law of the sea thesis

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

4 Baselines

Sovereign Geographic

The author would like to thank Ariell Friedman, JD Duke Law, for her research and editorial assistance.

• Published: 02 June 2016
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter sets out the international law of baselines and identifies past, present, and possible future problems in this area of the law of the sea. It begins by considering the so-called ‘normal baseline’, consisting of the low-water line along the coast, and asks whether this baseline is fixed or ambulatory. It examines specific categories of coastal features that make up the normal baseline, including human-made coastal defences, harbour works, low tide elevations, and reefs. It then turns to the various baselines formed by straight line segments, including lines closing mouths of rivers, bay closing lines, port closing lines, straight baselines ( stricto sensu ), and archipelagic baselines.

1 The Function and Significance of Baselines

In the seminal maritime delimitation case of the modern era, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) wrote ‘the land dominates the sea’. 1 Two decades later Weil expanded the court’s cryptic assertion writing that ‘the land dominates the sea and it dominates it by the intermediary the coastal front ’. 2 The ICJ further clarified the intermediate role of the coast: ‘The juridical link between the State’s territorial sovereignty and its rights to certain adjacent maritime expanses is established by means of its coast.’ 3 As the legal expression of the coast, 4 baselines, in their many forms, are the features through which coastal States generate derivative title to maritime areas, and, as such, baselines are a foundational component of coastal State maritime jurisdiction.

Bederman, writing about the modern system of maritime jurisdictional zones emanating from the coast, notes that ‘[i]t very much matters “where” in the ocean a particular event takes place, because such a location determines the relevant set of rules for legal conduct.’ 5 The answer to the question ‘where?’ hinges on the location of baselines. Baselines are the ‘zero mark’ for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and, in most circumstances, the continental shelf, 6 and are the starting point for delimitation between neighboring States claiming overlapping maritime areas. Baselines are ‘a major ingredient’ when used to delineate maritime zone outer limits and to delimit those zones between States. 7 Baselines are the only ingredient when used to designate the outer limits of internal waters separating areas in which States enjoy unimpeded sovereignty from the territorial sea beyond. 8 Maritime boundary delimitation and the functional and spatial aspects of archipelagic waters, the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf are addressed separately in this volume. 9 Internal waters, the jurisdictional zone limited by baselines, are addressed in the chapter covering port State jurisdiction but merit additional brief discussion here. 10

Internal waters are subject to the legal regime of State sovereignty and are governed by the rules of the coastal State’s municipal legal system. Coastal State sovereignty in internal waters is unencumbered by the rights of other States. 11 This is in contrast with the territorial sea lying just beyond the baselines, in which ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage. 12 As a consequence, the coastal State may deny foreign vessels, including warships, entry into its internal waters or may set conditions to that entry. 13 Foreign warships are insulated by the principle of sovereign immunity while in internal waters, but non-governmental vessels are not. 14 Private vessels entering internal waters may find themselves subjected to the full weight of coastal State jurisdiction with respect to criminal and environmental violations, for example, while just outside the baselines the same foreign vessel would enjoy significant protection from coastal State jurisdiction if engaged in innocent passage through the territorial sea. The location of baselines determines where this abrupt and consequential division occurs.

Any discussion of baselines must distinguish the unilateral delineation of zonal outer limits (including of internal waters) from the bilateral process of delimiting maritime boundaries between coastal States. It is important to make this distinction because most of the international decisions of any relevance to the law of baselines have been boundary delimitation cases, and such findings are not always applicable to baselines used for zonal limit delineation. Whether a State may lawfully use a feature, such as an island or jetty, for the purpose of measuring the breadth of the territorial sea and other zones in the unilateral context of establishing outer limits does not necessarily have bearing on whether a court or negotiating partner must or will accept that baseline feature in the bilateral context of boundary delimitation. 15 In fact, courts commonly disregard parties’ official baseline claims when deciding a boundary. For example, the ICJ did not take issue with Romania and Ukraine using Sulina Dyke and Serpents’ Island, respectively, to measure the breadth of their territorial seas, but ignored both of these features in the delimitation between the parties. 16 Negotiating States also may, and often do, discount otherwise legitimate baseline features in the process of boundary delimitation. Singapore may lawfully measure the breadth of its zones from the low-water line of reclaimed land, but Indonesia need not (and did not) accept that version of Singapore’s baseline for the purpose of delimitation. 17

Baselines are a source of tension among States. Like many other aspects of the law of the sea, the historical development of rules and State practice with respect to baselines reveal the underlying tension between the interests of coastal States in expanding the scope of their authority on the one hand, and, on the other, the interests of maritime States in maintaining traditional freedoms of the seas in as much of the oceans as possible. Spatially excessive maritime claims begin with the baseline: 18 in all circumstances, the result of moving the legal coastline seaward ‘is to increase the total area of water over which the coastal state possesses the most comprehensive authority and to decrease the total area within which coastal and noncoastal states share authority and use’. 19 One can easily observe through the baselines lens the tension between the mare clausum propensities of coastal States and the mare liberum leanings of maritime States. This is not a new phenomenon. Baselines have been contentious at least since they were addressed in the late 1920s by the Hague Codification Conference Preparatory Committee. Baselines continued to present challenging issues throughout subsequent codification efforts from the 1950s through to the adoption of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). Even now, when the law is as clearly stated as it is ever likely to be, baseline rules carry unsettled questions related to their application by States and their adaptability to the realities of the physical environment.

This chapter sets out the international law of baselines as it stands today and identifies past, present, and possible future problematic issues in this area of the law of the sea. This chapter begins by considering the so-called ‘normal baseline’, consisting of the low-water line along the coast, and asks whether this baseline is fixed or ambulatory: a question of some consequence for low-lying, small-island States in an era of sea level rise. 20 Specific categories of coastal features that make up the normal baseline, including human-made coastal defences, harbour works, low tide elevations, and reefs, are addressed briefly before turning to the variety of baselines formed by straight line segments, including lines closing mouths of rivers, bay closing lines, port closing lines, straight baselines ( stricto sensu ), and archipelagic baselines. For convenience, the group of straight-line baselines is referred to as artificial baselines. Artificial baselines are, or should be, connected to the actual coast at their endpoints and are impacted by the ‘fixed versus ambulatory’ debate. But with artificial baselines the larger problem is the application of vague rules to complex and varied coastal configurations. Here, the coastal State/maritime State tension is at its most stark. Figure 4.1 illustrates some of the baselines and coastal features discussed in this chapter. Concluding remarks close the chapter.

Maritime Limits and Boundaries

2 Low-Water Line as Baseline

2.1 how normal is it.

During the preparatory work leading up to the 1930 Hague Codification Conference, States were asked the following question: ‘Along the coasts. Is the line that of low tide following the sinuosities of the coast; or a line drawn between the outermost points of the coast, islands, islets or rocks; or some other line?’ 21 Of the 21 answers received, 16 States favoured the low-tide/sinuosities formulation, and five expressed a preference for straight lines connecting the outermost points of coastal features. 22 Although this codification effort failed, the line of low-tide or the low-water line reappeared in the primary baseline article, Article 3, of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (TSC) 23 and survives today in the ‘normal baseline’ provision of the LOSC. Article 5 of the LOSC reads: ‘Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.’ The disfavoured alternative—‘a line drawn between the outermost points’—also survived the decades and was incorporated into the straight baselines and archipelagic baselines provisions of the LOSC. 24

Despite indications that the low-water line along the coast has long been considered the default or normal baseline, State practice indicates a trend toward the use of artificial baselines. Of the approximately 150 coastal States, over two-thirds use straight lines for some or all of their baselines, 25 begging the question, how long will the normal baseline be the norm?

2.2 Which features have a normal baseline?

Despite a trend towards the use of artificial baselines, the low-water line will continue to play a central role in baselines law as the primary baseline along much of the world’s coastlines and as the anchoring feature for most artificial baselines. The normal baseline rule applies to all coastal territory, including mainland and insular territory. The rule is augmented by several other provisions and norms regarding specific categories of coastal features such as low-tide elevations, reefs, harbour works, and coastal protection works. 26

The low-water line of a low-tide elevation—‘a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide’ 27 —may be included in the normal baseline if at least part of the low-tide elevation is situated within the territorial sea as measured from the low-water line of mainland or island territory. Low-tide elevations located outside the territorial sea do not contribute to the baseline, nor do low-tide elevations located within a part of the territorial sea generated solely by a qualifying low-tide elevation (thereby disallowing an extension of the territorial sea through a chain of low-tide elevations situated progressively further from shore). 28 The thin line separating islands (above water at high tide) from low-tide elevations (below water at high tide), and the respective treatment of these two categories, is of particular consequence in an era of sea level rise.

In certain situations, namely ‘[i]n the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs’, 29 reefs (a subcategory of low-tide elevation) are exempted from the distance limitation that applies to other low-tide elevations. Here, irrespective of distance from the associated island, ‘the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef’. 30 Early drafts of this article referred only to the ‘seaward edge’ of the reef, not to the low-water line. 31 The reference to the low-water line means that some part of the reef must be above water at low-tide in order for this exception to apply.

In addition to certain low-tide elevations and reefs, Article 11 specifies that ‘the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system are regarded as forming part of the coast’. 32 As such, the low-water line along these human-made features contributes to the normal baseline. This rule expressly does not apply to offshore installations or artificial islands. Human-made objects situated beyond the harbour system and detached from naturally formed coast have no baseline and generate no maritime zones. 33 For clarity, Article 12, which addresses whether roadsteads are included within the territorial sea, is not a baselines provision although it does impact the outer limit of the territorial sea in cases where the roadstead is ‘situated wholly or partly outside the outer limit of the territorial sea [as that limit would be drawn in the absence of the roadstead]’. 34

Non-harbour coastal works such as land reclamation projects and coastal protection works are not expressly addressed in the LOSC, but are often included within the appreciation of the ‘coast’ in the context of defining the normal baseline. Protecting existing coast with sea defences or expanding natural coastal territory through land reclamation projects should be differentiated from the creation of entirely human-made artificial islands noted above. State practice appears to confirm that such augmentations do contribute to the normal baseline, and publicists seem to agree. 35

Lastly, permanently ice-covered coasts, like non-harbour coastal works, are not addressed explicitly in the LOSC. The question whether permanent year-round ice should be assimilated to land is complicated by the issue of detecting the non-ice, land/sea interface that, in the absence of ice, would constitute the normal baseline. 36

2.3 The normal baseline: the big question

Once the status of a feature is determined (eg island, low-tide elevation, qualifying reef), the rules related to the normal baseline are relatively immune from subjective interpretation or misuse by self-interested actors. 37 Nonetheless, the normal baseline rules do raise one significant question: does the legal baseline move with the actual low-water line or may it be fixed by marking it on a chart? This question arises from the ambiguous text of Article 5 and from the chart-making process. The question is important because of the anticipated plight of low-lying States, especially small-island States, in an era of significant sea level rise.

