INTRO (page one) The seas have historically performed two important functions: first, as a medium of communication, and

secondly as a vast reservoir of resources, both living and nonliving. Both of these functions have stimulated the development of legal rules.1 The fundamental principle governing the law of the sea is that the land dominates the sea so that the land territorial situation constitutes the starting point for the determination of the maritime rights of a coastal state.2 The seas were at one time thought capable of subjection to national sovereignties. The Portuguese in particular in the seventeenth century proclaimed huge tracts of the high seas as part of their territorial domain, but these claims stimulated a response by Grotius who elaborated the doctrine of the open seas, whereby the oceans as res communis were to be accessible to all nations but incapable of appropriation.3 This view prevailed, partly because it accorded with the interests of the North European states, which demanded freedom of the seas for the purposes of exploration and expanding commercial intercourse with the East. The freedom of the high seas rapidly became a basic principle of international law, but not all the seas were so characterized. It was permissible for a coastal state to appropriate a maritime belt around its coastline as territorial waters, or territorial sea, and treat it as an indivisible part of its domain. Much of the history of the law of the sea has centered on the extent of the territorial sea or the precise location of the dividing line between it and the high seas and other recognised zones. The original stipulation linked the width of the territorial sea to the ability of the coastal state to dominate it by military means from the confines of its own shore. But the present century has witnessed continual pressure by states to enlarge the maritime belt and thus subject more of the oceans to their exclusive jurisdiction. Beyond the territorial sea, other jurisdictional zones have been in process of development. Coastal states may now exercise particular jurisdictional functions in the contiguous zone, and the trend of international law today is moving rapidly in favour of (foot notes one) See e.g. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (eds. M. Nordquist et al.), The Hague, 6 vols., 19852003; D. Anderson, Modern Law of the Sea: Selected Essays, The Hague, 2007; Law of the Sea,

Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes (eds. T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum), The Hague, 2007; Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (eds. D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong), Oxford, 2006; L. B. Sohn and J. E. Noyes, Cases and Materials on theLaw of the Sea, Ardsley, 2004; E. D. Brown, The International Law of the Sea, Aldershot, 2 vols., 1994; Oppenheims International Law (eds. R. Y. Jennings and A. D.Watts), 9th edn, London, 1992, chapter 6; Nguyen Quoc Dinh, P. Daillier and A. Pellet, Droit International Public, 7th edn, Paris, 2002, p. 1139; T. Treves, Codification du Droit International et Pratique des E tats dans le Droit de la Mer, 223 HR, 1990 IV, p. 9; R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3rd edn, Manchester, 1999; R. J. Dupuy and D. Vignes, Traite du Nouveau Droit de la Mer, Brussels, 1985; Le Nouveau Droit International de la Mer (eds. D. Bardonnet and M. Virally), Paris, 1983; D. P. OConnell, The International Law of the Sea, Oxford, 2 vols., 19824; New Directions in the Law of the Sea, Dobbs Ferry, vols. IVI (eds. R. Churchill, M. Nordquist and S. H. Lay), 19737; ibid., VIIXI (eds.M. Nordquist and K. Simmons), 19801, and S. Oda, The Law of the Sea in Our Time, Leiden, 2 vols., 1977. See also the series Limits in the Seas, published by the Geographer of the US State Department. 2 See e.g. Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ Reports, 2001, pp. 40, 97; North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Reports, 1969, pp. 3, 51 and Nicaragua v. Honduras, ICJ Reports, 2007, paras. 113 and 126. ( Mare Liberum, 1609. See also OConnell, International Law of the Sea, vol. I, pp. 9 ff. The closed seas approach was put by e.g. J. Selden, Mare Clausum, 1635. 2

