The Respect of Other States’ Rights (Freedom of Navigation and Other Rights and Freedoms Set Out in the LOSC) as a Limitation to the Military Uses of the EEZ by Third States

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-127
Author(s):  
Geneviève Bastid Burdeau
Keyword(s):  
Coastal State ◽  
The Military ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

Abstract Due regard appears as the key notion to articulate rights recognized by the LOSC to coastal states in their EEZ and the rights of third states. Little attention is paid by the LOSC to the relations between third states conducting activities in the EEZ of a coastal state apart from the laying of cables. Third states enjoy all freedoms of the high seas compatible with the rights expressly granted to the coastal state. Although no specific provision regulates the relations between third states in the use of these rights, it is argued that the obligation of due regard prevailing in the high seas under Article 87(2) should also apply between third states in the EEZ of a coastal state. However, for military activities not listed in Article 87(1), the answer is uncertain due to the opposite views of states concerning such activities by third states in their EEZ.

The Contribution of Channels to the Definition of Straits Used For International Navigation

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-89
Author(s):  
Michael C. Stelakatos-Loverdos
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Importance ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Maritime Traffic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
International Character ◽  
High Seas

AbstractThe questions of what is "a strait used for international navigation", and the regime applicable in such waterways or even in "broad" straits, remain unsettled in the LOS Convention. However, channels of navigation may assist in determining the "geographical situation" of international straits. It is submitted, therefore, that, where there is only one coastal state bordering more than one strait connecting the same parts of the high seas or the EEZ, the claim of transit passage through straits of secondary importance may be abusive. Obviously, the non-application of transit passage on the grounds of abuse of rights is not able to modify the international character of such waterways, the regime of non-suspendable innocent passage being thus applicable. Moreover, modalities of passage evidenced by the existence of maritime traffic through channels of navigation may be useful when determining the "extent" of the regime of transit passage in the so-called "broad" straits.

International Law within the Israel Legal System

1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 451-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The State ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Military ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
High Seas

Since the establishment of the State and up to the present day, Israeli law has had to deal with a great number of various problems in the field of international law, e.g. whether the State of Israel is a successor to the obligations of the Mandatory government; the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts with regard to offences committed in demilitarized zones or beyond the State's boundaries (on the high seas or abroad); the immunity of foreign states and their representatives from the jurisdiction of Israeli courts and from measures of execution; the status of international organizations and of their employees; the effect and implications of official acts performed within the territory of a state which is at war with Israel; the effect of international treaties in Israel; the question whether the Eastern neighbourhoods of Jerusalem are part of Israel; various issues concerning extradition, and of course, many questions regarding the laws of war: the powers of the military governor, and in particular his power to expropriate land in the territories under Israeli control and to expel residents from the territories, the extent of his legislative powers, etc.

Hot Pursuit and the Exercise of Enforcement Jurisdiction beyond the EEZ

2021 ◽  
pp. 295-337
Author(s):  
Camille Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Coastal State ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Community Interest ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Effective Conservation ◽  
Conservation And Management ◽  
High Seas

This Chapter considers the enforcement of coastal State fisheries laws and regulations beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) following a hot pursuit. While the general framework for hot pursuit established in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is clear, its substantive content and operation—particularly in situations that do not fall neatly within the black and white terms of the framework—is less clear. This Chapter considers the key challenges to this framework, and the extent to which—and the ways in which—coastal States have implemented, developed, or departed from it in practice, focusing in particular on the domestic legal basis for conducting hot pursuit, the use of technology in the conduct of hot pursuit, and cooperative approaches to hot pursuit. While recognizing that the hot pursuit doctrine must strike an appropriate balance between the sovereign rights of the coastal State to enforce its laws and the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State over its vessels on the high seas, the Chapter argues that there is also a broader community interest to be balanced on both sides of this equation: to ensure the effective conservation and management of living resources, and preserve the freedom of navigation on the high seas. This is reflected in the Chapter’s examination of practice, which reveals that States have adopted and implemented a functional, contemporary approach to hot pursuit within the framework of the existing doctrine, which itself has proved to be at once flexible and remarkably enduring.

The Barents Sea Loophole Agreement: A "Coastal State" Solution to a Straddling Stock Problem

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin R Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Barents Sea ◽  
State Solution ◽  
Fishing Rights ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Unregulated Fishing ◽  
Conservation And Management ◽  
High Seas

AbstractIn May 1999 Iceland, Norway and Russia signed an agreement (the "Loophole Agreement") designed to resolve a six-year dispute over unregulated fishing by Icelandic vessels for straddling stocks in an enclave ("the Loophole") of high seas in the central Barents Sea. The Agreement, which gives Iceland fishing rights in the Norwegian and Russian EEZs in return for ceasing fishing in the Loophole, is an example of direct co-operation between coastal and high seas fishing states over the management of straddling fish stocks on the high seas which the 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks envisages as a possible alternative to management through a regional fisheries organisation. The article explains why the parties have chosen this model rather than utilising the existing regional fisheries organisation or establishing a new regional fisheries arrangement; and compares the Loophole Agreement with arrangements for some other high seas enclaves.

scholarly journals Peran Tentara Nasional Indonesia Angkatan Laut Dalam Perwujudan Good Order At Sea: Studi Kasus Alur Laut Kepulauan Indonesia II

Jurnal Selat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-158
Author(s):  
I Gde Padang Suryawan ◽  
Suharto Ladjide ◽  
Sayed Fauzan Riyadi
Keyword(s):  
Maritime Security ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Coastal State ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Good Order ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation

The Archipelagic Status of Indonesia given under UNCLOS 1982 has both rights and responsibilities. one of those responsibilities is Indonesia has to provide sea lanes for freedom of navigation in the form of Indonesia Archipelagic Sea Lanes (ALKI). In recent developments, Indonesia as Coastal State also has a responsibility to maintain good order at sea, especially along Its ALKI. This paper examined how the Indonesian Navy, especially the Second Fleet Command,  plays its role in maintaining maritime security di ALKI II. The result shows that the Indonesian Navy has sufficient legal basis to perform good order at sea. Besides that, the Second Fleet Command also has proved its commitment to pursue good order ats sea with comprehensive, systematic and routine actions along ALKI II.

The Interpretation and Application of the Freedom of Navigation and Flag State Jurisdiction in the M/V “Norstar” and the M/T “San Padre Pio” Cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-118
Author(s):  
Vasco Becker-Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Flag State ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

Abstract The M/V “Norstar” and the M/T “San Padre Pio” cases raise important questions regarding the interpretation and application of the freedom of navigation and the principle of exclusive flag State jurisdiction, namely if the latter prohibits the exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction on the high seas by non-flag States. One of the exceptional aspects of the M/V “Norstar” case is the Joint Dissenting Opinion (JDO) by seven judges underlining a distinctive view regarding the interpretation of the freedom of navigation and the principle of exclusive flag State jurisdiction. Subsequent to the M/V “Norstar” case, the M/T “San Padre Pio” case was submitted and bares relevance for the clarification on some of the key matters addressed in the Judgment and the JDO in the M/V “Norstar” case. This article highlights the different views of the Judgment and the JDO and examines the relation with the M/T “San Padre Pio” case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document