In order to understand why the language of LOSC Article 5—‘the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State’—is subject to two different interpretations, one must have a basic understanding of the charting process. A nautical chart is merely a representation of a small portion of the maritime world, created, first and foremost, as a navigational aid meant to ensure safety at sea. Therefore, chart makers are mainly concerned with navigational hazards. The coast at low water is among those hazards. Because they depict the low-water line, nautical charts have long been recognized as the most readily available source of information about the shape and location of the low-water line along the coast. However, a chart is only as accurate as the data from which it was assembled. In many parts of the world, the coastal data used to depict the low-water line on nautical charts is several decades, if not more than a century, out of date. This may have little or no impact on navigational safety—ocean-going vessels rarely approach most coasts. However, out-of-date charts create the possibility of significant differences between the charted low-water line and the actual low-water line—differences great enough to impact the legal status of an island or low-tide elevation, for example.

The potential for consequential differences between the charted and actual low-water line has engendered a debate about whether the legal baseline is ambulatory—moving with natural changes in coastal configuration—or fixed by virtue of being depicted on an officially recognized nautical chart, and, if fixed, whether the coastal State is obligated to reassess its fixed baseline periodically to reflect geographic reality. 38 This is not an academic debate. The spectre of rapid sea level rise and the resulting wide-spread inundation of coastal areas, including of whole islands, and in the most extreme case the total submersion of a State’s entire territory, raise serious legal questions. For example, does an island continue to have a legal baseline and the associated zones of maritime jurisdiction after the feature has, in fact, submerged below the high-tide line?

There are three approaches to this issue: (1) baselines ambulate automatically with geographic change; (2) baselines may be fixed permanently by the coastal State with no obligation to update baselines even in the event of significant geographic change; and (3) baselines may be fixed temporarily with an obligation to update in the event of significant geographic change. The first and third approaches take the view that the baseline provisions are applicable on a continuing basis: in order to remain lawful, baselines must remain in compliance with the rules as applied to the current coastal geography. The second approach takes the view that the baseline provisions are only to be applied at the time the baseline is claimed: if the baseline is lawful at the time of the claim, the coastal State has satisfied its obligations and need not ever revise its baselines, notwithstanding significant changes in coastal geography.

The automatic ambulation approach may be sustainable in theory but seems untenable in practice. Rigid adherence to this view might logically result in a coastal State’s obligation to provide real-time notification of changing baselines and limits through continuous detection, depiction, and dissemination of the physical and legal geography. This impractical approach would undermine stability and certainty, and would de-emphasize the authority of the coastal State to establish the location of its own baselines and limits for the purpose of exercising its rights and jurisdiction at sea.

At the other extreme, the permanently fixed approach divorces the legal baseline from geographic reality, relies heavily on the charted line as the manifestation of a State’s claim to territory, and emphasizes the unfettered prerogative of the coastal State to declare its own physical make-up. 39 The permanently fixed baseline thesis has the strength of accounting for equitable considerations related to the developing States most heavily impacted by sea level rise, and carries significant policy advantages of stability, certainty, and public order. However, taken to its extreme, the permanently fixed view would flip the basis of maritime entitlement on its head: the land would no longer dominate the sea if maritime rights and jurisdiction could persist after the permanent disappearance or destruction of the territory from which that title was derived. In this extreme situation, moreover, a coastal State advocating the fixed baseline thesis in the teeth of geographic reality to the contrary would be making claims to the disadvantage of the broader community interest in non-exclusive ocean space. 40

The temporarily fixed approach gives coastal States some limited discretion as to the timing of their chart updates, balances the use of the actual and charted low-water line by requiring periodic changes in the latter to reflect the former, but imbues the charted line with an official but not inviolable status for the period during which it is in effect. Deference to an officially recognized, large-scale, reasonably up-to-date chart acknowledges both clauses in the normal baseline definition while balancing practical concerns of notice, publicity, stability, and certainty with theoretical concerns about the source of title to maritime areas. Ambulatory purists and advocates of the permanently fixed baselines thesis would both be dissatisfied with this middle position, but aspects of the negotiating history indicate that this was the meaning understood by earlier drafters. 41 The few States that update their charts frequently in order to account for coastal change take this approach. 42

The answer to the ambulatory-versus-fixed-baselines debate has major implications for the obligations of coastal States, the rights of mariners, and, in some cases, the very survival of coastal State sovereign rights and jurisdiction. Small-island States threatened with total submersion presumably favour the fixed approach. However, the majority of publicists currently believe that the baseline provisions are applicable on a continuing basis, either automatically or at the discretion of the coastal State. Several publicists, while adopting the ambulatory perspective on the law as it stands today, recognize its weaknesses and have suggested fixes ranging from physical coastal protection to changing the law. 43

Early assessments during the development of the normal baseline provisions predicted little room for abuse, and history has confirmed this assessment. Despite minor disagreements between delimiting neighbours about the status of particular features (eg an island, low tide elevation, or submerged feature) 44 or discrete stretches of coast, 45 there is no evidence low-water lines have been falsified to enlarge coastal State authority. Whether the normal baseline rules can accommodate the kind of physical coastal change anticipated in the coming decades is, however, of particular concern. Perhaps the next biggest concern is the increasing abandonment of normal baselines by coastal States in the move toward artificial baselines.

3 Artificial Straight Lines as Baselines

Artificial straight-line baselines may be drawn across the mouths of rivers, bays, and ports, along coasts with certain geographic configurations, and to enclose the archipelagic waters of archipelagic States. These different forms of artificial baseline do not share historical origins, but in deciding which waters may be encompassed by artificial baselines, the three basic considerations the ICJ elucidated in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case generally apply. Acknowledging that ‘[i]t is the land which confers upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coasts’, the court noted that ‘the drawing of base-lines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast’. 46 A second consideration, also flowing from the legal–geographic relationship between land and sea, was ‘whether certain areas lying within these lines are sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters’. 47 The third, non-geographic consideration was ‘that of certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage’. 48

The vivid phrase inter fauces terrarum , or ‘in the jaws of the land’, has been used to capture the physical characteristics that differentiate internal waters from waters beyond. 49 For rivers, bays, and ports, the ‘jaws’ are often readily apparent on charts. With respect to straight baselines and archipelagic baselines, the description often no longer applies. Nonetheless, the relationship between land and the water to be enclosed by baselines remains a fundamental consideration. 50

Artificial baselines are just that: artifices for addressing concerns about coastal State authority in nearshore waters while providing a limit on the spatial extent of that authority. As such, they are prone to manipulation by coastal States for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. 51 The degree to which the artificial baseline provisions have been manipulated appears to be a function of the clarity with which they were drafted. 52 In some circumstances, the rules contain objective criteria; in others, the criteria are ill-defined and are subject to widely varying interpretations.

Unlike the normal baseline, for which no express notice is required, 53 notice must be provided for most artificial baselines by deposit of a chart or geographic coordinates with the United Nations Secretary-General. Notice serves to make ocean users aware of the existence of these imaginary lines where internal waters begin and from which maritime zones are measured. Article 16 of the LOSC requires due publicity of river and bay closing lines and straight baselines. 54 Article 47 sets forth the publicity requirements for archipelagic baselines.

When considering the suite of artificial baseline rules, one should recall that artificial baselines have long been regarded as the exception to the normal baseline rule. 55 The ICJ noted in Qatar v Bahrain that ‘the method of straight baselines, which is an exception to the normal rules for the delimitation of baselines, may only be applied if a number of conditions are met’. It added ‘[t]his method must be applied restrictively’, 56 indicating that, where artificial baselines are concerned, the rules should be subject to strict interpretation: properly interpreted, the Convention prohibits drawing artificial baselines not expressly allowed. 57 Among other reasons for this approach, the international community should not be presumed to have allowed the appropriation of non-exclusive, international areas for exclusive coastal State use. 58 This leaves gaps in the conventional law, 59 some of which are filled with customary rules, but barring such rules it seems that States may not go beyond what has been prescribed. In practice, the artificial exceptions are beginning to overtake the use of normal baselines, and the application of these exceptions often stretches the legal language to the breaking point. What impact this will have on future development of the law is unclear. 60

3.1 Artificial lines and rivers

Article 9 of the LOSC (‘Mouths of rivers’) reads: ‘If a river flows directly into the sea, the baseline shall be a straight line across the mouth of the river between two points on the low-water line of its banks’, and is a nearly verbatim adoption of Article 13 of the TSC. This article addresses the interface between rivers—long considered internal waters—and the sea beyond them. Several aspects of this short article deserve comment here. This article does not specify a maximum line length. Whatever the length of the line, it must be a single-segment line (‘a straight line’) connecting points on the low-water line of the river’s banks. Therefore, river closing lines bring with them the interpretive problems of the normal baseline.

In the absence of a specified maximum closing line length, this article could be used to draw lines of considerable length encompassing vast amounts of water as internal waters, especially where a river widens as it approaches the sea. However, the phrase ‘directly into the sea’ limits the rivers to which this article may apply. The French ‘sans former d’estuaire’ (without forming an estuary) 61 and the drafting history of the TSC both help interpret this ambiguous phrase. In the 1956 International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Articles, this article included a second paragraph instructing that ‘[i]f the river flows into an estuary the coasts of which belong to a single State, article 7 [bays] shall apply.’ This paragraph was dropped on adoption of the 1958 Convention, but lives on to some degree in the French version. Presumably, Article 9 does not apply to rivers that flow to the sea via an estuary. One possibility is that the estuary assimilates to a bay and would be subject, not to Article 9, but to the more restrictive rules for bays in Article 10. 62 In contrast, rivers flowing to the sea via a delta would be subject to the less restrictive rules for straight baselines to be drawn in the presence of a highly unstable deltaic coastline in Article 7(2).

If the dearth of protests is any indication, application of Article 9 has been unproblematic. The 135-mile line across the mouth of the Rio de la Plata, asserted by Argentina and Uruguay on the basis of Article 13 of the TSC, is the only example known to this author of a river mouth closing line subject to diplomatic protest. 63

3.2 Bay closing lines

The article addressing bay closing lines has a more complex text and more involved drafting history than the article regarding river mouths. Article 10, which is largely identical to Article 7 of the TSC, contains the conventional rule set for juridical bays: so-called ‘historic’ bays are expressly excluded from these rules. 64 In order to draw a baseline enclosing all of the waters of a juridical bay, the bay must satisfy several clear criteria: it must pass the mathematical semi-circle test; ‘the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points’ may not exceed 24 nautical miles (nm); and it must belong to a single State.

The first step in applying Article 10 is to differentiate indentations that qualify as bays from indentations that are ‘a mere curvature of the coast’. 65 This concern, identified as early as the North Atlantic Fisheries case, 66 was often expressed in terms of an appropriate ratio of the width of the bay mouth to the depth of the indentation, ensuring bay waters were surrounded by coastal State territory on three sides, thus justifying their possible treatment as internal waters. 67 The Article 10 semi-circle test usually addresses that concern by requiring the area of the indentation to be ‘as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation’ in order to qualify as a bay. 68 Although a bay need not be perfectly semi-circular in shape in order to qualify, a shallow coastal concavity or ‘mere curvature’ would not satisfy this shape test. Article 10(3) provides specific rules for the application of the semi-circle test to indentations with more than one mouth or an indentation containing islands.

The size requirement of Article 10 is triggered only after the threshold shape requirement is satisfied. The maximum bay closing line length is 24 nm. Article 10(4) calls for this line to be drawn between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of the bay. However, if that distance exceeds 24 nm, Article 10(5) provides for drawing a closing line not to exceed 24 nm ‘within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is possible with a line of that length’. The application of this fallback option also is subject to the threshold shape requirement.

