorial sea and to apply its domestic legislation fully to any person engaged in such activities. Similarly, the coastal state was free to prohibit fishing by foreigners in its territorial sea and thus to monopolize those fishery resources. On the high seas, however, no state was allowed, at least in principle, to impose its jurisdiction upon any foreign vessel, since fishing on the high seas fell under the general regime of the high seas. The existence of these two disparate regimes, namely, exploitation under the full control of the coastal state and exploitation free from interference by any country, was a fundamental presumption underlying the exploitation of fishery resources.


Author(s):  
Valentin J. Schatz ◽  
Arron N. Honniball

International fisheries law is a broad field of international law within which significant state practice, instruments, and relevant fora are found at the global, regional, subregional, bilateral, and national level. For the purposes of this bibliography, the analysis of international fisheries law is limited to the law governing marine capture fisheries (other fisheries law definitions may include the regulation of aquaculture or inland fisheries). This bibliography also primarily approaches fisheries law as a matter of fisheries conservation and management under the international law of the sea. The two main treaties of global application which reflect its foundational framework are the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). As a starting point, one should consult the maritime zones established under UNCLOS and customary law, whereby the distribution of rights and obligations among the various capacities of states differs per maritime zone. As fish do not respect legal boundaries, special rules of international law that emphasize cooperation and management between states must be adopted and adapted for shared fish stocks such as transboundary fish stocks, straddling fish stocks, and highly migratory fish stocks. In addition, various treaties of global application dealing with specific issues exist, such as the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement) and, most recently, the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA). This global treaty framework is complemented by various global non–legally binding instruments, most of which were adopted under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). On the regional level, countless multilateral and bilateral fisheries treaties have been concluded, and the field remains highly dynamic. Notably, many fisheries are nowadays managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Arrangements (RFMO/As) or bilateral fisheries commissions. As a thematically defined field of law, international fisheries law is not restricted to the rules governing conservation and management of marine fisheries, but may equally raise, among other issues, questions of general international law of the sea such as jurisdiction and maritime law enforcement operations, international environmental law, international trade law, international human rights law, and international dispute settlement.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anh Duc Ton

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc) is well known as the “Constitution for the Oceans”; however, the passage of foreign warships through the territorial sea of a coastal State is not clearly addressed. All East Asian littoral States (except North Korea and Cambodia) are parties to the losc but their practices regarding the innocent passage of warships are different. This article provides an analysis of the innocent passage regime of the losc, the practice of East Asian littoral States regarding the innocent passage of warships as well as factors that have influenced the trends in their practices.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-165
Author(s):  
Ying Wang

Abstract Historic rights have been acknowledged by international legislation including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, although many issues concerning the concept still remain uncertain. This article will mainly discuss the legal connotation and juridical functions of the concept of ‘historic rights’ for maritime entitlements and maritime boundary delimitation, and attempt to clarify some legal ambiguity and explain the function of the legal regime through analysis of legal documents and identification of typical difficulties in the application of the concept of ‘historic rights’.


1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 764-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Allott

That Princes may have an exclusive property in the Soveraigntie of the severall parts of the Sea, and in the passage, fishing and shores thereof, is so evidently true by way of fact, as no man that is not desperately impudent can deny it.Sir John BoroughsUsing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 as a root stock, it is possible to generate a fundamentally new international law of the sea. This regeneration will not be the product of yet another diplomatic negotiation among the representatives of the governments of states. It will be brought about by a much more direct and efficient method. It requires nothing more nor less than a reconceiving of the theoretical basis of the law of the sea.


1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Kelsen

Collective security is the main purpose of the United Nations, just as it was the main purpose of its predecessor, the League of Nations. What does collective security mean? Under general international law the principle of self-help prevails. The protection of the legal interests of the states against violations on the part of other states is left to the individual state whose right has been violated. General international law authorizes the state, i.e., the individual member of the international community, to resort, in case of a violation of its rights, to reprisals or war against that state which is responsible for the violation. Reprisals and war are enforcement actions. Insofar as they are reactions against violations of the law, and authorized by it, they have the character of sanctions. We speak of collective security when the protection of the rights of the states, the reaction against the violation of the law, assumes the character of a collective enforcement action.


1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-96
Author(s):  
Luke T. Lee

The conclusion of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958 has occasioned many commentaries by authorities on international law. Scant attention, however, has been paid to that part of the Conference dealing with jurisdiction over foreign merchant ships in the territorial sea. This is surprising in view of the centuries-old controversy affecting the interests of a vast number of ship-owners and seafarers. Indeed, the importance of the width of the territorial sea would not have assumed such serious proportions but for the fact that its determination would secure for the coastal states jurisdiction over a specific portion of the sea.


2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. M. Nelson

The question of reservations was one of the ‘controversial issues’ facing the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in drawing up the final clauses of the Convention. On the one hand it was argued that the integrity of the Convention must be safeguarded and that the ‘package deal’ must be protected from possible disintegration by the making of reservations. On the other hand the view was held that ‘allowance for the possibility of reservations is aimed at accommodating the views of the delegations who have maintained that they cannot become parties to the Convention unless the Convention permits them to exercise a right to enter reservations, in accordance with customary international law and as envisaged under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.’ In short the need to preserve the integrity of the Convention was pitted against the need to secure universal participation in the Convention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document