PENETAPAN BATAS LAUT TERITORIAL INDONESIA-TIMOR LESTE DI WILAYAH LAUT TUMPANG TINDIH

Indonesia and Timor Leste in determining the overlapping territorial sea boundaries in the Ombai Strait, Wetar Strait and Timor Sea are increasingly complex and complicated because of the different baseline application rights between the two countries. The difference is that Indonesia as an archipelagic states has the right to apply normal baselines, straight baselines from point to point and straight baselines of islands, while Timor Leste as a coastal state has no right to apply archipelagic baselines but can only apply normal baselines and straight baselines. This paper aims to analyze and explain how to define the territorial sea boundaries etween Indonesia and Timor Leste in the Ombai Strait, Wetar Strait and Timor Sea This type of research is normative research with data sourced from secondary data Based on the data and analysis conducted, it can be concluded that the determination of territorial sea boundaries in the Ombai Strait, Wetar Strait and Timor Sea begins with the determination of the base point, drawing baselines and boundary lines by the Indonesia and Timor Leste However, the obstacle that will be faced by Indonesia and Timor Leste is the existence of islands in overlapping areas, which must first be determined whether or not it can be determined as the base point for drawing the baseline.

The Framework for Coastal State Jurisdiction over Fishing in the EEZ

This Chapter outlines the legal framework for the regulation of living resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as established in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) and other relevant international instruments. It demonstrates how the LOSC seeks to balance the competing interests of coastal and flag States and argues that while the ‘non-specific’ standards established in the LOSC have subsequently been strengthened by the recognition of additional conservation and management concepts, the basic rights and obligations of coastal States remain ambiguous, open-ended, and highly qualified. In order to clarify this ambiguity, it looks beyond the basic list of rights and duties set out on the face of the LOSC to establish what coastal States must, may, and must not do in exercising their sovereign rights over living resources in the EEZ. It examines the approaches taken by international courts and tribunals in reviewing the innovations and interpretations offered by coastal States in their implementation of the LOSC, and identifies the broader, normative principles that constrain and enable coastal State jurisdiction in the EEZ. This includes discussion of the rules of due regard and due diligence, the role of the margin of appreciation doctrine, and the extent to which a coastal State may act to protect—or prevent interference with—its sovereign rights. The Chapter concludes by drawing these concepts together to outline the basic framework that governs the continuum of jurisdiction over living resources in the EEZ.

Is there any other way? Port State jurisdiction as an alternative to the mandatory reflagging of deep water fishing vessels in New Zealand's EEZ

<p>This paper examines the recent changes in New Zealand to require fishing vessels operating in New Zealand waters to be exclusively New Zealand flagged ships, rather than foreign charter vessels as has been practiced to date. Drawing on scholarship regarding the increase in States using measures of port State jurisdiction to regulate foreign vessels throughout zones both in and outside their jurisdiction, the paper asks the question; can a State regulate foreign fishing vessels in its EEZ in a manner consistent with its ability to regulate its own vessels? After establishing the scope of jurisdiction a State holds over vessels in its respective maritime zones (including its ports), this paper goes on to examine the cases of abuse, substandard vessel conditions, and underpayment of workers highlighted on foreign fishing vessels in New Zealand and their possible regulation. The paper ultimately concludes that the application of port State jurisdiction is limited in its ability to regulate foreign EEZ fishing vessels. While some aspects of foreign vessel operation in the EEZ can be regulated to the same extent as domestic vessels, the nature of some offences on board foreign fishing vessels leaves them beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal State.</p>

Is there any other way? Port State jurisdiction as an alternative to the mandatory reflagging of deep water fishing vessels in New Zealand's EEZ

<p>This paper examines the recent changes in New Zealand to require fishing vessels operating in New Zealand waters to be exclusively New Zealand flagged ships, rather than foreign charter vessels as has been practiced to date. Drawing on scholarship regarding the increase in States using measures of port State jurisdiction to regulate foreign vessels throughout zones both in and outside their jurisdiction, the paper asks the question; can a State regulate foreign fishing vessels in its EEZ in a manner consistent with its ability to regulate its own vessels? After establishing the scope of jurisdiction a State holds over vessels in its respective maritime zones (including its ports), this paper goes on to examine the cases of abuse, substandard vessel conditions, and underpayment of workers highlighted on foreign fishing vessels in New Zealand and their possible regulation. The paper ultimately concludes that the application of port State jurisdiction is limited in its ability to regulate foreign EEZ fishing vessels. While some aspects of foreign vessel operation in the EEZ can be regulated to the same extent as domestic vessels, the nature of some offences on board foreign fishing vessels leaves them beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal State.</p>

Is there any other way? : port State jurisdiction as an alternative to the mandatory reflagging of deep water fishing vessels in New Zealand's EEZ

<p>This paper examines the recent changes in New Zealand to require fishing vessels operating in New Zealand waters to be exclusively New Zealand flagged ships, rather than foreign charter vessels as has been practiced to date. Drawing on scholarship regarding the increase in States using measures of port State jurisdiction to regulate foreign vessels throughout zones both in and outside their jurisdiction, the paper asks the question; can a State regulate foreign fishing vessels in its EEZ in a manner consistent with its ability to regulate its own vessels? After establishing the scope of jurisdiction a State holds over vessels in its respective maritime zones (including its ports), this paper goes on to examine the cases of abuse, substandard vessel conditions, and underpayment of workers highlighted on foreign fishing vessels in New Zealand and their possible regulation. The paper ultimately concludes that the application of port State jurisdiction is limited in its ability to regulate foreign EEZ fishing vessels. While some aspects of foreign vessel operation in the EEZ can be regulated to the same extent as domestic vessels, the nature of some offences on board foreign fishing vessels leaves them beyond the jurisdiction of the coastal State.</p>

The Regulation of ‘Fishing’ and Related Activities

This Chapter examines the material scope of the coastal State’s jurisdiction over foreign vessels in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) on the basis of its sovereign rights over living resources, in order to determine what activities and which vessels come within this regulatory power. It argues that ‘fishing’ is no longer simply a process that involves fishing vessels catching fish; in the modern industrial fishing complex, where bunkering, transhipment, and resupply services allow fishing vessels to stay at sea for months at a time, fishing is part of a chain of events involving multiple actors and activities, all of which fall within the regulatory authority of the coastal State in the EEZ. Notwithstanding the conflicting and inconsistent approaches that international courts and tribunals have taken to this issue, the Chapter’s examination of national, regional, and international practice demonstrates that coastal States can regulate a wide range of fishing and related activities on the basis of their sovereign rights over living resources in the EEZ. This includes all the ‘fishing related activities’ and ‘fishing support vessels’ that are involved in modern industrial fishing, regardless of whether the vessels in question are licensed to fish in the coastal State’s EEZ, or whether the activities in question relate to living resources harvested in the coastal State’s EEZ. This finding as to the underlying scope of coastal State jurisdiction provides a crucial foundation for the remainder of the book.

Hot Pursuit and the Exercise of Enforcement Jurisdiction beyond the EEZ

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.

Jurisdiction over Unlicensed Foreign Fishing Vessels in Transit through the EEZ

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.