Finally, Article 10 only applies to ‘bays the coasts of which belong to a single State’. An early proposal by the United States contained the language ‘in the case of a bay or estuary the coasts of which belong to a single State, or to two or more States which have agreed upon a division of the waters thereof ’. 69 It seems logical to include such multi-State bays under the same rules, but the record indicates that the ILC did not propose rules to cover multi-State bays because it did not have ‘sufficient data at its disposal concerning the number of cases involved or the regulations at present applicable to them’. 70 This lacuna remains, yet multi-State bays do exist and the relevant States have drawn closing lines. 71 At least one multi-State bay, the Gulf of Fonseca, has been pronounced an historic bay. 72 The status of closing lines across other multi-State bays is less clear, but with respect to multi-State bays that would otherwise satisfy the Article 10 criteria, the absence of significant protest may indicate a customary rule is in operation. 73

The rules regarding the juridical bay closing line requirements are very clear, containing two objective tests, both of which must be satisfied in order to claim as internal waters all or some of the waters of a coastal indentation pursuant to Article 10. These clear rules may explain the low instance of disagreement about their application. 74 This author is unaware of any protests against States that have relied on Article 10 to close a juridical bay that violates the shape and size requirements of that article. But this apparent lack of controversy should also be attributed to coastal State reliance on the historic bays exception and the use of Article 7 straight baselines to close coastal indentations that would not have satisfied Article 10.

Claims to historic bays have created controversy. Historic bay claims are subject to customary rules of acquisitive prescription. In order for the waters of a coastal indentation to be deemed an historic bay, the coastal State must demonstrate its ‘open, effective, long term, and continuous exercise of authority’ over the waters of the bay, 75 and ‘affirmative evidence of acquiescence’ by other States. 76 There are no shape or size restrictions, and thus any coastal indentation could qualify irrespective of the depth of the bay-like formation if the coastal State can meet the high bar for establishing title. Some bays originally claimed on the basis of historic title now satisfy today’s juridical bay shape and size requirements. 77 Not surprisingly, the historic bays which continue to cause concern fail the Article 10 tests. 78

In addition to the historic bays exception, Article 10 contains an important reference to the straight baselines provisions of Article 7: ‘The foregoing [bay] provisions do not apply…in any case where the system of straight baselines provided for in article 7 is applied.’ With this exception, States have ignored the restrictive rules of Article 10 and instead applied the less specific language of Article 7 (‘deeply indented and cut into’) to enclose waters in indentations that would not have qualified as juridical bays. This practice has elicited protests and criticism. 79 Article 7 straight baselines, including their use to enclose bay-like indentations, are explored below.

3.3 Closing the waters of a port

The article addressing ports and harbour works (Article 11 LOSC) does not expressly allow enclosing the waters of a port with a straight line. However, this option may be inferred from Article 50 which allows archipelagic States to ‘draw closing lines for the delimitation of internal waters, in accordance with articles 9 [mouths of rivers], 10 [bays] and 11 [ports].’ There is no reason this rule would not apply to non-archipelagic coastal States. The closing lines would, in any event, be quite short, and the waters of a port are clearly regarded as having the character of internal waters. The Article 11 prohibition on using off-shore installations and artificial islands for drawing the normal baseline would apply equally to drawing a port closing line.

3.4 Straight baselines stricto sensu

The clear loser in the 1920s vote casting, straight baselines are now a favoured method to aggressively enclose ocean space. Early on, Norway led the straight baselines charge. Having drawn straight lines across several areas of coastal waters in the late 1800s, 1800Norway answered the 1927 survey advocating for lines connecting the outermost points. By 1935, Norway had established a continuous system of straight lines along the northern portion of its coast. The United Kingdom challenged this system in the Fisheries case. The 1951 decision, endorsing Norway’s straight baselines, contributed directly to the modern regime of straight baselines. With the exception of paragraph 2, the text of Article 7 is derived from Article 4 of the TSC, which in turn was derived from Article 5 of 1956 ILC Draft Articles, the language of which was borrowed, in many important instances, verbatim, from the closely related, contemporaneous judgment in Fisheries .

The direct lineage between the 1951 judgment and Article 7 of the LOSC combined with ambiguous language in Article 7 makes understanding the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case not only helpful, but necessary, in order to understand Article 7. While a full review of this 50-year-old case will not be attempted here, it is sufficient to note the ‘peculiar geography’ of the Norwegian coast with which the court was faced. 80 When considering the Article 7 phrase ‘deeply indented’, one should imagine the eastern section of Norway’s coast which was ‘broken by large and deeply indented fjords’; 81 these fjords ‘often penetrat[ed] for great distances inland’. 82 And the Article 7 phrase ‘fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity’ should conjure an image of the ‘“skjaergaard” (literally, rock rampart)’, made up of an estimated 120,000 insular features. 83 In this geographic context, the court saw Norway’s system as ‘the application of general international law to a specific case’ 84 and ‘an adaptation rendered necessary by local conditions’, 85 and asserted that the idea of a sufficiently close link between the land and the sea areas to be enclosed ‘should be liberally applied in the case of a coast, the geographical configuration of which is as unusual as that of Norway’. Clearly, the court considered this section of the Norwegian coast to be exceptional. The British judge, Sir Arnold McNair, disagreed that the Norwegian coast was exceptional enough to merit application of a different method. 86 Presciently, he predicted that the effect of the 1935 Norwegian straight baselines decree ‘will be to injure the principle of the freedom of the seas and to encourage further encroachments upon the high seas by coastal States’. 87 Today, approximately 90 coastal States apply Article 7 to some or all of their exceptional coasts. 88

Article 7 sets out, in six paragraphs, the straight baseline provisions as they stand today. 89 This article establishes a two-option, threshold geographic test which must be satisfied before drawing straight baselines pursuant to the criteria, exceptions and limitations of the subsequent paragraphs. Coastal States may only draw straight baselines ‘in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into , or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity ’. 90 One of these tests must be met before straight baselines joining appropriate coastal points may be drawn, but the lines ‘must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters’. 91 Although the text is not explicit, appropriate points are assumed to be points on the low-water line of mainland or island territory, that is, points on the normal baseline. However, appropriate points exclude low-tide elevations except those on which ‘lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built’ or those for which the drawing of straight baselines has ‘received general international recognition’. 92 Only if the threshold geographic test is met, may ‘economic interests peculiar to the region concerned’ be taken into account when drawing particular baselines; but this variance may only be enjoyed if ‘the reality and the importance’ of the economic interests ‘are clearly evidenced by long usage’. 93 In any event, States may not draw straight baselines that ‘cut off the territorial sea of another State from the high seas or an exclusive economic zone’. 94

This formula repeats in large measure the formula of Article 4 of the TSC which adopted language and concepts from Fisheries . Unfortunately, throughout the decades following Fisheries , the international community was unable to make the straight baseline rules more precise, and coastal States are guided by language that the court itself admitted was ‘devoid of any mathematical precision’. 95 Lack of precision does not equate to a lack of rules, but it does make arriving at a standard interpretation of those rules more difficult. The exorbitant straight baseline systems resulting from purported application of these rules are evidence of this difficulty. 96 The threshold test of ‘deeply indented and cut into’ has been applied to slightly undulating coastlines and to indentations that would not pass the bay shape test. The alternative threshold test of ‘a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity’ has been used to justify straight baseline systems connecting a handful of dispersed insular features, often some distance from the mainland. Commentators note that the rules ‘have been bent out of shape’ 97 and that some applications ‘are so far wide of the mark as to mock [the] language’ of Article 7. 98

The straight baseline regime contains two other important aspects. Article 7(2), which had no equivalent provision in the 1958 Convention, reads:

Where because of the presence of a delta and other natural conditions the coastline is highly unstable, the appropriate points may be selected along the furthest seaward extent of the low-water line and, notwithstanding subsequent regression of the low-water line, the straight baselines shall remain effective until changed by the coastal State in accordance with this Convention.

This exception for certain deltaic coastlines was introduced by Bangladesh during the Third United Nations Conference on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS III) negotiations and probably does not apply to many other coasts in the world. Note that the phrase ‘notwithstanding subsequent regression of the low-water line’—a phrase otherwise absent in the baseline provisions—is used to argue that other baseline provisions, including the normal baseline, are applicable on a continuing basis thereby supporting the ambulatory approach discussed above.

With respect to enclosing internal waters with Article 7 straight baselines, Article 8 limits the effect on preexisting rights of innocent passage. Article 8(2) reads: ‘Where the establishment of straight baselines…has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage…shall exist in those waters.’ Practically speaking, the burden will be on the navigating State to exercise and maintain its residual right of innocent passage through nominally internal waters.

3.5 Archipelagic baselines: the latest artificial baseline

Baselines to be drawn around groups of islands were discussed as early as the 1920s, 1920and by the ILC and delegates to the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) in the 1950s, 1950but archipelagic baseline provisions were not adopted until UNCLOS III. 99 The articles related to archipelagic States, including archipelagic baselines, are found in Part IV of the LOSC. To date, 22 States have claimed archipelagic status. 100

The rules for drawing archipelagic baselines, which separate maritime areas subject to the special regime of archipelagic waters from the territorial sea beyond, are defined in LOSC Article 47. 101 Only an archipelagic State—‘a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos…’—may utilize archipelagic baselines. 102 Article 47 contains objective criteria for drawing baselines, including minimum and maximum water to land ratios (1:1 and 9:1, respectively) to be encompassed by the baselines 103 and maximum line length between turning points. 104 The article prohibits the use of low-tide elevations situated wholly outside the territorial sea ‘unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level have been built on them’. 105 Archipelagic baselines ‘shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago’ 106 and certain interests of neighboring States must be accounted for when drawing archipelagic baselines. 107

With clear rules on the water-to-land ratio and maximum line length, application of Article 47 has been less problematic than application of Article 7. However, some archipelagic States have claimed archipelagic baselines that violate the ratio restrictions, 108 and line length restrictions. 109 With such clear rules, protesting States easily point to violations, and, in some cases, the archipelagic State has rectified its archipelagic baseline system to bring it into conformity with Article 47. 110 States have also chosen outermost turning points that fail the criteria of Article 47(4), using low-tide elevations situated wholly beyond the territorial sea 111 or submerged features. 112 Questions about the misapplication of these rules are relatively technical in nature. A more interesting question arises with respect to baselines and the dependent archipelagos of non-archipelagic States. 113

Dependent archipelagos are groups of islands that are not, by themselves, a State and therefore the provisions of Article 47 do not apply. 114 Nonetheless, many continental States have drawn baselines around their dependent archipelagos. 115 On what legal basis these baselines have been drawn is a subject of some speculation. Clearly, Article 47 cannot provide the basis, and in any event several of these baselines systems were promulgated before the advent of LOSC Part IV. 116 Some coastal archipelagos, those near the coast or those formed by a large island fringed by smaller islands, might come under the language of Article 7 straight baselines. The remaining examples, however, appear to be ‘motivated by the archipelagic concept’ 117 in the absence of any conventional rule allowing such claims. In the view of one publicist, ‘this practice is indicative of a considerable trend in international law towards the formation of a rule of customary law’. 118

4 Conclusions

Baseline rules under the law of the sea face two major challenges to their legitimacy. First, are they able to accommodate the equitable considerations that arise when low-lying coastal States begin to lose large amounts of their territory to sea level rise, and, if not, is this a problem with the baseline rules or a problem to be addressed elsewhere? This question arises when considering the impact of sea level rise on the normal baseline. Publicists tend to agree that normal baselines are ambulatory, but, when taken to a logical conclusion in conditions of extreme sea level rise, the normal baseline rules lead to an unsatisfactory result. A variety of solutions have therefore been suggested.

