Armed Neutralities to 1780

1935 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-447
Author(s):  
Carl J. Kulsrud
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

It is frequently asserted even today that the armed neutrality formed by the Northern Powers in 1780 constituted the first organized effort by neutral states to secure freedom of navigation on the high seas. Likewise, it is said that this league was promoted by Catherine II of Russia for the express purpose of protecting neutral rights.

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 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.

The Collision Avoidance Regulations as a Regulator of International Navigation Rights: Underlying Principles and their Adequacy for the Twenty-first Century

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Plant
Keyword(s):  
Collision Avoidance ◽  
First Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
The Right ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

The high seas freedom of navigation, and the lesser rights of transit, archipelagic sea lane and innocent passage applicable in straits used for international navigation, archipelagic sea lanes and the territorial sea respectively, have been said to embrace two notions: ‘one is the right to make progress over the surface of the sea, the other is the duty to make progress only in an orderly way, as to speed, steering, lights and so on – the manner of operation of the right’.

scholarly journals The MV “Norstar” Case (Panama v. Italy)

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
Cameron Miles
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Rights ◽  
Flag State ◽  
The Way ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

In the MV “Norstar” Case (Norstar Case), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) produced two reasoned decisions. In the first, the Tribunal established jurisdiction over the relevant dispute and the admissibility of Panama's claims. In the second, it found that Italy had violated Panama's right to freedom of navigation on the high seas. In the latter decision, the Tribunal relied on an expansive understanding of flag state jurisdiction—prompting a vociferous joint dissent by seven of its twenty-three judges. The majority's understanding of the jurisdictional exclusivity of the flag state as extending to prescriptive as well as enforcement jurisdiction is a significant expansion of flag state rights—and will have a corresponding impact on the way that shipping is regulated internationally.

24 Navigational Rights and Freedoms

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanaka Yoshifumi
Keyword(s):  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

This chapter discusses navigational rights and freedom of navigation under the 1982 UN Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). These include the right of innocent passage through; navigational rights through international straits; navigational rights in the archipelagic waters; navigational rights in the exclusive economic zone; and navigational rights on the high seas.

Freedom of Navigation and the New Law of the Sea

1975 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth
Keyword(s):  
Free Access ◽  
Open Sea ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Peremptory Norm ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Basic Norm ◽  
Significant Conflict ◽  
Freedom Of Navigation ◽  
High Seas

It may be asserted that freedom of navigation is the cornerstone of international intercourse. It has always been indispensable for shipping, but at the same time, in the past, it did not give rise to any significant conflict of interests. No wonder that freedom of navigation has been universally recognized as a basic norm of international law. Indeed, it is often cited as the most classic illustration of a peremptory norm of the law of nations.Freedom of navigation could not be confined to the high seas. It was soon realized that to ensure free access to and from the open sea, as well as free passage between its various parts, rights of navigation in several sea spaces other than the open sea should be recognized too. Consequently the ships of all nations are also entitled to enjoy certain rights of navigation in some areas which are subject to the sovereignty of the coastal State, particularly in international straits, even though they may form part of the territorial sea of the riparians. Whereas freedom of navigation on the high seas has long been taken for granted, these limited rights of passage have been the subject of friction and compromises between the users and the littoral State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document