The Peculiarities of Exercising State Jurisdiction at the High Seas (original) (raw)
Related papers
IJRAEL: International Journal of Religion Education and Law
International Law of the Sea are legal principles governing the rights and authorities of a country over sea areas under its national jurisdiction (national jurisdiction). International Law has reign most interactions between States in the sea. The practice of illegal transshipment is a serious issue as it falls within both theft mode and smuggling through the transfer of cargo from one ship to another that occurs at sea. Including a crime which committed in the territory of one state but involving parties from another state or more. Law enforcement is a major concern when an offence of some kind of illegal transshipment occurs. The study aims to determine the jurisdiction of states in enforcing laws including in criminal matters that occurred over its sea where the country has sovereign rights, especially when the involvement of 3rd states party in the law enforcement on a ship which not entered into its territory, yet indicately committed a violation of the law in some states wate...
An “Outlaw Ocean” or “Lawless” Space? Revisiting the High Seas Regime under (and after) UNCLOS 1982
Recent concern over criminality and perceived impunity at sea (including inter alia piracy, IUU fishing, environmental crime) has resulted in a popular image of the high seas as a lawless space. Whilst there is clearly a considerable body of law that actually applies to the high seas under UNCLOS 1982 and elsewhere, if we instead focus on the freedom of the seas (mare liberum) and its regulatory consequences as encoded and perpetuated through UNCLOS, especially through the principle of exclusive flag state jurisdiction (EFSJ), the imagery of lawlessness has a great deal more resonance. Nevertheless, in this chapter I show how the EFSJ principle is far more limited, both conceptually and practically, than is often presumed. Indeed, despite the evident disincentives to effective enforcement that it arguably creates, it still leaves a great deal of room for proactive legislative and policy measures from port, coastal and flag states alike.
Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 2022
Under Art. 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships sailing the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag State. Despite being considered a pivotal rule in the international law of the sea, the scope of this provision is nonetheless still unclear: indeed, as Art. 92 does not characterise the term 'jurisdiction', it leaves open the question of whether it only encompasses enforcement jurisdiction or also prescriptive and adjudicative one. In the well-known 'Lotus' case, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled that exclusive flag-State jurisdiction only refers to enforcement jurisdiction. This understanding prevailed until two recent cases (M/V 'Norstar' and 'Enrica Lexie' Incident) ruled that States are prohibited from attaching legal consequences to the conduct of foreign ships and of the people on board altogether. Against this backdrop, the work discusses the extent of the exclusivity of flag-State jurisdiction over ships sailing the high seas. It contends that jurisdiction under Art. 92 UNCLOS only encompasses the faculty to impede or otherwise interfere with the actual movement of ships, hence the jurisdiction to enforce.
Ocean Development and International Law, 2021
Article 234 of UNCLOS is in many ways exceptional, but it is not unique in the sense that it grants to the coastal state "complete" legislative power. Arguably, "complete" coastal state jurisdiction exists in the territorial sea for the purposes enumerated in Article 21(1), allowing coastal states to adopt ship reporting systems, pilotage, and other routing measures unilaterally. The analysis of state practice reveals that states often decide to engage the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in different ways, even when such a course of action is not mandatory. This article advocates for meaningful deliberation as both a suitable method of meeting Article 234's due regard standard, and a practice that can be expected from a steward.
International Law of the Sea: An Overlook and Case Study
Sea is a large body of water that is surrounded by the land. It is a crucial part of human trade and commerce, voyage, mineral extraction, power generation and is also considered as an essential source of blue economy nowadays. International law of the sea is a law of maritime space that peacefully settles the global disputes on maritime boundary between or among the States and defines various jurisdictions of the maritime zones as well as the rights and obligations of the coastal States in these zones, especially with regard to the conservation of marine environment and biodiversity. The key objective of this piece of academic research is to demonstrate a brief overview of the international law of the sea with a special emphasize on the sources and legal framework of this law. This study also strives to focus the civil and criminal liability, jurisdictions, rights and obligations of the coastal states with regard to the different maritime zones. Furthermore this study delineates the rules and extent of using these maritime zones in the light of various treaty provisions on the international law of the sea where different adjudicated cases are also presented along with a profound scrutiny upon their fact, issues, judgment and reasoning.