(page two) even larger zones in which the coastal state may enjoy certain rights to the exclusion of other nations, such as fishery zones, continental shelves and, more recently, exclusive economic zones. However, in each case whether a state is entitled to a territorial sea, continental shelf or exclusive economic zone is a question to be decided by the law of the sea.4 This gradual shift in the law of the sea towards the enlargement of the territorial sea (the accepted maximum limit is now a width of 12 nautical miles in contrast to 3 nautical miles some forty years ago), coupled with the continual assertion of jurisdictional rights over portions of what were regarded as high seas, reflects a basic change in emphasis in the attitude of states to the sea. The predominance of the concept of the freedom of the high seas has been modified by the realisation of resources present in the seas and seabed beyond the territorial seas. Parallel with the developing tendency to assert ever greater claims over the high seas, however, has been the move towards proclaiming a common heritage of mankind regime over the seabed of the high seas. The law relating to the seas, therefore, has been in a state of flux for several decades as the conflicting principles have manifested themselves. A series of conferences have been held, which led to the four 1958 Conventions on the Law of the Sea and then to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.5 The 1958 Convention on the High Seas was stated in its preamble to be generally declaratory of established principles of international law, while the other three 1958 instruments can be generally accepted as containing both reiterations of existing rules and new rules. The pressures leading to the Law of the Sea Conference, which lasted between 1974 and 1982 and involved a very wide range of states and international organisations, included a variety of economic, political and strategic factors. Many Third World states wished to develop the exclusive economic zone idea, by which coastal states would have extensive rights over a 200-mile zone beyond the territorial sea, and were keen to establish international control over the deep seabed, so as to prevent the technologically advanced states from being able to extract minerals from this vital and vast source freely and without political constraint. Western states were desirous of protecting their navigation routes by opposing any weakening of the freedom of passage through international straits

particularly, and wished to protect their economic interests through free exploitation of the resources of the high seas and the deep seabed. Other states and groups of states sought protection of their particular interests.6 Examples here would include the landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states, archipelagic states and coastal states. The effect of this kaleidoscopic range of interests was very marked and led to the package deal concept of the final draft. According to this approach, for example, the Third World accepted passage through straits and enhanced continental shelf rights beyond the 200-mile limit from the coasts in return for (footnotes two) 4 El Salvador/Honduras (Nicaragua Intervening), ICJ Reports, 1990, pp. 92, 126; 97 ILR, p. 214. The 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone came into force in 1964; the 1958 Convention on the High Seas came into force in 1962; the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources came into force in 1966 and the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf came into force in 1964. 6 See Churchill and Lowe, Law of the Sea, pp. 15 ff. 5 3

(page three) the internationalisation of deep sea mining.7 The 1982 Convention contains 320 articles and 9 Annexes. It was adopted by 130 votes to 4, with 17 abstentions. The Convention entered into force on 16 November 1994, twelve months after the required 60 ratifications. In order primarily to meet Western concerns with regard to the International Seabed Area (Part XI of the Convention), an Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the 1982 Convention was adopted on 29 July 1994.8 Many of the provisions in the 1982 Convention repeat principles enshrined in the earlier instruments and others have since become customary rules, but many new rules were proposed. Accordingly, a complicated series of relationships between the various states exists in this field, based on customary rules and treaty rules.9 All states are prima facie bound by the accepted customary rules, while only the parties to the five treaties involved will be bound by the new rules contained therein, and since one must envisage some states not adhering to the 1982Conventions, the 1958 rules will continue to be of importance.10 During the twelve-year period between the signing of the Convention and its coming into force, the influence of its provisions was clear in the process of law creation by state practice.11 (footnotes three) See e.g. H. Caminos and M. R.Molitor, Progressive Development of International Law and the Package Deal, 79 AJIL, 1985, p. 871. 8 See further below, p. 632. 9 See the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Reports, 1969, pp. 3, 39; 41 ILR, pp. 29, 68; the Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v. Iceland) case, ICJ Reports, 1974, p. 1; 55 ILR, p. 238 and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf case, Cmnd 7438, 1978; 54 ILR, p. 6. See also above, chapter 3, p. 77 10 Note that by article 311(1) of the 1982 Convention, the provisions of this Convention will prevail as between the states parties over the 1958 Conventions. 11 See e.g. J. R. Stevenson and B. H. Oxman, The Future of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 88 AJIL, 1994, p. 488. 7 3

