John Selden and the Jewish Religious Fountainhead of the International Law of the Sea

Author(s):  
Ofir Haivry

Modern international maritime law (IML) was born primarily out of two works, written about 400 years ago: Mare Liberum (1609) by Hugo Grotius, which argued for a complete freedom of the seas; and Mare Clausum (1635), by John Selden (1584–1654) arguing for the principle and practice of dominion and ownership over tracts of sea. Until relatively recently IML tended far more towards Grotius, since technological limitations limited application of Selden’s view mainly to the concept of the ‘territorial waters’. However, in the last three decades, as technological advances enable the establishment of far wider areas of maritime control and ever more ambitious finds of resources lying under the sea-bed, there has been a dramatic rise in the import of John Selden’s ideas for IML.

It is the object of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea to obtain broad international agreement on the limits to the territorial sea, on that area beyond these limits within which the coastal state may exercise rights over living and non-living resources and on the nature and manner of exercise of those rights. The Conference is also required to establish an international regime to deal with the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed beyond the limits of coastal states’ rights. The work done by the Conference in five sessions since 1973 will have its effect on international law and practice but, partly owing to differences between the view-points of less industrialized and the more industrialized states (not confined to marine matters), the global solution essential for the orderly regulation of movement of shipping, scientific research and development of fisheries and sea-bed mineral resources may yet elude the Conference, to the detriment of the participating states and of the international community as a whole.


Human activities have taken place in the world's oceans and seas for most of human history. With such a vast number of ways in which the oceans can be used for trade, exploited for natural resources and fishing, as well as concerns over maritime security, the legal systems regulating the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans have long been a crucial part of international law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea comprehensively defined the parameters of the law of the sea in 1982, and since the Convention was concluded it has seen considerable development. This book provides an analysis of its current debates and controversies, both theoretical and practical. It consists of forty chapters divided into six parts. First, it explains the origins and evolution of the law of the sea, with a particular focus upon the role of key publicists such as Hugo Grotius and John Selden, the gradual development of state practice, and the creation of the 1982 UN Convention. It then reviews the components which comprise the maritime domain, assessing their definition, assertion, and recognition. It also analyzes the ways in which coastal states or the international community can assert control over areas of the sea, and the management and regulation of each of the maritime zones. This includes investigating the development of the mechanisms for maritime boundary delimitation, and the decisions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The book also discusses the actors and intuitions that impact on the law of the sea, considering their particular rights and interests, in particular those of state actors and the principle law of the sea institutions. Then it focuses on operational issues, investigating longstanding matters of resource management and the integrated oceans framework. This includes a discussion and assessment of the broad and increasingly influential integrated oceans management governance framework that interacts with the traditional law of the sea. It considers six distinctive regions that have been pivotal to the development of the law of the sea, before finally providing a detailed analysis of the critical contemporary issues facing the law of the sea. These include threatened species, climate change, bioprospecting, and piracy.


1973 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Ziskind

During the Commercial Revolution, as European powers became deeply involved in Atlantic and Indian Ocean trade, there developed a lively debate about whether a country could claim and exercise legal sovereignty over the sea. The great Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), in his work Mare Liberum (1609), argued against such notions. An English lawyer and polymath John Selden (1584–1654), espousing British interests, took the affirmative side of the debate in Mare Clausum (1936). The issues had been discussed long before Grotius and Selden had written their works, but the debate intensified as the competition both for worldwide markets and for access to offshore fishing banks became sharper.


2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R Rothwell ◽  
Tim Stephens

A feature of the new law of the sea introduced by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention),1 was the capacity for coastal states to assert vast maritime claims over waters adjacent to their coastlines. A continental shelf could be claimed out to a minimum of 200 nautical miles,2 while the newly recognized Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) also extended out to 200 nautical miles.3 The continental shelf had previously been recognized under the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf4 and so the extension of coastal state sovereign rights over the seabed and subsoil was consistent with already existing law of the sea principles. However the EEZ, which gave to coastal states sovereign rights over the living and non-living resources of the sea-bed and adjacent waters,5 was a new initiative of the LOS Convention and represents one of the most significant contemporary expansions of state sovereignty. By contrast with the extended continental shelf, which did not affect any significant pre-existing activities on the sea-bed, the new EEZ had a major impact upon fishing activities. As coastal states around the world eagerly proclaimed EEZs, waters previously considered high seas areas available for fishing6 were now within the reach of state fisheries’ jurisdiction and control. The result has been that under contemporary international law those waters available for the exercise of the high seas ‘freedom’ of fishing,7 have gradually been reduced. This new regime, in combination with parallel initiatives to regulate some aspects of high seas fishing activities, has meant that ‘legal’ fishing on the high seas is now subject to extensive regulation.