The Fundamental Legal Notion and Codification of the International Law of the Sea
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development
The development of the public international law of the sea is considered a legal element inseparable from the historical-legal process of the adoption and development of international law in general. Although the basic concepts of general maritime legislation are found in the customary maritime law of ancient Rome and Greece, as well as in the rules of medieval maritime codes created by Hispanic, Italian, and English city-states between the 11th and XVth centuries in Europe, the law of the sea in the contemporary sense of the term, was adopted as a result of interrelations between European states with maritime interests during the period known as the modern or post-medieval era of history. International law of the sea, as it is considered today, developed only when the necessity of the creation of independent territorial states enabled the true development of international relations in Europe. This radical change in the international system, the beginnings of which can be found in t...
AN EVALUATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF COASTAL STATES UNDER UNCLOS 1982
African Journal of Law and Criminology, 2018
Maritime zones are areas of the sea for which international law prescribes spatial limits. While customary international law recognises only the territorial sea and high seas as maritime zones, modern international law recognises other maritime zones which reflect the modern uses of the sea. The various maritime zones recognised under modern international law are clearly delineated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 which regulates the rights and duties of Coastal States in the zones. This research appraises the rights and duties of Coastal States under UNCLOS 1982. It is argued that the ocean regime established under UNCLOS is regulated to the extent that the sovereign rights and obligations of Coastal States in the different maritime zones and the limits of those rights are clearly defined so as to ensure international peace and order. This research which adopts analytical research methodology posits that the effectiveness of UNCLOS as the constitution of the sea will depend to a large extent on the degree of compliance by States-Parties to the convention. Given that UNCLOS was adopted in 1982, there are new challenges confronting Coastal States including ocean noise, oceans and climate change, piracy and armed robbery at sea which were not contemplated by UNCLOS. It is recommended that the international community must rise to the occasion by setting machinery in motion for the adoption of additional treaties to supplement the inadequacies of UNCLOS so as to tackle these current challenges.
As maritime criminal activities are increasingly committed across the borders, States have come to establish mechanisms of international cooperation to be implemented in territorial seas. This article examines such mechanisms with regards to the crime of piracy and armed robbery at sea from the perspective of public international law. This article tackles the significance of the mechanisms imposed on the zonal approach, particularly paying attention to the nature of these crimes. It concludes that under the frameworks, States are allowed to pursue various objectives such as securing the safety of navigation, maintaining security, or protecting the local economy. They do not, however, fundamentally alter the nature of the zonal approach. Nonetheless, by setting up a forum of dialogue between the coastal States and the user States, it promotes maritime governance of territorial seas.
Hasanuddin Law Review, 2020
This article studying the issue of sovereign immunity of ships and vessel protection detachments from criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts. The issue immunity of ships from foreign criminal jurisdiction can be understand from Schooner Exchange case onwards. In the initial stages the courts were given absolute immunity of the government ships in the foreign jurisdiction. Later on the courts, jurists and states classified the immunity in two heads such as personal immunity and functional immunity. Immunity not only given to the troika but also to the other officials engaged in the sovereign functions for their respective states with the exception of universal crimes. The status of the warships, government non commercial ships under the law of the sea convention is analysing. At the end the Article considering whether functional immunity applicable to the vessel protection detachments appointed by the states to protect their ship from piracy in accordance with the IMO guidelines.
This article takes the developments from the Enrica Lexie Case, currently pending between Italy and the Republic of India in front of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Arbitral Tribunal, in order to analyse some current problems related to the international law of the sea. The controversy has fomented an intense debate not only in Italy and India but also in the whole International Community. Moreover, it has caused a dangerous diplomatic crescendo between the two involved countries. Thus, the case provides the occasion for important reflections on a major and very debated topic of international law, i.e. the issue of state jurisdiction for crimes committed at sea. This article will therefore analyse the controversies arising from the Enrica Lexie incident, the opposing positions maintained by the two States and some problematic aspects concerning the interpretation of the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea and other related sources of the law of the sea.