Second, do the baseline rules protect sufficiently the interests of all ocean users, or do they allow coastal States to expand their authority beyond what the drafters envisioned? The structural characteristic of the law of the sea that pits inclusive international community use against exclusive coastal State use of ocean areas incentivizes excessive baseline claims by coastal States. Each individual coastal State experiences a direct benefit from enclosing ocean area near its coast for its exclusive use, while the diffuse community of ocean users experiences only indirect and fractional costs from the loss of ocean area at the margins. This lopsided cost-benefit equation explains coastal State expansionism and the development of vague baseline rules. Concern about perverse incentives focuses primarily on artificial baseline provisions, and Article 7 straight baselines are the main offenders. The practice of drawing baselines around dependent archipelagos in the absence of any conventional basis demonstrates that new interpretations of existing rules or the development of entirely new customary rules is a real possibility in this field.

North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) (Judgment) [1969] ICJ Rep 3, [96]. In French, ‘le principe que la terre domine la mer’. As the International Court of Justice noted, ‘[t]he land is the legal source of the power which a State may exercise over territorial extensions to seaward.’

P Weil , The Law of Maritime Delimitation — Reflections (Grotius Cambridge 1989) 50 (emphasis added).

Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 13, [49].

The term ‘coast’ is broader than the term ‘baseline’, but undoubtedly the low-water line is part of the coast. ‘Coast’ is defined as ‘the edge or margin of land next to the sea’. GK Walker (ed), Definitions for the Law of the Sea: Terms not Defined by the 1982 Convention (Martinus Nijhoff Leiden 2012) 130. An earlier version of the International Hydrographic Organization glossary defines ‘coast’ as ‘[t]he sea-shore. The narrow strip of land in immediate contact with any body of water, including the area between high- and low-water lines’ (at 131).

DJ Bederman , ‘The Sea’ in B Fassbender and A Peters (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (Oxford University Press Oxford 2012) 373.

Where the outer edge of the continental margin extends beyond 200 nm the breadth of the continental shelf may be established by criteria other than distance measured from baselines. See 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art 76 (hereinafter LOSC).

Virginia Commentaries , Vol II, 82.

LOSC, n 6 , Art 8(1) (‘Except as provided in Part IV [Archipelagic States], waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State.’).

See Chapter 5 on the territorial sea and contiguous zone, Chapter 7 on archipelagic waters, Chapter 8 on the exclusive economic zone, Chapter 9 on the continental shelf, and Chapter 12 on maritime delimitation in this volume.

See Chapter 13 on coastal and port State jurisdiction in this volume.

But see LOSC, n 6 , Art 8(2), which recites an important exception to this rule for some internal waters created by Art 7 straight baselines.

Ibid , Art 17.

See eg 1987 Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act (NZ), § 9(2):

The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.

See eg the ruling by the Supreme Court of Ghana that resolved the pending Annex VII ARA Libertad Arbitration (Argentina v Ghana), Republic v High Court (Commercial Division) Accra, Ex parte Attorney General, NML Capital and the Republic of Argentina , Civil Motion No J5/10/2013 (Supreme Court, Ghana, 2013) [24] (‘There is no doubt that, under customary international law, warships are covered by sovereign immunity in foreign ports.’).

The Court observes that the issue of determining the baseline for the purpose of measuring the breadth of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone and the issue of identifying base points for drawing an equidistance/median line for the purpose of delimiting continental shelf and exclusive economic zone between adjacent/opposite States are two different issues.

Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) (Judgment) [2009] ICJ Rep 61, [108].

Ibid , [138] and [149].

C Schofield , TL McDorman , and IM Andi Arsana , ‘Indonesia—Singapore’ in CG Lathrop (ed), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol VII (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, forthcoming 2015). International Maritime Boundaries.

Spatially excessive claims should be distinguished from functionally excessive claims through which a coastal State might purport to exert more authority in a zone than is lawful. For example, denying innocent passage to foreign warships in the territorial sea without prior authorization.

MS McDougal and W Burke , The Public Order of the Oceans (New Haven Press New Haven, CT 1987) 316. The Court captured this tension in this passage from the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case:

The delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal State as expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act, because only the coastal State is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States depends upon international law.

Fisheries (United Kingdom v Norway) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 116, 132 (hereinafter Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries ). But see McNair’s distinction between coastal State competence and coastal State discretion: ibid , Dissenting Opinion of Sir A McNair [1951] ICJ Rep 158, 160.

See Chapter 34 on climate change in this volume.

‘Second Report Submitted to the Council by the Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference’, League of Nations Doc No C.73.M.38.1929.V (1929), repr in (1930) 24(1) American Journal of International Law Supplement 3.

The five-State minority consisted of Norway, Sweden, Poland, the USSR, and Latvia. WM Reisman and GS Westerman , Straight Baselines in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Macmillan Basingstoke 1992) 16.

1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.

See primarily LOSC, n 6 , Arts 7 and 47.

States may choose more than one method for determining their baselines. See ibid , Art 14. Roach and Smith count over 85 States that have delimited straight baselines and several others that have enacted enabling legislation without publishing their straight baseline coordinates. JA Roach and RW Smith , Excessive Maritime Claims (3rd edn Martinus Nijhoff Leiden 2012) 20. Since their count, other States have delimited straight baselines, for example, Nicaragua in 2013. Over 20 States have claimed archipelagic status and are thus entitled to draw archipelagic baselines: Roach and Smith, Excessive Maritime Claims , 206. See also UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (Doalos), Table of Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction (15 July 2011), available at < http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf >. But see C Schofield , ‘Departures from the Coast’ (2012) 27 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 723, 724 (‘The predominant type of baseline in use by coastal States is the “normal” baseline…’).

Note that ‘rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own’ may have a normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea only: LOSC, n 6 , Art 121.

Ibid , Art 13.

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Merits) [2001] ICJ Rep 40, [207] (‘The law of the sea does not in these circumstances allow application of the so-called “leap-frogging” method.’).

LOSC, Art 6.

Virginia Commentaries , Vol II, 93.

LOSC, n 6 Art 11.

Ibid , Arts 11 and 60(8), but see eg ibid , Art 60(4) regarding the establishment of safety zones.

Ibid , Art 12.

See C Carleton , ‘Problems Relating to Non-Natural and Man-Made Basepoints under UNCLOS’ in CR Symmons (ed), Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Leiden 2011) 31, 55 (‘Provided the reclaimed land is an integral part of the mainland or an island, State practice would indicate that it is acceptable to consider it as part of the State’s coast for the generation of maritime limits.’); McDougal and Burke, n 19 , 422–3 (‘There would seem to be no substantial objection to assimilating “coast protective works” to harbor installations even when they are isolated structures…’).

See DR Rothwell , ‘Antarctic Baselines’ in AG Oude Elferink and DR Rothwell (eds), The Law of the Sea and Polar Maritime Delimitation and Jurisdiction (Martinus Nijhoff The Hague 2001) 49 ; SB Kaye , ‘Territorial Sea Baselines along Ice-Covered Coasts’ (2004) 35 Ocean Development and International Law 75.

The relative lack of abuse of the low-water line bears out findings from the 1953 Report of the Committee of Experts that governments would not be likely to be tempted ‘unreasonably to extend their low-water lines on their charts’. ILC, ‘Rapport du Comité d’experts sur certaines questions d’ordre technique concernant la mer territorial’, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1953/Add.1 (1953), English translation repr in Virginia Commentaries , Vol II, 59.

Because artificial baselines ‘anchor’ to the low-water line, this debate has implications for those lines, too.

For a proponent of the fixed approach, see K Purcell , ‘Maritime Jurisdiction in a Changing Climate’ in MB Gerrard and K Fischer Kuh (eds), The Law of Adaptation to Climate Change (American Bar Association Chicago 2012) 729.

J Lisztwan , ‘Stability of Maritime Boundary Agreements’ (2012) 37 Yale Journal of International Law 153 (discussion regarding common heritage at 170).

See eg the concerns raised in the ILC in 1952 about the charted line deviating appreciably from a scientific criterion, including because it was out of date. ILC, ‘Summary Records of the Fourth Session’ (4 June–8 August 1952) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission .

For example, The Netherlands.

AHA Soons , ‘The Effects of a Rising Sea Level on Maritime Limits and Boundaries’ (1990) 37(2) Netherlands International Law Review 207 ; DD Caron , ‘When the Law Makes Climate Change Worse: Rethinking the Law of Baselines in Light of a Rising Sea Level’ (1990) 17 Ecology Law Quarterly 621 ; M Hayashi , ‘Sea Level Rise and the Law of the Sea: Future Options’ in D Vidas and PJ Shei (eds), The World Ocean in Globalisation , (Martinus Nijhoff Leiden 2011) 187 ; J Grote Stoutenburg , ‘Implementing a New Regime of Stable Maritime Zones to Ensure the (Economic) Survival of Small Island States Threatened by Sea-Level Rise’ (2011) 26 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 263.

See Qatar v Bahrain (Merits) (disagreement about the status of Qit’at Jaradah).

See Award of the Tribunal in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname: Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname (2007) XXX RIAA 1 (disagreement about the location of the low-water line along the coast of Vissers Bank).

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries , n 19 , 133.

Ibid , 130 ; ILC, ‘Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea: Article 13’ (1956) II Yearbook of the International Law Commission 258.

See LOSC, n 6 , Arts 7, 9, and 10.

Reisman and Westerman posit that the purpose of straight baselines has always been to push zonal limits seaward. Reisman and Westerman, n 22 , xiv–xv.

See Schofield, n 25 .

The LOSC, n 6 , Art 5 clause ‘as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State’ could be read as an implicit notice requirement.

Symmons and Reed note a gap in the requirement that could allow coastal States to fulfill their publicity requirements without actually providing a mariner with all of the information he would need to understand the States’ full baseline claim. CR Symmons and MW Reed , ‘Baseline Publicity and Charting Requirements: An Overlooked Issue in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (2010) 41 Ocean Development and International Law 77.

Reisman and Westerman, n 22 , 92 (‘the normal regime applies automatically, whereas the coastal state seeking to avail itself of the straight baseline regime always has a burden of proof’); but see DP O’Connell , The International Law of the Sea (Clarendon Press Oxford 1982) Vol 1, 211 (commenting that LOSC, n 6 , Art 14 ‘can only be construed as making the straight baseline system optional’).

Qatar v Bahrain (Merits), [212].

Reisman and Westerman apply ‘the presumption in favor of a strict rather than a permissive and extensive interpretation’ to their interpretation of the straight baseline regime. Reisman and Westerman, n 22 , 75.

See ibid , 75–7.

See eg multi-State bays.

RR Churchill and AV Lowe , The Law of the Sea (3rd edn Juris Publishing Manchester 1999) 57 (‘It may be that the widespread toleration of much of the practice… which clearly contravenes the relevant rules of international law (particularly as regards straight baselines) will in time lead to a modification of those rules themselves.’).

