The Application of the Law of Occupation in Maritime Zones and Rights to ‘Occupied’ Marine Resources

Author(s):  
Shani Friedman

Abstract This article seeks to contribute to the emerging literature concerning the application of belligerent occupation in maritime zones of the occupied State. It supports the approach that the law of occupation and the law of the sea apply simultaneously in case of occupation of coastal States, offering a new perspective on the jurisdiction of the occupying power to exploit marine resources in the occupied State’s continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. This perspective highlights some issues that have been ignored in the literature thus far to better understand the rights and obligations of the relevant Parties with respect to maritime zones of the occupied State.

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 172
Author(s):  
Indien Winarwati

Sea is a important region for the integrity and unifying, a means of defense and security and foremost as a means of prosperity and welfare of a country due to the potential of the marine resources. Geographically, Indonesia can be termed as a maritime nation. Indonesia has the largest sea area in the world where two-thirds of its territory is waters. Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a maritime area that has the greatest wealth potential. To Regulate, protect and enforce the law in the EEZ, the Indonesian government enacted Law No. 5 of 1983 on the Indonesian Exclusive Economic Zone. In that regulation, there is a provision on the sovereign rights as contained in the provisions of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). Such right is a privilege rights to carry out the exploration, exploitation and conservation of marine resources. To that end, these rights should be used optimally in order to utilize and protect marine resources from illegal fishing by foreign vessels that have been so frequent that it can be utilized for the welfare and prosperity of society.


1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 642-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald E. Karl

This article examines one of the recurring problems in the law of the sea—the treatment of islands in the delimitation of the continental shelf between opposite and adjacent states—in light of developments at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, in particular, the adoption of “equitable principles” as the standard for delimitation of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone between adjacent and opposite states. On the assumption that the content of these equitable principles may be derived from contemporary state practice in maritime delimitations, this state practice is used as a basis for the construction of an analytical model of the continental shelf problem of islands. This model relies primarily on an island's relative location and secondarily on its relative size with respect to the delimiting states. It provides a framework for determining how an island should be treated in a given delimitation. Though the model is, out of necessity, based upon state practice in continental shelf delimitations, the premises underlying the model are not so limited and thus the general principles derived from this analysis will have an important bearing on the new problem of the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone.


Author(s):  
Tullio Treves

This Note focuses on the Judgment handed out by a special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in a dispute concerning delimitation of maritime areas between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. This is the only decision of substance of ITLOS during 2017. Among the elements of particular interests of the Judgment the following should be noted. First, the consideration and rejection of the argument that oil concession practice may constitute a tacit agreement. Second, the reliance, however limited to this case, as regards delimitation of the territorial sea on the same methodology used for the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, namely, the equidistance/relevant circumstances methodology. Third, the distinction between the function of the Chamber in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm and that of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in delineating the outer limits of the shelf. Fourth, the examination of the question of whether the Chamber had jurisdiction to decide on questions of responsibility, and of the applicability of customary international law thereto. Fifth, the statement that to adjudicate on the claim that Ghana had contravened the Chamber’s Order on provisional measures belonged to the Chamber’s “inherent competence”. Sixth, the analysis of the regime of contested areas in light of Article 83 of UNCLOS.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torbjørn Pedersen ◽  
Tore Henriksen

AbstractThis paper argues that Norway, by fixing the extension of the continental shelf around the Svalbard archipelago according to criteria set by the Law of the Sea Convention, may see an end to some of the legal controversies regarding the maritime zones around Svalbard. The process of determining the outer limits of the continental shelf area adjacent to Svalbard is adduced as supporting the view that Norway is entitled to establish maritime zones around the archipelago, including an exclusive economic zone. It does not settle whether the provisions of the Svalbard Treaty apply to such zones, but is adduced as supporting the view that Norway may exercise coastal state jurisdiction in these areas.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 3-4

In July 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted pursuant to Annex VII of the Law of the Sea Convention issued an award on the merits in the South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China. Among other issues to be decided was the status of several insular features under the law of the sea regime of islands codified in Article 121 of the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). Article 121, paragraph 1, defines an island as “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.” Like all coastal land territory, islands, with one important exception, generate a full suite of maritime zones: territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf (Article 121(2)). The important exception is found in the third paragraph of Article 121: “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document