HIGH SEAS The high seas289 The closed seas concept proclaimed by Spain and Portugal in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and supported by the Papal Bulls of 1493 and 1506 dividing the seas of the world between the two powers, was replaced by the notion of the open seas and the concomitant freedom of the high seas during the eighteenth century. The essence of the freedom of the high seas is that no statemay acquire sovereignty over parts of them.290 This is the general rule, but it is subject to the operation of the doctrines of recognition, acquiescence and prescription, where, by long usage accepted by other nations, certain areas of the high seas bounding on the territorial waters of coastal states may be rendered subject to that states sovereignty. This was emphasised in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case.291 The high seas were defined in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958 as all parts of the sea that were not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state. This reflected customary international law, although as a result of developments the definition in article 86 of the 1982 Convention includes: all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic state. Article 87 of the 1982 Convention (developing article 2 of the 1958 GenevaConvention on theHigh Seas) provides that the high seas are open to all states and that the freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid downin theConvention and by other rules of international law. It includes inter alia the freedoms of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines,292 the construction of artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law,293 fishing, and the conduct of scientific research.294 Such freedoms are to be exercised with due regard for the interests of other states in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under the Convention regarding activities in the International Seabed Area.295 Australia and New Zealand alleged before the ICJ, in the Nuclear Tests case,296 that French nuclear testing in the Pacific infringed the principle of the freedom of the seas, but this point was not decided by the Court. The 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons on the high seas as well as on land, but France was not a party to the treaty, and it appears not to constitute a customary rule binding all states, irrespective of the treaty.297 Nevertheless, article 88 of the 1982Convention provides that the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes. Principles that are generally acknowledged to come within article 2 include the freedom to conduct naval exercises on the high seas and the freedom to carry out research studies. The freedom of navigation298 is a traditional and well-recognised facet of the doctrine of the high seas, as is the freedom of fishing.299 This was reinforced by the declaration by the Court in the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases300 that Icelands unilateral extension of its fishing zones from 12 to

50 miles constituted a violation of article 2 of the High Seas Convention, which is, as the preamble states, generally declaratory of established principles of international law. The freedom of the high seas applies not only to coastal states but also to states that are landlocked.301 The question of freedom of navigation on the high seas in times of armed conflict was raised during the IranIraq war, which during its latter stages involved attacks upon civilian shipping by both belligerents. Rather than rely on the classical and somewhat out-of-date rules of the laws of war at sea,302 the UK in particular analysed the issue in terms of the UN Charter. The following statement was made:303 The UK upholds the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas and condemns all violations of the law of armed conflicts including attacks on merchant shipping. Under article 51 of the UN Charter, a state actively engaged in armed conflict (as in the case of Iran and Iraq) is entitled in exercise of its inherent right of self-defence to stop and search a foreign merchant ship on the high seas if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that the ship is taking arms to the other side for use in the conflict. This is an exceptional right: if the suspicion proves to be unfounded and if the ship has not committed acts calculated to give rise to suspicion, then the ships owners have a good claim for compensation for loss caused by the delay. This right would not, however, extend to the imposition of a maritime blockade or other forms of economic warfare. Jurisdiction on the high seas 304 The foundation of the maintenance of order on the high seas has rested upon the concept of the nationality of the ship, and the consequent jurisdiction of the flag state over the ship. It is, basically, the flag state that will enforce the rules and regulations not only of its own municipal law but of international law as well. A ship without a flag will be deprived of many of the benefits and rights available under the legal regime of the high seas. Each state is required to elaborate the conditions necessary for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory and for the right to fly its flag.305 The nationality of the ship will depend upon the flag it flies, but article 91 of the 1982 Convention also stipulates that there must be a genuine link between the state and the ship.306 This provision, which reflects a well-established rule of general international law,307 was intended to check the use of flags of convenience operated by states such as Liberia and Panama which would grant their nationality to ships requesting such because of low taxation and the lack of application of most wage and social security agreements. This enabled the ships to operate at very lowcosts indeed.However,what precisely the genuine link consists of and howonemay regulate any abuse of the provisions of article 5 are unresolved questions. Somecountries, for example theUnited States, maintain that the requirement of a genuine link really only amounts to a duty to exercise jurisdiction over the ship in an efficacious manner, and is not a pre-condition for the grant, or the acceptance by other states of

