Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zones of Foreign Coastal States

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritaka Hayashi

Abstract One disturbing element in an overall stable order built on the Law of the Sea Convention is the disagreement between some States over the use of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a coastal State by another State for military purposes. While it appears to be generally accepted that military activities in the EEZ of another State are part of “the freedoms . . . of navigation and overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms . . .” under Article 58(1), some States, notably China, hold an opposing view. The disagreement has led to several incidents involving forceful disturbance of activities of United States military vessels and aircraft in and above the EEZ of China. There is an urgent need for the States concerned and the international community to find a common understanding on the issue or some kind of practical arrangement for avoiding further serious incidents.

Author(s):  
Simon MCKENZIE

Abstract The development of uncrewed maritime vehicles [UMVs] has the potential to increase the scale of military maritime surveillance in the exclusive economic zones of foreign coastal states. This paper considers the legal implications of the expanded use of UMVs for this purpose. It shows how features of the legal regime—namely how its application depends on determining the intent of a vessel's operation (to distinguish marine scientific research from military surveillance), as well the obligation to have due regard—have a “dynamic” quality that will pose a challenge to UMVs operated by autonomous technology. The legal obligations will require equipping UMVs with the capacity to communicate something about their identity, the purpose of their mission, and to be able to have some capacity to be responsive to the economic and environmental interests of the coastal state.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian tho Pesch

Offshore wind farms compete against other uses of the sea for space. Maritime spatial planning ought to resolve such conflicts. What role does the law of the sea play? In the exclusive economic zone, the rights of the coastal state and the rights of other states are of equal importance. How can a coastal state, that is applying maritime spatial planning, respect the rights of other states to comply with the requirements of the law of the sea? This study elaborates on the roots of today´s problems and develops solutions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farah Akmal Idrus ◽  
Melissa Dennis Chong ◽  
Nur Syazwani Abd Rahim ◽  
Masania Mohd Basri ◽  
Jamil Musel

Physicochemical characteristics of seawater play crucial role for productive marine ecosystem and fisheries activities. The limited information of Sarawak surface seawaters provide objective to determine the physicochemical characteristics in Malaysia Exclusive Economic Zone off the Coast of Sarawak. A total of 38 samples were collected using Van Dorn Waals Sampler and the physicochemical characteristics were measured using physicochemical parameter probes. Ranges for dissolved oxygen (DO) was 3.73-6.83 mg/l, temperature was 27.03-30.13ºC, pH was 7.63-7.82, salinity was 33.77-36.77 ppt, turbidity was 0.01-1.01 NTU, chlorophylla concentration was 0.01-4.52 mg/l, nitrate was 0.01–0.08 mg/l, nitrite was 0.001–0.012 mg/l and phosphate was 0.01–5.95 mg/l. There was positive correlation between chlorophyll-a and nutrients that indicated the biological uptake by biota (e.g. phytoplankton). In conclusion, the present study shows that the Malaysia Exclusive Economic Zone off the Coast of Sarawak had minimal pollution based on Malaysia Marine Water Quality Criteria. An update for physicochemical characteristics of surface seawaters in the coverage areas is required as future work.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-358
Author(s):  
Adrianus Adityo Vito Ramon

AbstractThe research argue that in the absence of an internationally negotiated provisions that explicitly regulate foreign peacetime military activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of another States, States should consider the incident case per case as well as may employed the guideline prepared by highly reputed international legal scholars. This is essential to avoid unnecessary conflict between the Coastal State and the State conducting military activities in the EEZ. The aforementioned conclusion is reached by first analysing the definition of the peacetime military activities of the State. The research would also examine the negotiation process and its negotiated provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 resulted from the negotiation, regulating EEZ. Subsequently, the research would examining of the practice of the States interpreting the UNCLOS 1982’s EEZ provisions, including providing the options as an interim solutions for the void in the legal instruments in the matter.  


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Joanna Mossop

The Tribunal's conclusion that Itu Aba and other features in the South China Sea are rocks that are incapable of generating exclusive economic zones came as a surprise to some scholars and government officials who have never interpreted Article 121(3) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the strict way adopted in this case. In the absence of any previous judicial interpretation of the article, a range of interpretations of Article 121(3) have been seen in the academic literature, and in state practice. Although much of the decision is extremely well argued, I must disagree with the Tribunal's approach to Article 121(3).


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuexia Liao

Abstract If a coastal State claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) that intrudes into the 200-nm limit of another State, the problem arises as to whether there is a hierarchical relationship between natural prolongation and distance, the two criteria of entitlement to the continental shelf provided by Article 76 of the un Convention on the Law of the Sea. A positive answer would mean that the continental shelf beyond 200 nm cannot encroach upon the 200-nm limit, otherwise there would be an area of overlapping entitlements which calls for maritime delimitation. This article attempts to analyse this problem from the perspectives of Article 76, relevant judicial cases, State practice, and the relationship between the regimes of the continental shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone. It is submitted that the law is not conclusive, though a majority of coastal States tend to adopt a self-constraint approach. In addition, this problem brings further challenges to the law of maritime delimitation.