This phrase having been left in the French version was, apparently, a drafting error. O’Connell, n 55 , Vol 1, 229.

Virginia Commentaries , Vol II, 111.

See US Department of State, ‘Unclassified Airgram A-46, December 14, 1962’ (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law 403. The Rio de la Plata closing line was also protested by France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

LOSC, n 6 , Art 10(6).

Ibid , Art 10(2).

North Atlantic Coast Fisheries (Great Britain v United States of America) (1910) XI RIAA 167.

Boggs describes a version of a semi-circle test in his review of the proposal of the US delegation to the 1930 Hague Conference. See S Whittemore Boggs , ‘Delimitation of the Territorial Sea’ (1930) 24 American Journal of International Law 541, 550–2. See also the position of the United Kingdom in Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries , n 19 ,120.

LOSC, n 6 , Art 10(2). There are circumstances in which the semi-circle test alone is not sufficient to identify landlocked waters or waters inter fauces terrarum . In US practice, the ‘45-degree test’ is applied, in addition to the semi-circle test, to identify appropriate bay headlands and to ensure that the waters of a juridical bay are in fact land-locked pursuant to Article 10(2). See US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration glossary for a definition of the 45-degree test, available at < http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_glossary.html >.

Boggs , ‘Delimitation of the Territorial Sea’, 551 (emphasis added).

ILC, ‘Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea: Commentary to Article 7’ (1956) 2 YbILC 269.

See T Scovazzi , ‘Problems Relating to the Drawing of Baselines to Close Shared Maritime Waters’ in Symmons (ed), Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea 15.

El Salvador v Nicaragua , repr in (1917) 11 American Journal of International Law 674.

But see Westerman’s concern that large water bodies which would otherwise qualify, including the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, might come under the bay closing line provisions if the single-State criterion were dropped. GS Westerman , The Juridical Bay (Clarendon Press Oxford 1987) 79.

Schofield makes the connection between compliance and the ‘laudably precise language’ of Art 10. Schofield , ‘Departures from the Coast’, 729.

Roach and Smith, n 25 , 18.

I Brownlie , Principles of Public International Law (6th edn Oxford University Press Oxford 2003) 157. Unlike acquisitive prescription of land territory usually involving only one other competitor, historic bay claims impact community interests. Therefore, widespread acquiescence by major maritime States may be required. (See ibid . ) Roach and Smith note that the United States also take the position that ‘a mere absence of opposition’ is not enough to prove acquiescence. Roach and Smith, n 25 , 19.

For example, Guatemala’s Gulf of Amatique, several bays of the Dominican Republic and the United States’ Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bay. Roach and Smith, n 25 , 54–5.

For example, Italy’s Gulf of Taranto, Russia’s Peter the Great Bay, and Australia’s Anxious, Encounter, Lacepede, and Rivioli Bays. Ibid , 39–40, 44–5, and 50–2.

Ibid . Reisman and Westerman note that ‘[o]ne of the most problematic uses of the straight baseline option has been its use in circumventing other rules of international law’, specifically rules on juridical bays and historic bays. Reisman and Westerman, n 22 , 102.

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries , n 19 , 139.

Ibid , 127.

Ibid , 131.

Ibid , 133.

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries , Dissenting Opinion McNair, n 19 .

Ibid , 185. McNair further noted that ‘the approbation of [the Norwegian system] would have a dangerous tendency in that it would encourage States to adopt a subjective appreciation of their rights instead of conforming to a common international standard’. Ibid , 169.

Roach and Smith, n 25 , 20, 74–82.

Reisman and Westerman provide a detailed interpretation of the straight baseline regime; see Reisman and Westerman, n 22 , ch 4.

LOSC, n 6 , Art 7(1) (emphasis added).

Ibid , Art 7(3).

Ibid , Art 7(4).

Ibid , Art 7(5).

Ibid , Art 7(6).

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries , n 19 , 142.

For a list of protests made by the United States against excessive straight baseline claims, see Roach and Smith, n 25 , 74–82.

V Prescott and C Schofield , The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World (2nd edn Martinus Nijhoff Leiden 2005) 142.

Reisman and Westerman, n 22 , 190.

See Virginia Commentaries , Vol II, 399–404.

Roach and Smith, n 25 , 206–7.

Note that archipelagic States may also have areas of internal waters landward of archipelagic waters, but only on the basis of LOSC, n 6 , Arts 9, 10, and 11 (rivers, bays, and ports) and not on the basis of Art 7 (straight baselines).

Ibid , Art 46. An archipelago is defined as ‘a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such’.

Ibid , Art 47(1).

Ibid , Art 47 (2).

Ibid , Art 47 (4).

Ibid , Art 47 (3).

Ibid , Art 47(5) and (6).

See eg United States Department of State, ‘Seychelles: Archipelagic and Other Maritime Claims and Boundaries’ (14 February 2014) 132 (hereinafter ‘Limits in the Seas: Seychelles’).

See eg United States Department of State, ‘Maldives: Maritime Claims and Boundaries’ (8 September 2005) 126.

Roach and Smith, n 25 , 209 (Cape Verde corrected its excessive water to land ratio and baselines length).

See eg United States Department of State, ‘Dominican Republic: Archipelagic and Other Maritime Claims and Boundaries’ (31 January 2014) 130.

See eg Limits in the Seas: Seychelles.

See generally S Kopela , Dependent Archipelagos in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Leiden 2013).

During UNCLOS III the question of baselines around archipelagos of non-archipelagic States was debated and ultimately resolved by excluding those archipelagos from LOSC, n 6 , Art 47. See Virginia Commentaries , Vol II, 407–15.

See Kopela, n 113 , 112–40.

See eg Supreme Decree No 959-A of 28 June 1971 (Ecuador); Decree No 598 of 21 December 1976 (Denmark).

Kopela, n 113 , 147.

Ibid , 259.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

• Law of the Sea
• Edwin Egede Edwin Egede School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.254
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 22 December 2017
• This version: 22 November 2019
• Previous version

The International Law of the Sea , or simply Law of the Sea , is a body of legal norms that regulate the use of the seas and delineate the powers and jurisdiction of States over various parts of the seas. The evolution of the Law of the Sea can be divided into three different eras: the 17th-century great debate over open versus closed seas, era of codification, and era of institutionalization. The debate between early scholars over the issue of whether the sea was open to all and subject to the freedom of the seas ( mare liberum or open seas) or whether the seas could be subject to sovereignty by States ( mare clausum or closed seas) became the generally accepted basis for contemporary law of the sea. The era of codification saw the convening of three United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS I, UNCLOS II, and UNCLOS III. The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), adopted in 1982, initiated an era of the institutionalization of the law of the sea. From early in the 21st century, the international community appears to be leaning toward closed seas, but there are also indications that cooperative arrangements among parties on the law of the sea will be more prevalent. An example of such initiative is the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

• international law
• codification
• institutionalization
• freedom of the seas
• mare clausum
• closed seas
• United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
• Law of the Sea Convention

Updated in this version

Text updated and expanded to reflect research into maritime delimitation and recent developments in the law of the sea; updated citations,references, and links to digital materials.

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 21 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

THE LAW OF THE SEA IN HISTORY: A STUDY DEPARTING FROM THE MARITIME SPACES

2020, Perth International Law Journal

Scholarly literature on the law of the sea has relied on historically constructed concepts. However, their meanings seem to be often misunderstood or unexplored. This reveals an imprecise comprehension of the subject as a product of successive historical events. Furthermore, the contemporary law of the sea is built upon a complex structure, surrounding the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, heavily influenced by key historical factors. This paper proposes a three phases of the law of the sea in history approach aiming to understand how these successive events are intertwined and influence the law of the sea in the 21st century. The research method is predominantly inductive. It counts on the guidance mainly of bibliographic sources, referencing the lex lata and judicial precedents. The hypothesis proved consistent and highlights key historical advances that ultimately explain essential aspects of the contemporary law of the sea. This contribution comprises a necessary understanding that may solidly underpin any more profound regard to the present-day law of the sea.

Related Papers

Journal of Law and Policy

Obugheni W Arugu

The management of the oceans was caught in the tangle of claims, marine pollution, demands for lucrative fish stocks in coastal waters and adjacent seas, tension between coastal nations' rights to these resources and those of distant-water fishermen, the prospects of a rich harvest of resources on the sea floor and the increased presence of maritime powers. These threatened to transform the oceans into another arena for conflict and instability. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) provided for peaceful means of settlement of conflicts through diplomatic means in line with the United Nations Charter and governed all aspects of ocean space, defined the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, delimited maritime zones, laid down guidelines for businesses, environment, management of marine natural resources and established institutions. This paper looked at the history and development of the Law of the Sea. The doctrinal research methodology is adopted. The paper is divided six parts: introductory issues, historical overview of the Law of the Sea, Scope of UNCLOS, legal and institutional framework of the Law of the Sea and concluding remarks. The paper recommended effective implementation of UNCLOS for the benefit of mankind.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development

Osman Metalla

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...

Samiur R A H M A N Zaki

This article illustrates with brevity the entire codification process of the International law of the Sea and it's gradual development. I have exerted to articulate different phases of the development of the sea law starting from the intial 16th Century Hugo Grotius rules which introduced "Mare Liberum" or "Freedom of the Sea" & how this principle of open sea transcended to the adoption of UNCLOS (1,II, & III) and ultimately the LOSC 1982 (Law of the Sea Convention) which is conventionally known as the constitution of sea..

Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών

Christos Rozakis

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.

Luglio Editore

Pierandrea Leucci , Léna Kim

[TABLE OF CONTENTS] Mekhala Dave, The Image: An Interpretation. Ida Caracciolo, Unilateral Interests of States, Common Interests of States and Interests of Mankind: From Coexistence to Cooperation in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Tullio Scovazzi, Some Remarks on Definitions in International Law of the Sea. Felicity G. Attard, Limitations on the Duty to Render Assistance at Sea under International Law. Marianthi Pappa & Chiara Pavesi, Protecting Non-State Actors’ Interests at Sea: Judicial Responses to the Silence of UNCLOS. Léna Kim, The Place of Economic Actors in the Law of the Sea through the Lens of Nationality. Ademun Ademun-Odeke, The Evolution, Nature and Application of ‘Private Ends’ in Piracy Definition. Arron Honniball, Exclusive ‘Jurisdiction’ on the High Seas Revisited: The Diverging Conceptualisation and Application of Article 92 of UNCLOS in The Enrica Lexie Incident Award. Henning Jessen, The Legal Understanding of the Term ‘Ship’ Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Patrick Balsano, UNCLOS and the Unfortunate Oversight of Cartography. Frances Anggadi, The Meaning and Legal Significance of ‘Fringing Reefs’ in the LOSC, and Importance for Contemporary Challenges in the Law of the Sea. Pierandrea Leucci, Enforcing fishery legislation in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Non-Parties to UNCLOS: A Commentary to Article 73. Ilaria Vianello, Concluding Remarks.

sirmanwell sirmanwell

For long, customary law has held firm control over maritime issues of international importance, but the advent of UNCLOS III raises the question as to the extent to which customary law can keep a reserved domain. It is proposed to examine two narrow issues revolving around the principle that 'the land dominates the sea' (Principle of Domination). The basic submission is that this principle is a general principle of international law, developed by way of customary law and judicial decisions. As part of customary law, it always parallels the system established under the UNCLOS, and interplays with the latter in, among others, mixed disputes, namely, disputes that involve the interpretation or application of a mix of substantive rules of the law of the sea and other branches of public international law. The conclusion is that, within the law of the sea, the Principle of Domination means not a complete transposition of coastal sovereignty to the adjacent areas of sea. Its impact is thus much weakened by another general principle of the law of the sea, namely, the freedom of the high seas. But the existence of the principle in customary law can restrict the scope of applicability of the UNCLOS, and consequently, the jurisdiction of such tribunals as referred to in Article 287 UNCLOS. This article suggests, however, that mixed disputes may still be decided by those tribunals in a certain way.