the grant, of nationality.308 An opportunity did arise in 1960 to discuss the meaning of the provision in the IMCO case.309 The International Court was called upon to define the largest ship-owning nations for the purposes of the constitution of a committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. It was held that the termreferred only to registered tonnage so as to enable Liberia and Panama to be elected to the committee. Unfortunately, the opportunity was not taken of considering the problems of flags of convenience or the meaning of the genuine link in the light of the true ownership of the ships involved, and so the doubts and ambiguities remain. TheUNConference on Conditions of Registration of Ships, held under the auspices of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, convened in July 1984 and an agreement was signed in 1986. It attempts to deal with the flags of convenience issue, bearing in mind that nearly one-third of the worlds merchant fleet by early 1985 flew such flags. It specifies that flag states should provide in their laws and regulations for the ownership of ships flying their flags and that those should include appropriate provision for participation by nationals as owners of such ships, and that such provisions shouldbe sufficient topermit the flag state toexercise effectively its jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag.310 The issue of the genuine link arose in the context of the IranIraq war and in particular Iranian attacks upon Kuwaiti shipping. This prompted Kuwait to ask the UK and the USA to reflag Kuwaiti tankers. The USA agreed in early 1987 to reflag eleven such tankers under the US flag and to protect them as it did other US-flagged ships in the Gulf.311 The UK also agreed to reflag some Kuwaiti tankers, arguing that only satisfaction of Department of Trade and Industry requirements was necessary.312 Both states argued that the genuine link requirement was satisfied and, in view of the ambiguity of state practice as to the definition of genuine link in such instances, it is hard to argue that the US and UK acted unlawfully. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in M/V Saiga (No. 2) has underlined that determination of the criteria and establishment of the procedures for granting and withdrawing nationality to ships arematters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state, although disputes concerning such mattersmay be subject to the dispute settlement procedures of the 1982 Convention. The question of the nationality of a ship was a question of fact to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.313 The conduct of the flag state, at all timesmaterial to the dispute, was an important consideration in determining the nationality or registration of a ship.314 The Tribunal has also confirmed that the requirement of a genuine link was in order to secure effective implementation of the duties of the flag state and not to establish criteria by reference to which the validity of the registration of ships in a flag state may be challenged by other states.315 Ships are required to sail under the flag of one state only and are subject to its exclusive jurisdiction (save in exceptional cases).Where a ship does sail under the flags of more than one state, according to convenience, it may be treated as a ship without nationality and will not be able to

claim any of the nationalities concerned.316 A ship that is stateless, and does not fly a flag, may be boarded and seized on the high seas. This point was accepted by the Privy Council in the case of Naim Molvan v. Attorney-General for Palestine,317 which concerned the seizure by the British navy of a stateless ship attempting to convey immigrants into Palestine. The basic principle relating to jurisdiction on the high seas is that the flag state alone may exercise such rights over the ship.318 This was elaborated in the Lotus case,319 where it was held that vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the state whose flag they fly.320 This exclusivity is without exception regarding warships and ships owned or operated by a state where they are used only on governmental non-commercial service. Such ships have, according to articles 95 and 96 of the 1982 Convention, complete immunity fromthe jurisdiction of any state other than the flag state.321

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th state to sign the treaty.[1] To date, 161 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law. While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter being established by the UN Convention).
International OwnershipTreatie s Antarctic Treaty System Law of the Sea Outer Space Treaty Moon Treaty International waters Extraterrestrial real estate

Historical background
The UNCLOS replaces the older and weaker 'freedom of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century: national rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually three nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek. All waters beyond national boundaries were considered international waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare liberum principle promulgated by Grotius). In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to extend national claims: to include mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the means to enforce pollution controls. (The League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no agreements resulted.) Using the customary international law principle of a nation's right to protect its natural resources, President Truman in 1945 extendedUnited States control to all the natural resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were quick to follow suit.

Between 1946 and 1950, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles to cover their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles. By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old three-mile limit, while 66 nations had set a 12-mile territorial limit and eight had set a 200-mile limit. As of May 28, 2008, only two countries still use the three-mile limit:Jordan and Palau.[3] That limit is also used in certain Australian islands, an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua New Guinea, and a few British Overseas Territories, such as Anguilla.

UNCLOS I
In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958: Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into force: 10 September 1964 Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964 Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entry into force: 20 March 1966

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of territorial waters.

UNCLOS II
In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS II"); however, the six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new agreements. Generally speaking, developing nations and third world countries participated only as clients, allies, or dependents of United States or the Soviet Union, with no significant voice of their own.