2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1161-1226
Author(s):  
Vincent Cogliati-Bantz

On April 14, 2014, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (the Tribunal) rendered its Judgment in the case of the M/V Virginia G.. The judgment notably clarifies the scope of the sovereign rights of a coastal state with respect to living resources in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luh Putu Sudini ◽  
I Gusti Bagus Suryawan ◽  
Nella Hasibuan

AbstractThe research objective is to find out and understand the use of the right of immediate pursuit of foreign ships that violate the Indonesian sea territory; and know and understand the limits of Indonesia's authority in the use of the right of immediate pursuit in its territorial waters. The problem is how to use the right of immediate pursuit of foreign ships that violate Indonesia's maritime territory. And what about the limits of Indonesia's authority in the use of immediate pursuit rights in its territorial waters? The research method used is empirical legal research methods. The results of the research on the use of the right of immediate pursuit of foreign ships that violate the territorial sea of Indonesia include several things that must be considered, namely the chase must be carried out by the competent authority of the coastal State and have sufficient reasons and are convincing that the foreign ship has violated the law in waters of the jurisdiction of the coastal State. The pursuit must begin when a foreign ship or one of its partners is in inland waters, archipelagic waters, territorial seas, auxiliary routes or exclusive economic zones. The pursuit can only continue outside the territorial seas, outside the auxiliary routes or outside the exclusive economic zone if the pursuit is continuous and uninterrupted. The pursuit may only begin after giving a stop sign from a distance that the foreign ship can see or hear. The right of pursuit must be stopped as soon as the ship being chased has entered the sea of the territory of the third party. The limit of Indonesia's authority in the use of the right to immediate pursuit in its territorial waters, Indonesia can take actions, starting with a signal, for example with a sound sign or a flag signal or an optical light, not paying attention to the signal, then it may be followed by warning shots. the first shot with a blank bullet is also ignored, followed by the shot with a live bullet, provided that when shooting, the shot must be directed in front of the prow of the ship being chased. If you take a fight that endangers the patrol boat or the lives of people, balanced violence can be carried out, if possible avoiding casualties. The immediate chase is stopped if the foreign ship enters the territorial waters of another State.Key words: right of immediate pursuit; foreign ships; useAbstrakTujuan penelitian untuk mengetahui dan memahami penggunaan hak pengejaran segera terhadap kapal-kapal asing yang melanggar wilayah laut Indonesia; dan mengetahui dan memahami batas kewenangan Indonesia dalam penggunaan hak pengejaran segera di wilayah perairannya. Permasalahan yaitu bagaimana penggunaan hak pengejaran segera terhadap kapal-kapal asing yang melanggar wilayah laut Indonesia. Dan bagaimana batas kewenangan Indonesia dalam penggunaan hak pengejaran segera di wilayah perairannya. Metode penelitian yang dipergunakan metode penelitian hukum empiris. Hasil penelitian penggunaan hak pengejaran segera terhadap kapal asing yang melanggar wilayah laut Indonesia, mencakup ada beberapa hal yang harus diperhatikan, yaitu pengejaran harus dilakukan oleh pihak yang berwenang dari Negara pantai dan mempunyai alasan yang cukup serta meyakinkan bahwa kapal asing tersebut telah melakukan pelanggaran hukum di perairan yurisdiksi Negara pantai. Pengejaran itu harus dimulai ketika kapal asing atau salah satu sekocinya ada di perairan pedalaman, perairan kepulauan, laut teritorial, jalur tambahan atau zona ekonomi eksklusif. Pengejaran itu hanya dapat dilanjutkan di luar laut wilayah, di luar jalur tambahan atau di luar zona ekonomi eksklusif bila pengejaran itu terus menerus dan tidak terputus. Pengejaran hanya boleh dimulai setelah memberi suatu tanda berhenti dari suatu jarak yang dapat dilihat atau didengar oleh kapal asing tersebut. Hak pengejaran itu harus dihentikan sesaat kapal yang dikejar itu telah memasuki laut wilayah Negara pihak ketiga. Batas kewenangan Indonesia dalam penggunaan hak pengejaran segera di wilayah perairannya, Indonesia dapat melakukan tindakan-tindakan, diawali harus dilakukan dengan memberi tanda isyarat, misalnya dengan tanda suara atau isyarat bendera atau lampu optis, tidak diperhatikannya tanda isyarat, baru boleh dilanjutkan dengan tembakan peringatan, tembakan pertama dengan peluru hampa, juga tidak diindahkan dilanjutkan dengan tembakan dengan peluru tajam, dengan ketentuan bahwa waktu menembak, tembakan harus diarahkan di depan haluan kapal yang dikejar. Apabila melakukan perlawanan yang membahayakan kapal patroli atau jiwa orang, dapat dilakukan tindakan kekerasan yang seimbang, jika memungkinkan menghindari adanya korban jiwa. Pengejaran segera itu dihentikan apabila kapal asing tersebut memasuki wilayah perairan Negara lain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document