Pierandrea Leucci

The “Associazione di Consulenza in Diritto del Mare” (ASCOMARE) is pleased to inaugurate its Yearbook on the Law of the Sea (YLoS). The First Volume will focus on ‘Law of the Sea and Definitions.’ Contributions are sought in respect of articles examining the content and legal scope of undefined terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other related instruments. The call also appreciates papers assessing the historical and evolutionary meaning of such terms against the backdrop of State practices and international case-law. Submissions are welcome both in English and Italian. The most insightful contribution will be awarded with a copy of the prestigious Volume I of the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary” (Virginia Commentary). Deadline for submission of abstracts: January 30th, 2021 More details: https://ascomare.com/ylos/

Maria Gavouneli

Olú Abíkóyè

The Law of the Sea reflects the competing interests of Nations over the resources of the oceans since humanity first set forth upon the seas. The sovereign control over the oceans has been an ongoing concern prior to the 20th century under the concept of Mare Liberium and Mare Clausum. This principles developed and limited national rights and jurisdiction over a narrow band of water along a nations’ coast, with the rest of the sea free to all and belonging to none. With the technological developments of the 21st century which allows the exploitation of ocean resources that had never before been envisioned and accessible, there was a need to preserve the High Seas with its unimaginable rich resources as the common Heritage of Mankind. Nations began to negotiate their interests in the oceans and a universal regime known as UNCLOS III was agreed upon. These events display the fine blend of applied international law, politics and selfish economic interests as related in notable decisions of the ICJ. Today, there are new issues to be dealt with starting with pollution, the inevitable and intensive exploitation of high seas in the face of the 1994 Implementation Agreement, increasing jurisdictional claims amongst others. This research work analyses the making of UNCLOS III, dispute settlement mechanism, sustainable use of the oceans and the Nigerian Maritime Sector. This research work concludes with the arguments whether or not UNCLOS III has come to stay as the world legal order on the sea and proffer recommendations.

RELATED PAPERS

Romanian Journal of Rhinology

Victor-Vlad Costan

Helio Vannucchi

ComTech: Computer, Mathematics and Engineering Applications

Johan Muliadi Kerta

Journal of Fungi

sabine galindo

Annals of Surgery

Eliana Simone

Martina Kuncová

Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira

Paulo Kassab

Australasian Journal of Dermatology

Sara Gómez Armayones

Investigación en Educación Médica

Pamela Mery

Kaleidoscope History

Robert Offner

Ciencia y Salud Virtual

Anderson Perez

Desi Novita

Linear and Multilinear Algebra

Driss Boularas

Journal of Global Economy

prashanta behera

Surgical Clinics of North America

Eduardo Garcia Vilela

webpages.ull.es

Lic. Alejandro Rangel Nava

David David Davila

Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

Prof.dr.yekta Göksungur

Chemistry – A European Journal

Valeria Nicolosi

Yusuf Bal ile Şiir ve Gözkuşağı Üzerine

Current Applied Physics

Satyajit Sahu

Rd. Rohmat Saedudin

Proceedings of the ... CEEA Conference

emanuel jannasch

Materials Research

Julio Neves

Chemical Geology

Maya Kamenetsky

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Personal Profile
• See all online law products
• Subscriber Services
• Guided Tour

• Case reports
• International court decisions
• Domestic court decisions
• European court cases
• Arbitral cases
• Commentary and analysis
• Book content
• Encyclopedia entries
• International instruments and materials
• Supporting instruments
• Institutional rules
• Resolutions
• Declarations
• Air law and law of outer space
• Diplomacy and consular relations
• European Union
• History of international law
• Human rights
• Individuals and non-state actors
• International co-operation
• International criminal law
• International economic law
• International environmental law
• International humanitarian law
• International law and international relations
• International organizations
• International procedural law
• International responsibility
• Law of the sea
• Law of treaties
• Relationship between international and domestic law
• Settlement of disputes
• Sources, foundations and principles of international law
• Statehood, jurisdiction of states, organs of states
• Theory of international law
• Use of force, war, peace and neutrality
• Geographic Regions
• Organizations/Institutions
• American Organizations/Institutions
• African Organizations/Institutions
• Asian Organizations/Institutions
• European Organizations/Institutions
• International Organizations/Institutions
• Middle Eastern Organizations/Institutions
• Pacific Rim Organizations/Institutions

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

• Find at OUP.com

The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea

Edited by donald r. rothwell, alex g. oude elferink, karen n. scott, tim stephens.

Human activities have taken place in the world's oceans and seas for most of human history. With such a vast number of ways in which the oceans can be used for trade, exploited for natural resources and fishing, as well as concerns over maritime security, the legal systems regulating the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans have long been a crucial part of international law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea comprehensively defined the parameters of the law of the sea in 1982, and since the Convention was concluded it has seen considerable development. This book provides an analysis of its current debates and controversies, both theoretical and practical. It consists of forty chapters divided into six parts. First, it explains the origins and evolution of the law of the sea, with a particular focus upon the role of key publicists such as Hugo Grotius and John Selden, the gradual development of state practice, and the creation of the 1982 UN Convention. It then reviews the components which comprise the maritime domain, assessing their definition, assertion, and recognition. It also analyzes the ways in which coastal states or the international community can assert control over areas of the sea, and the management and regulation of each of the maritime zones. This includes investigating the development of the mechanisms for maritime boundary delimitation, and the decisions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The book also discusses the actors and intuitions that impact on the law of the sea, considering their particular rights and interests, in particular those of state actors and the principle law of the sea institutions. Then it focuses on operational issues, investigating longstanding matters of resource management and the integrated oceans framework. This includes a discussion and assessment of the broad and increasingly influential integrated oceans management governance framework that interacts with the traditional law of the sea. It considers six distinctive regions that have been pivotal to the development of the law of the sea, before finally providing a detailed analysis of the critical contemporary issues facing the law of the sea. These include threatened species, climate change, bioprospecting, and piracy.

Bibliographic Information

Affiliations are at time of print publication..