Grotiana ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Logue

AbstractOn April 30, 1982, the Eleventh Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) endorsed the final version of the Draft Convention of the Law of the Sea by a vote of 130 to 4, with 17 abstentions.1 The Session met at UN Headquarters in New York from March 8 to April 30.2


Author(s):  
Pavliha Marko

This chapter examines the role of ethics in international maritime law and ocean governance. It first considers the general ethical flavour of international law, giving a few examples of moral standards in the law of the sea and maritime law, before discussing a range of issues relating to ocean governance. It suggests that the phrase ‘international maritime law’ should be understood broadly as inspired by the International Maritime Organization’s International Maritime Law Institute (IMO IMLI), thus including the law of the sea as part of public international law and the maritime law, also known as shipping, admiralty or marine law. The chapter goes on to outline actions aimed at conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. Finally, it offers recommendations on how to improve legal education with an obligatory course on legal ethics.


Author(s):  
Erik Franckx ◽  
Aster Boeye

According to a 2018 count, there are twenty-two states that claim archipelagic state status. It was only after the independence of the Philippines and Indonesia at the end of the Second World War, when both countries made unilateral claims during the 1950s, that the demand for a specific regime for archipelagic states became articulated. Third states wanted to retain their navigational rights in archipelagic waters for economic and military purposes, while the archipelagic states wanted to claim these archipelagic waters as internal waters, following the swift development of the concept of coastal archipelagos after the 1951 judgement of the International Court of Justice through the creation, and codification a few years afterward, of the notion of straight baselines. The concept of an archipelagic state was only incorporated in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 LOSC), after nine years of negotiations on this issue during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, 1973–1982), of which the first session was totally devoted to procedural matters. At the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I, 1958) and during its preparatory work undertaken by the International Law Commission (ILC, 1949–1956), the Special Rapporteur J. P. A. François already developed the concept of a group of islands or archipelagic states in 1953. States were, however, unable to find common ground because the concept at that time. Especially the legal nature of the waters on the inside of the archipelago proved to be elusive. It was consequently deleted from the ILC draft and even though specific proposals were introduced during UNCLOS I and II (1960) on this issue, neither conference reached any conclusion on the matter. The issue was picked up again during the work of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction (Sea-bed Committee) in 1971, which prepared the agenda for UNCLOS III. At UNCLOS III, the debate after a while (1976) totally narrowed down to mid-ocean archipelagic states, dashing the hopes of continental states, sometimes referred to as mixed states, to see their mid-ocean “archipelagos” included in the system being elaborated at that time. In the early 21st century, the provisions of Part IV of the 1982 LOSC determine the regime of archipelagic states in international law of the sea and can be considered as progressive development of international law. Never before had such a concept been written down in an international treaty. Due to the package-deal approach, a balance of interests can clearly be found in these provisions. New concepts are created such as archipelagic states, archipelagic baselines, and archipelagic sea-lanes passage, all of which are being carefully defined in the 1982 LOSC.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-200
Author(s):  
Sarah Dromgoole

The status in international law of operational warships and other ships used only on governmental non-commercial service has been long established. In contrast, the status of such vessels after they have sunk has been, and remains, a matter of considerable uncertainty. The uncertainty arises in no small part from the absence of any provision in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to sunken State vessels or, indeed, to wrecks more generally. Over the last 30 years, technological advances have led to the discovery of many new wreck sites, fuelling international interest in the status of sunken State wrecks. At its Santiago Session in 2007, the Institut de droit international established its 9th Scientific Commission to look into the matter. A Preliminary Report, drafted by the Commission’s Rapporteur, Professor Natalino Ronzitti, was discussed at the Rhodes Session in 2011 and, after further deliberations, a Resolution entitled “The Legal Regime of Wrecks of Warships and Other State-Owned Ships in International Law” was adopted by the Tallinn Session in August 2015. This contribution sets out the background to the work of the 9th Commission, outlines the substance of the Resolution, and offers some observations thereon.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document