The contiguous zone is a zone of sea contiguous to and seaward of the territorial sea, extending up to 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In the contiguous zone, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that States have limited powers for the prevention and punishment of breaches of customs, fiscal, sanitary and immigration laws. The chapter begins by explaining the development of the concept of the contiguous zone and how the zone is delineated. Noting that a State must assert its right to a contiguous zone, the chapter considers claims made to a contiguous zone. It then addresses the legal status of the zone in detail, notably the scope of coastal State jurisdiction and the extent to which States claim contiguous zones for purposes other than those expressly set out in UNCLOS.
In many parts of the world, the maritime zones (territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf) of neighbouring States overlap. If conflicts over resource exploitation and other activities in areas of overlap are likely, it will be desirable for the States concerned to establish a boundary between their overlapping zones, whether by negotiation, with the aid of a mediator or conciliation commission, or by recourse to arbitration or an international court. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides limited guidance as to how such boundaries are to be delimited, especially boundaries between overlapping EEZs and continental shelves. Greater guidance has been provided by international courts and arbitral tribunals. The chapter begins by explaining the possible processes by which a maritime boundary may be established. It then analyses the relevant provisions of the Convention and the now substantial body of case law on maritime boundary delimitation. It also examines possible alternatives to a maritime boundary, such as a zone of joint management, as well as the obligations of restraint to which States are subject where there is no boundary or agreed alternative arrangement. Finally, the possible consequences of predicted sea-level rise for existing maritime boundaries are explored.
This chapter details the special legal regime that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea lays down for archipelagos belonging to archipelagic States. The latter are States (such as Indonesia and the Philippines) that consist exclusively of one or more archipelagos and possibly other islands. An archipelagic State may draw lines around the outermost points of an archipelago, known as archipelagic baselines, from which its maritime zones (territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf) are delineated. The waters enclosed by archipelagic baselines are known as archipelagic waters. They are subject to the sovereignty of an archipelagic State. Nevertheless, other States have the right for their ships to traverse archipelagic waters under the regime of innocent passage (on which, see chapter four), and in routes normally used for international navigation, the more extensive right of archipelagic sea lanes passage, which is akin to transit passage through straits (on which, see chapter five). Immediately neighbouring States may also exercise traditional fishing and other non-navigational activities in archipelagic waters.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea identifies six sources of marine pollution. They are: pollution from ships (such as discharges of oil, noxious chemicals, sewage, garbage and ballast water containing invasive species); the dumping of waste by ships and aircraft; pollution resulting from exploitation of the continental shelf for petroleum and minerals; pollution resulting from the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Area, that is the seabed beyond the continental shelf (see further chapter twelve); pollution from sources on land; and pollution from or through the atmosphere. The Convention itself contains no detailed measures to control pollution from the six sources that it identifies. Instead, the international community has adopted a substantial network of global and regional treaties for this purpose, including treaties designed to curb emissions of greenhouse gases The latter are causing the oceans to warm, sea water to become more acidic and sea levels to rise, all of which are harming the marine environment. This chapter outlines the standards to control marine pollution that have been set by the various treaties for each source of pollution; explains how they are implemented and enforced; and assesses how effective they have been. The chapter also considers the response required of States where a pollution incident has occurred, as well as the question of compensation for damage caused by marine pollution.
Many parts of the ocean are badly polluted and suffering from a serious loss of biodiversity as a result of human activities. After outlining the causes of this state of affairs, this chapter explains the framework of international law that has been designed to protect the marine environment. It discusses the approach of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to controlling pollution, including its definition of marine pollution, and to conserving marine biodiversity. The chapter also introduces other global treaties for protecting the marine environment and various regional treaties, including those developed under the UN Environment Programme’s Regional Seas Programme. The detailed provisions of all these treaties are examined in the following two chapters. In this chapter attention is also drawn to the fact that international human rights law is beginning to be used to protect the marine environment. In addition, the chapter considers a number of principles that have been developed by the international community to guide environmental policy-makers and legislators. They include: the no harm principle; environmental impact assessment; the precautionary principle; the polluter pays principle; sustainable development; the ecosystem approach; co-operation; and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
Landlocked States, of which there are forty-three, cannot use the sea unless they have the right to grant their nationality to ships and the right to access the sea across the territory of adjoining States. This chapter begins by explaining that the former right has been guaranteed under international law for a century or more. The chapter goes on to explain that under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, landlocked States also have the right to exercise the freedoms of the high seas, to engage in activities in the Area and, to a limited degree, to exploit the living resources of the exclusive economic zones of States in the same region. However, a right of transit across adjoining States’ territory to access the sea has proved more problematic. The chapter shows that while such a right is granted under a number of multilateral treaties, including the Convention, it is always subject to qualifications. More robust rights are provided by an array of bilateral and regional agreements. In recent years the international community has focused on non-legal, practical measures to facilitate transit, notably in the Almaty (2003) and Vienna (2014) Programmes of Action.
Developing States have long argued that the lack of appropriate technology is an obstacle to their development. During the 1970s the UN General Assembly adopted a number of resolutions calling for the mandatory transfer of technology. While never accepted by developed States, those calls left their mark on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As originally drafted, Part XI required those engaged in mining in the Area to transfer relevant technology to developing States. However, the Implementation Agreement (1994) removed that obligation, as explained in chapter twelve. This chapter examines other provisions in the Convention on the transfer of technology, notably those in Part XIV, which is exclusively concerned with the topic. It is argued that the provisions of Part XIV are purely hortatory, not least because they do not adequately address the intellectual property issues involved in the transfer of technology. The chapter goes on to discuss the ‘Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology’ adopted by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and action taken thereunder. The last part of the chapter suggests that over the years the emphasis in international fora has shifted from the transfer of technology to capacity-building, as the latter is a less politically loaded term and broader in concept. Examples are given of capacity-building in relation to ocean affairs undertaken by international organisations.
storage. Also in December 2010, the Mauritian Government launched a legal action under the compulsory dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Mauritian Government argued firstly that the MPA is incompatible with the 1982 Convention, and secondly that the UK lacked the jurisdiction to create the MPA (since, it claimed, only the Republic Mauritius has the authority to declare an exclusive zone around Chagos). The Mauritian Government further noted its concern that the UK Government’s main intention in creating an MPA appeared to
Chapter XVII ); specific international legal regimes such as: diplomatic immunities (see section 47 ), which limit the state’s jurisdiction; and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) (UNCLOS), which determines the maritime zones and can both extend and
. Support for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Russia has been keen to follow the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) process because it gives Moscow a fair chance of achieving one of its principal interests in the region – the extension of the limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean – while minimising the fallout in relations with the other Arctic states as well as China, which considers itself a “near-Arctic” state and an “Arctic stakeholder”. Moscow's adherence to UNCLOS has