Donald R. Rothwell, editor

Alex G. Oude Elferink, editor

Karen N. Scott, editor

Tim Stephens, editor

• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Table of Cases
• Table of Treaties
• List of Abbreviations
• Chapter Authors
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Main Steps of the Evolution of the Law of the Sea between 1493 and the End of the Nineteenth Century
• 3 The Attempts at Codification before World War II
• 4 The Claims to Expand the Coastal State’s Jurisdiction after World War II
• 5 Codification in the Early Phase of the United Nations: The Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea
• 6 The Contribution of International Courts and Tribunals to the Development of the Law of the Sea, from the end of the Nineteenth Century to the Aftermath of the Geneva Conventions
• 7 Conclusion
• 2 The Genesis, Adoption, and Entry into Force of the LOSC
• 3 An Overview of the LOSC
• 4 The Legal Nature of the Provisions of the LOSC
• 5 Participation in the LOSC
• 6 Reservations and Declarations
• 7 The Relationship of the LOSC to Other Treaties and Customary International Law
• 8 Compliance with the LOSC
• 9 The Annual Cycle of Review of the LOSC
• 10 Developing the LOSC
• 11 Conclusions
• 2.1 Defining ‘relevant’ subsequent practice
• 2.2 Treaty modification by subsequent practice
• 3.1 The 1994 Implementation Agreement and 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement
• 3.2 The Meeting of States Parties
• 3.3 Article 105 LOSC
• 3.4 Other provisions impacted by State practice
• 4 Subsequent Practice and Regime Interaction in the LOSC
• 5 Implications for the Development of the LOSC
• 6 Conclusion
• 1 The Function and Significance of Baselines
• 2.1 How normal is it?
• 2.2 Which features have a normal baseline?
• 2.3 The normal baseline: the big question
• 3.1 Artificial lines and rivers
• 3.2 Bay closing lines
• 3.3 Closing the waters of a port
• 3.4 Straight baselines stricto sensu
• 3.5 Archipelagic baselines: the latest artificial baseline
• 4 Conclusions
• 2 Breadth and Location of the Territorial Sea
• 3 Juridical Character of the Territorial Sea
• 4 Navigational Rights in the Territorial Sea
• 5 ‘Other Rules of International Law’ and International Organizations
• 6 Contiguous Zone
• 2 Historical Development
• 3 The Part III Law of the Sea Convention Regime
• 4 Operational Issues
• 5 Future Issues
• 6 Concluding Remarks
• 2.1 Early developments
• 2.2 International Law Commission
• 2.3 State practice
• 2.4 The First and Second United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea
• 2.5 The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
• 3.1 LOSC provisions
• 3.2 Issues in implementation
• 4.1 LOSC provisions
• 4.2 Issues in implementation
• 5.1.1 Nature of archipelagic waters
• 5.1.2 Non-navigational rights
• 5.1.3 Navigational rights through archipelagic waters
• 5.2 Issues in implementation
• 6 A Lacuna in the LOSC: Dependent Archipelagos?
• 2.1 History and genesis of the concept
• 2.2 The legal status of the EEZ
• 2.3 Minoris generis zones
• 3.1 Coastal and third States’ rights and obligations and the conflict over the attribution of rights
• 3.2.1 Regulatory regime
• 3.2.2 Enforcement powers
• 3.3 Powers over non-living resources and over all other economic resources
• 3.4 Construction of artificial islands and installations
• 3.5 Marine scientific research
• 3.6 Environmental protection
• 4 Other States Rights and Obligations
• 5 The Future of the EEZ
• 3.1 Inherent rights
• 3.2 Substantive rights
• 4.1 Overview
• 4.2 The Article 76 criteria
• 4.3.1 Overview
• 4.3.2 Bilateral delimitation and disputes
• 4.3.3 The record
• 4.4 Revenue sharing: Article 82
• 5 Continental Shelf and EEZ
• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 The spatial extent of the high seas
• 2.3 The freedom(s) of the high seas
• 3.1 The legal character of the high seas
• 3.2 The role of flag States and the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction
• 3.3 The reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes
• 3.4 The relationship of the high seas to the EEZ
• 4.2 The nationality of ships
• 4.3 Stateless vessels
• 4.4 Jurisdiction in collisions
• 5 Policing the High Seas
• 6 Challenges for the Law of the High Seas
• 2 Legal Status of the Area and its Resources
• 3.1 The Assembly
• 3.2 The Council
• 3.3 Legal and Technical Commission
• 3.4 Finance Committee
• 3.5 The Enterprise
• 4 Regulation of ‘Activities in the Area’
• 5 Commercial Exploitation
• 6 Reserved Areas
• 7 Sponsorship by States Parties
• 8 Dispute Settlement
• 9 Responsibility of the International Seabed Authority under Article 82(4) of the LOSC
• 10 Conclusion
• 1.1 Introduction
• 1.2 The delimitation of the territorial sea
• 1.3 The ‘equidistance’ or ‘equitable principles’ debate and the LOSC
• 1.4 The ‘three-stage test’
• 2.1 Establishing entitlement
• 2.2 Other preliminary issues
• 2.3 The elements of the process
• 3.1 Issues concerning the identification of the relevant area
• 3.2 Issues concerning islands and low-tide elevations
• 3.3 The relevance of economic and jurisdictional issues to the delimitation process
• 4 The 2014 Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration
• 5 Conclusion
• 2.1 Overview
• 2.2 Access to port
• 2.3 Conditions for entry into port
• 2.4 Leaving port
• 2.5.1 Territorial jurisdiction
• 2.5.2 Quasi-territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction
• 2.6 Port State cooperation through global and regional instruments and bodies
• 3.1 Overview
• 3.2.1 Maritime zones under coastal State sovereignty
• 3.2.2 Maritime zones where coastal States have sovereign rights and/or jurisdiction
• 3.3 Regional coastal State cooperation
• 4 Future Developments
• 2 The Development of Flag State Jurisdiction
• 3 Registration and Nationality
• 4 The Operation of Flag State Jurisdiction
• 5.1 Flag State rights
• 5.2 Flag State duties
• 5.4 Maritime casualties and assistance at sea
• 5.5 Pollution
• 5.6 Fisheries and mineral resources
• 5.7 Crime and maritime security
• 6 Key Issues
• 2 The Emergence of a New Law of the Sea
• 3 THE LOSC and the Landlocked and Geographically Disadvantaged States
• 4 The Realization of the Rights of Landlocked and Geographically Disadvantaged States Under the LOSC
• 2 Preparing for the Entry into Force of the LOSC
• 3 Informal Consultations Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the LOSC
• 4.1 The role of the United Nations Secretariat
• 4.2 The International Seabed Authority
• 4.3 The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• 4.4 The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
• 5 The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea
• 6.1 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
• 6.2 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21
• 6.3 The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
• 6.4 The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and The Future We Want
• 6.5 The relationship between the documents adopted by the United Nations Conferences on the Human Environment and the LOSC
• 7 The Role of the General Assembly
• 8 The Meeting of States Parties to the LOSC
• 9 Sustainable Fisheries and Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
• 10 Oceans and Coastal Areas Network (UN-Oceans)
• 11 The United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea
• 12 The Regular Process
• 13 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
• 14 Piracy on the Agenda of the Security Council
• 15 Concluding Observations
• 2 Drafting History of the Institutional Provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention
• 3 The Meeting of the State Parties
• 4.1 Elections to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• 4.2 Financing of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• 4.3 Oversight of the judicial work of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• 5 The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
• 6 The International Seabed Authority
• 7 The Meeting of the States Parties as a Forum to Review General Developments in the Law of the Sea
• 8 A System of Law of the Sea Institutions?
• 9 Conclusion
• 2 The Obligation of States to Settle Disputes Peacefully
• 3 The duty to Arbitrate or Adjudicate Disputes under the LOSC
• 4 Choice of Forum for Compulsory Settlement of LOSC Disputes
• 5 Nature of the Dispute
• 6 Procedural Limitations on Jurisdiction under Section 2 of Part XV
• 7.1 Article 297
• 7.2 Article 298
• 8 Institutional Constraints on the Exercise of Jurisdiction
• 9 Entities other than States
• 10 Applicable Law
• 11 Advisory Opinions
• 12 Conclusion
• 2.1 Purposes and functions
• 2.2 Governance structure
• 4.1 The IMO within the framework of the LOSC
• 4.2 A ‘Competent international organization’
• 4.3 Quasi-legislative functions
• 4.4 Overseeing and approving requests for routeing measures
• 4.5 Clearing house for information and receiver of notification requirements
• 4.6 Capacity-building and technology transfer
• 4.7 Facilitation and contribution to international cooperation
• 4.8 Interaction with and assistance to other intergovernmental organizations
• 4.9 Support for dispute settlement
• 5 Conclusion: Achievements and Issues
• 2 RFMOs and the Institutionalization of Cooperation
• 3 RFMOs and the Limits of Cooperation
• 4.1 Stock assessment
• 4.2 Management of fishing effort
• 4.3 Allocation of fishing opportunity
• 4.4 Compliance and enforcement
• 4.5 Protection of the broader marine environment
• 5 RFMOs and Climate Change
• 2 Integrated Oceans Management as a Tool for Marine Environmental Protection
• 3 National Implementation of Integrated Oceans Management
• 4 Regional Implementation of Integrated Oceans Management
• 5.1 Ecosystem-based management
• 5.2 Precautionary approach
• 5.3 Environmental impact assessment
• 5.4 Marine protected areas
• 5.5 Marine spatial planning
• 5.6 Institutional integration of oceans management
• 2 Marine Living Resources: Relevance and Notion
• 3.1 Sovereign rights over natural resources
• 3.2 Sustainable development and sustainable use
• 3.3 Precautionary approach
• 4.1 Internal waters, territorial sea, and archipelagic waters
• 4.2.1 Identifying the maximum sustainable yield
• 4.2.2 Access to fish stocks by third States
• 4.2.3 Shared and highly migratory stocks
• 4.3 Living resources of the continental shelf
• 4.4 Living resources and the freedom of the high seas
• 5.1 Development and membership
• 5.2 Management approach
• 6 International Regulation of Fishing Methods
• 7.1 Illegal, unreported, and unregulated Fishing
• 7.2.1 General obligations
• 7.2.2 Under the LOSC
• 7.2.3 Under the Fish Stocks Agreement
• 7.2.4 Under FAO instruments
• 7.3 Port State measures
• 8.1 Marine mammals and the LOSC
• 8.2 Legal regulation of migratory marine mammals
• 8.3 Whaling
• 8.4 Protection of marine mammals by trade restrictions
• 9.1 Ecosystem approach
• 9.2 Marine spatial planning
• 10 Conclusion and Outlook
• 2 Historical Development of the Legal Regime in Relation to Marine Pollution
• 3.1 General Obligations
• 3.2.1 Land-based sources and activities
• 3.2.2 Dumping
• 3.2.3 Vessel source pollution
• 2.1 General considerations
• 2.2 Exercise of the right of innocent passage
• 2.3 The regulation of the right of innocent passage by the coastal State
• 2.4 The right of innocent passage of foreign warships
• 2.5 The right of innocent passage of foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying inherently dangerous or noxious substances
• 3.1 The right of transit passage
• 3.2 The regulation of the right of transit passage by States bordering straits
• 3.3 Non-suspendable innocent passage
• 4.1 The right of innocent passage
• 4.2 The right of archipelagic sea lanes passage
• 5 Navigational Rights in the EEZ
• 6 Navigational Rights on the High Seas
• 7 Further Developments
• 2 Defining Marine Scientific Research
• 3 Development of the Regime for Marine Scientific Research
• 4.1 The ‘right’ to conduct MSR
• 4.2 General provisions
• 4.3 Internal waters, archipelagic waters, and the territorial sea
• 4.4 Continental shelf and exclusive economic zone
• 4.5 High seas
• 4.7 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and marine scientific research
• 4.8 Scientific research installations and equipment
• 5 Marine Scientific Research under Other Regimes
• 6 Coastal State Legislation Concerning Marine Scientific Research
• 7 Future Developments
• 2.1 Traditional maritime security concerns
• 2.2 Responding to maritime security threats
• 3.1 Ongoing boundary disputes
• 3.2 Transnational crime
• 3.3 Intelligence gathering
• 4.1 Evolving maritime security threats
• 4.2 Human dimension
• 5.1 Maintain the ambiguities?
• 5.2 An increasing labyrinth
• 2.1 Baselines and Maritime Zones under the LOSC
• 2.2 Sui generis zones
• 2.3 The high seas
• 3.1 Settled boundaries
• 3.2 Pending delimitations
• 3.3 The management of disputes
• 4.1 Protection of the marine environment: the Barcelona Convention system
• 4.2 Management of living resources
• 4.3 Ongoing efforts at cooperation
• 2 Territorial Disputes and Legal Issues
• 3 Applicable Law and Institutional Arrangements
• 4 Prospects and Trends
• 2.1 Defining the region
• 2.2 Ocean, coastal, and political geography
• 2.3 Economic significance
• 2.4 Environmental threats
• 3.1 Regional influences and participation in the law of the sea
• 3.2 Maritime jurisdictional zones
• 3.3 Maritime boundaries
• 4.1 OSPAR Convention
• 4.2 Role of the EU in fostering regional cooperation
• 4.3 Regional network of marine protected areas
• 4.4 Regional measures on vessel-source pollution
• 5.1 European Common Fisheries Policy
• 5.2 Straddling and highly migratory fish stocks
• 5.3 Anadromous stocks
• 5.4 Catadromous species
• 5.5 Marine mammals
• 6 Conclusions
• 2 Background
• 3 Claims to Maritime Jurisdiction in the Caribbean Region
• 4.1.1 Shipping in the Caribbean and role of the IMO
• 4.2.1 Relevant regional organizations
• 4.2.2 The Caribbean Environment Programme
• 4.2.3 Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem Project
• 4.3 Seabed resources
• 4.4 Illegal maritime activities and enforcement concerns
• 4.5.1 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Arbitration
• 4.5.2 Guyana/Suriname arbitration
• 4.5.3 Nicaragua v Honduras
• 4.5.4 Nicaragua v Colombia
• 5 Outstanding Delimitation Issues in the Caribbean
• 2 Definition and General Description of the Indian Ocean
• 3 Maritime Zones and Boundaries
• 4.1 Institutions with a broad mandate
• 4.2.1 Marine capture fisheries
• 4.2.2 Environmental cooperation
• 4.2.3 Maritime security
• 5 Conclusions
• 2 Poles Together
• 3.1.1 Ocean boundary and sovereignty disputes
• 3.1.2 Extended continental shelves
• 3.1.3 Jurisdictional tensions
• 3.1.4.1 The Arctic Council
• 3.1.5 The Arctic Five
• 3.2.1 Applying the LOSC to the Antarctic: political and geographical challenges
• 3.2.2 The Antarctic Treaty system and the law of the sea
• 4.1 Future challenges in the Arctic
• 4.2 Future challenges in the Antarctic
• 5 Concluding Remarks
• 2 Normative Features of the ABNJ Legal and Institutional Framework
• 3.1 Fisheries
• 3.2 Regional seas arrangements
• 3.3 Shipping
• 3.4 Deep seabed mining
• 4.1 BBNJ Working Group
• 4.2 CBD Initiatives
• 4.3 Regional initiatives
• 5.1 Rationale and objectives for including key biodiversity conservation elements in an agreement under LOSC
• 5.2.1 Area-based management elements
• 5.2.2 Environmental impact assessment elements
• 2.1 Sea level rise
• 2.2 Temperature rise
• 2.3 Ocean acidification
• 3.1.1 LOSC obligations to control GHGs?
• 3.1.2 Complementary marine environmental regimes
• 3.1.3 The climate change regime
• 4.1.1 The LOSC baseline regime
• 4.1.2 Baselines and maritime zones: fixed or floating?
• 4.1.3 Implications for coastal States
• 4.1.4 Implications for maritime boundaries
• 4.1.5 Legal responses: adoption of new baseline rules?
• 4.1.6 Physical responses: holding back the tide?
• 4.2 Marine resources and ecosystems
• 2.1 Want of jurisdiction
• 2.2.1 Total allowable catch
• 2.2.2 Methods
• 2.3.1 Land-based source pollution
• 2.3.2 Climate change
• 2.4.1 Convention on Biological Diversity
• 2.4.2 The Ramsar Convention
• 2.4.3 World Heritage Convention
• 3.1.1 Whaling
• 3.1.3 Convention on International Trade in Edangered Species
• 3.1.4 Migratory species
• 3.2 Site responses
• 4 Conclusion
• 2.1 Definition of bioprospecting
• 2.2 The commercial value of marine bioprospecting
• 3.1 The Law of the Sea Convention
• 3.2 The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and Related Instruments
• 3.3 Classification of bioprospecting under the Law of the Sea Convention
• 4 Bioprospecting within National Jurisdiction
• 5 Bioprospecting beyond National Jurisdiction
• 6 Regional Arrangements
• 1.1 Necessity of a counter-piracy legal regime
• 1.2 Forms of contemporary piracy
• 1.3 Applicable legal framework and its historical roots
• 2.1.1 Piracy as defined in Article 101(a) of the LOSC
• 2.1.2 Piracy as defined in Article 101(b) and (c) of the LOSC
• 2.2 Definition of pirate ship
• 2.3 Armed robbery at sea—an offence distinct from piracy
• 3.1 The right of visit, seizure, and arrest
• 3.2 Extension of enforcement powers—the example of Somali-based piracy
• 3.3.1 Inapplicability of international humanitarian law
• 3.3.2 General safeguards for maritime interception operations
• 3.3.3 Human rights law
• 4.1 The criminal offence of piracy
• 4.2 Criminal jurisdiction over the offence of piracy
• 4.3 Bridging policing and criminal prosecution
• 5 A Mixed Appraisal of the Legal Regime on Piracy
• 2.1 Peaceful purposes
• 2.2 Military operations
• 3.1 Definition of warship
• 3.2 Sovereign immunity
• 4 Peacetime Maritime Operations
• 5.1 Belligerent and neutral rights
• 5.2 Geography of naval warfare
• 6.1 Innocent passage in the territorial sea
• 6.2 Straits and archipelagos
• 6.3 The exclusive economic zone
• 2.1 Spatial definition of maritime zones
• 2.2 Substantive regime of maritime zones
• 2.3 Interaction of maritime zones
• 3 Actors and Institutions: The Future of Ocean Managers
• 4 Substantive Regimes: The Future for Global Oceans Management
• 5 Regional Oceans Management: An Indispensable Instrument with Mixed Results
• 6 The Law of the Sea Convention: What Future for the Constitution of the Oceans?
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

