The Law of the Sea and Freedom of Navigation in Asia Pacific

Author(s):  
Scott Davidson
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka

The M/V “Norstar” case deserves serious consideration for four reasons. First, the M/V “Norstar” judgment of 2016 is the first judgment on preliminary objections in the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The judgment shed some light on procedural issues concerning preliminary objections. Second, ITLOS, in its judgment of 2019, addressed the interpretation and application of Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In light of the paramount importance of the freedom of navigation, the Tribunal’s view on this matter merits particular attention. Third, the M/V “Norstar” case provides an insight into basic concepts of international law, such as acquiescence, estoppel, good faith, and abuse of rights. Fourth, the M/V “Norstar” case furnishes a precedent regarding reparation in international law. Thus, this chapter examines the M/V “Norstar” judgments on preliminary objections and the merits, respectively.


2021 ◽  
pp. 176-217
Author(s):  
Camille Goodman

This Chapter examines the permissible scope and extent of coastal State jurisdiction over unlicensed foreign fishing vessels in transit through the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While the primacy of the freedom of navigation has traditionally been the dominant narrative in the law of the sea, this Chapter argues that the coastal State’s sovereign rights over living resources are now accepted to provide a basis for regulations to be applied to all foreign fishing vessels navigating in the EEZ, even if they are only transiting through the zone without fishing. By examining the variety of regulations that are applied by States in practice, the Chapter establishes that, in relation to foreign fishing vessels and fishing support vessels, the contemporary freedom of navigation effectively equates to a right to undertake continuous and expeditious passage from one point beyond the EEZ to another point beyond the EEZ, except in circumstances involving force majeure or distress, or activities undertaken with the authorization of the coastal State. At the same time, the Chapter notes that the rights of coastal States involve correlative duties, and explores how the concepts of due regard, reasonableness, and the balance of interests apply to limit the extent of coastal State regulation in this area.


1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 121-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Vindenes

The article gives a survey of the basic problems which will be before the forthcoming UN Conference on the Law of the Sea – as seen from a Norwegian point of view. In examining the interrelationship between these problems, the author arrives at the conclusion that the only feasible solution would be a ‘package deal’ covering all the main issues. The juxtaposition of priorities of the various interest groups at the Conference – a majority of coastal states for whom the rights to the resources in an area adjacent to the territorial sea is the most burning issue, and a minority of maritime powers for whom the question of freedom of navigation is more important – indicates the nature of the possible overall compromise solution. Such a solution would, it seems, have to consist of a package deal which must reconcile and accommodate, the interests of maritime freedom on the one hand with on the other hand, the increasing need for management powers, both for the coastal state and for international regulatory bodies. The main elements of such a package would probably have to be the following: Firstly, a territorial sea limited to a maximum distance of twelve nautical miles from the baselines along the coast. There is already with the exception of a few Latin-American countries, broad agreement that a territorial sea limited to twelve nautical miles should constitute one of the main elements in the solution. Secondly, guaranteed rights of passage inside the territorial sea, including a special right of free or unimpeded passage through straits used for international navigation. Thirdly, extensive resource management rights for the coastal state in an adjacent area outside the territorial sea. In this adjacent area, which would be called the economic zone and which would extend to a maximum of 200 nautical miles, the jurisdiction of the coastal state would be limited to matters pertaining to the exploitation of the area's natural resources – both its seabed resources and its fisheries resources. The coastal state would also have certain well-defined rights in the zone where measures to combat pollution are concerned, and the right to regulate scientific research. There would be freedom of navigation inside the zone. In addition to an overall package solution along the lines mentioned above, the new convention will have to establish a legal regime for the exploitation of the natural resources on the seabed and ocean floor in areas outside national jurisdiction. It will also have to establish an international organization for the implementation of this legal regime. The author emphasizes the need for equipping the international organization with broad regulatory powers, in accordance with the basic approach taken by the UN General Assembly in 1970, when declaring the international seabed area as ‘the common heritage of mankind’.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
Cameron Miles

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-737
Author(s):  
Richard Collins

On April 10, 2019, the International Tribunal of the Sea (ITLOS) gave judgment in the M/V “Norstar” (Panama v. Italy) case. This was the first time an international tribunal had ruled directly on the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters. Specifically, ITLOS found (by fifteen votes to seven) that by arresting and detaining the Panamanian-flagged M/V “Norstar”, Italy had violated Article 87(1) of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In doing so, the Tribunal arguably relied on a quite expansive understanding of the exclusive flag state jurisdiction principle as set out in Article 92 UNCLOS—a point that was argued forcefully in a seven-judge dissenting opinion. Below, I will briefly outline the background to the case before setting out the central aspects of the judgment and considering further this point of contention surrounding the permissibility of nonflag prescriptive measures in international waters.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document