UNCLOS III

Sea areas in international rights

The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was

convened in New York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The resulting convention came into force on November 16, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state,Guyana, ratified the treaty. The convention introduced a number of provisions. The most significant issues covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones(EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of disputes. The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows: Internal waters Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters. Territorial waters Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security. Archipelagic waters The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters). Contiguous zone Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit there was a further 12 nautical miles or 24 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state

could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration. Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables. Continental shelf The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margins outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal states baseline, whichever is greater. A states continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone. Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention establishes general obligations for safeguarding the marine environment and protecting freedom of scientific research on the high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an International Seabed Authority and the Common heritage of mankind principle.[4] Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states.

(intro) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. It enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole. The Convention was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 in Montego Bay, Jamaica. This marked the culmination of more than 14 years of work involving participation by more than 150 countries representing all regions of the world, all legal and political systems and the spectrum of socio/economic development. At the time of its adoption, the Convention embodied in one instrument traditional rules for the uses of the oceans and at the same time introduced new legal concepts and regimes and addressed new concerns. The Convention also provided the framework for further development of specific areas of the law of the sea. The Convention entered into force in accordance with its article 308 on 16 November 1994, 12 months after the date of deposit of the sixtieth instrument of ratification or accession. Today, it is the globally recognized regime dealing with all matters relating to the law of the sea. The Convention (full text) comprises 320 articles and nine annexes, governing all aspects of ocean space, such as delimitation, environmental control, marine scientific research, economic and commercial activities, transfer of technology and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters. Some of the key features of the Convention are the following: * Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage" through those waters;

* Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit passage" through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage; * Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through such designated sea lanes; * Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection; * All other States have freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines; * Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ's of coastal States of the same region or sub-region; highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection; * Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and more under specified circumstances; * Coastal States share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 miles; * The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf shall make recommendations to States on the shelf's outer boundaries when it extends beyond 200 miles; * All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures to manage and conserve living resources; * The limits of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of islands are determined in accordance with rules applicable to land territory, but rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf; * States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas are expected to cooperate in managing living resources, environmental and research policies and activities;

* Land-locked States have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States; * States are bound to prevent and control marine pollution and are liable for damage caused by violation of their international obligations to combat such pollution; * All marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State, but in most cases they are obliged to grant consent to other States when the research is to be conducted for peaceful purposes and fulfils specified criteria; * States are bound to promote the development and transfer of marine technology "on fair and reasonable terms and conditions", with proper regard for all legitimate interests; * States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention; * Disputes can be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the Convention, to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration. Conciliation is also available and, in certain circumstances, submission to it would be compulsory. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over deep seabed mining disputes.

PREAMBLE
PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Convention, Prompted by the desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea and aware of the historic significance of this Convention as an important contribution to the maintenance of peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world,

Noting that developments since the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea held at Geneva in 1958 and 1960 have accentuated the need for a new and generally acceptable Convention on the law of the sea, Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole, Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment, Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked, Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared inter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States, Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of the sea achieved in this Convention will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations in conformity with the principles of justice and equal rights and will promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter, Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law, Have agreed as follows:

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ITLOS seen from the river Elbe

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is an intergovernmental organization created by the mandate of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It was established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay, Jamaica, on December 10, 1982. The Convention entered into force on November 16, 1994, and established an international framework for law over "all ocean space, its uses and resources". The Convention also established the International Seabed Authority, with responsibility for the regulation of seabed mining beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, that is beyond the limits of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the continental shelf. The Tribunal has the power to settle disputes between states parties (there are currently 161: 160 states plus the European Union ).

[edit]Composition
According to its founding statute, the Tribunal has a set of 21 serving judges from a variety of states parties in three primary bodies:

The Chamber of Summary Procedure The Chamber for Fisheries Disputes The Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes

In addition, at the request of Chile and the European Union, the Tribunal also set up a special chamber to deal with the case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Union). The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is based in Hamburg, Germany.

Definition
In maritime law, the waters lying outside the territorial waters of any and all states. In the Middle Ages, a number of maritime states asserted sovereignty over large portions of the high seas. The doctrine that the high seas in time of peace are open to all nations was first proposed by Hugo Grotius (1609), but it did not become an accepted principle of international law until the 19th century. Activities permitted on the high seas include navigation, fishing, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and overflight of aircraft. For more information on high seas, visit Britannica.com.