• Law of the Sea - master

Duration : 3 Semestre

Duration: 3 Semestre

• Study catalogue

The oceans cover over 70 percent of the surface of the Earth. Humans depend on the oceans for life, work, food, travel, and human health. The ocean is the world's greatest reservoir of biodiversity, including marine mammals, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and countless of other species.

The LL.M. programme aims to broaden the traditional approach to the Law of the Sea from jurisdictional issues to also include substantial law such as conservation and sustainable use of biological resources and protection of biodiversity and the environment. Although the programme of study has a clear global profile, it also has a distinct Arctic dimension. Much of the Arctic consists of marine areas. Global climate change will increasingly subject these areas to various uses such as navigation, oil and gas exploitation, fisheries and research. The Arctic regions provide unique opportunities for studying both global and regional legal approaches to protect and preserve the marine environment.

Youri van Logchem

Associate Professor of Law (Law of the Sea & Environmental Law)

• Telephone: +4777644959
• Campus: Tromsø
• [email protected]

Nataliia Strukova

• Telephone: +4777646282
• [email protected]

Nordic applicants: 7001

EU/EEA + Swiss applicants: 7151

Non-EU applicants: 2033

The programme will through its courses and master's thesis give the students a broad introduction and knowledge of the Law of the Sea, including its development and the political and institutional aspects. Students at the programme are taught by legal experts from the Faculty of Law and JCLOS as well as other institutions, such as intergovernmental organizations, international tribunals, academics and practitioners. The teaching includes lectures, problem-based seminars, writing courses, moot-court experiences and excursions to relevant institutions, where in all activities students are active participants.

The programme is intensive with a structure of three semesters through one calendar year, starting in August. The autumn semester consists of two introductory courses on the Law of the Sea and the politics of the Law of the Sea. The spring semester focuses on more specific topics on the Arctic and protection of the Marine Environment. In the third semester students select their own topic for an individual research project, which is to be completed during the summer.

Programme outline:

FIRST SEMESTER

• JUR-3050 General Law of the Sea: The course provides a general introduction to the Law of the Sea, i.e. the rules and principles of international public law that cover the maritime areas.
• JUR-3054 General Law of the Sea II: The course bases on JUR-3050 and goes deeper into the selected topics.

SECOND SEMESTER

• JUR-3052 Protection of the Marine Environment by International Law: The course focuses on the international legal rules concerning the protection of the marine environment from adverse effects of different human uses and the sustainable use of marine resources.
• JUR-3053 Law of the sea and the Arctic: The course focuses on Law of the Sea and Arctic issues. The general Law of the Sea is applicable to the marine areas Arctic. But at the same time the region has special traits that must be considered. In this course, the students will have to apply the knowledge they have acquired during the previous courses on Arctic issues. Generally, the course therefore has the character of case studies, with special emphasis on the Arctic.

THIRD SEMESTER

• JUR-3910 Master's thesis in Law of the Sea: It consists of an obligatory thesis based on themes and questions from the Law of the Sea. The students will be provided with individual supervision. The thesis must be minimum 37 pages and maximum 55 pages, with formatting in accordance with the Regulations for the Law of the Sea program, section 14. The theme of the thesis shall be of a legal or semi-legal character, and may include perspectives such as legal theory, legal history. The thesis must consist of independent analyses of the theme and the legal sources available. The thesis shall provide the student with an in-depth study of a particular topic. The discussions of the thesis are to be transparent and as complete as possible. The references to the sources shall be precise and verifiable.

The candidates shall during the LL.M-programme acquire knowledge, skills and general competence enabling them to hold positions dealing with law of the sea issues. They shall be capable of identifying and analyzing legal questions and relate themselves to the legal system in an independent and critical manner.

To achieve these objectives the candidates are to acquire and develop the following qualifications:

An LL.M. candidate in the law of the sea shall have:

• Advanced knowledge on the central subjects of the law of the sea
• Specialized knowledge on other subjects of the law of the sea
• Knowledge on scientific research methods

An LL.M. candidate in the law of the sea shall be able to:

• Identify and analyze questions of theoretical and practical character in a methodological and ethical proper manner;
• Apply the relevant sources of law independently and critically
• Identify the limitations of existing law and discuss need for changes
• Independently undertake a limited research work under supervision in accordance with norms of research ethics
• Organize and apply extensive and complex information, including identifying main and sub- research questions
• Communicate in English both orally and in writing legal reasoning in a clear and precise manner
• Stay up to date on legal developments within the law of the sea and to further develop his/her qualifications
• The candidate shall be able to apply the knowledge and skills individually and in cooperation with others, as well as finalize tasks within given time frames.

General Competence:

After passing the program, the student can:

• Apply the knowledge and skills acquired in the field of the Law of the Sea individually and in cooperation with others
• Communicate reasoning within the field of the Law of the Sea in a clear and precise manner, orally and in writing to the academic community and the public
• Apply knowledge and skills acquired within the field of the Law of the Sea to other fields of international law, and for all tasks and projects where relevant
• Identify and reflect on ethical dilemmas that may arise within the field of the Law of the Sea in particular and deal with these in a responsible manner
• Apply the knowledge and skills acquired in the field of the Law of the Sea to carry out tasks within given timeframes.

The program qualifies students for jobs both at national and international level, within the United Nations and its specialized agencies, in national diplomatic service as well as public administration and industry and commerce. Further, our students have been selected for internships at leading international institutions, such as the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Students may also be qualified to make a career within academia as doctoral students within in law of the sea or other research areas.

Admission to the Master's programme in Law of the Sea requires a Bachelor's degree (180 ECTS) in Law or equivalent qualification, such as three years duration in law or political science at university level. You must also document knowledge of the fundamentals of international law and international politics.

Applicants must have a minimum grade average comparable to a Norwegian C (2,5) in the ECTS scale.

Applicants with education from non-Nordic countries must document English language proficiency. You will find more information of English language requirements here: https://en.uit.no/admission#v-pills-735946

Applicants must enclose an essay of approximately 2 pages in English where they describe their background and motivation for taking this Master's degree.

There are approximately 20 available places on the programme, where the best of applicants based on background, academic results and the motivational letter are admitted.

For questions about admission to this programme, contact [email protected]

Applicants from non EU/EEA countries:

• The application deadline is November 15th.
• Online application, study code 2033
• You will find more information about international admission here .
• Non-EU students must be prepared to pay tuition fees, more information here

Applicants from EU/EEA + Switzerland:

• The application deadline is March 1st.
• Online application, study code 7151

Applicants from Norway or Nordic countries:

• The application deadline for Norwegian and other Nordic applicants is April 15th 2024
• Online application, study code 7001
• Her finner du all informasjon knyttet til søking og opptak .

The purpose of the teaching is to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the programme as described above. The teaching is meant as a supplement and inspiration to the self- activities of the students. It shall strive to be research-based and provide for dialogue between student and teacher. The teaching shall prepare the students for their futures roles. The teaching methods are varied to take into account the different ways of learning and the distinctive character of the subjects, available teachers and literature. Use of legal systems of information (databases etc.) is part of the teaching.

The main part of the teaching is undertaken as seminars while a smaller proportion is to be given as lectures. Lectures are to present the main elements of the subject and provide the students with an overview of and in-depth presentation of central themes. In addition to this, guest lectures will be offered to help widen the students’ perspectives. The seminars are problemoriented. Lead by a teacher, the students are expected to individually or in groups to actively participate through oral presentations, discussions, projects or similar. The language of instruction is English.

The teaching, assignments and exams shall reflect the different types of tasks the students will have to deal with in their future professional careers. The objective is to be achieved through active participation of the students during the courses; through study, discussions and papers. Lectures will provide for the introduction to the themes while problem-based seminars will make most of the teaching where students and teachers identify and discuss legal questions. Students are also encouraged to hand in papers during the courses to develop their knowledge on subjects and analytical skills.

During the writing of the masters thesis, the students are entitled to 19 hours of supervision.

The students are assessed during and at the end of the study. The forms of assessment include work requirements, six hour written school exams, a home exam followed by an oral exam, and at the end of the study each student must write a master's thesis. The exams and thesis are graded A-F, with F as not passed. Students that fail or have other legitimate grounds for absence may repeat exams.

For further information about work requirements, exam format and evaluative criteria, see the individual course descriptions on the UiT website.

Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982), UNCLOS, is the most comprehensive treaty in public international law and covers a range of Law of the Sea topics, such as delimitation of maritime boundaries, islands, maritime zones, fisheries, marine environment protection, deep seabed mining, marine scientific research, criminal acts at sea and ocean governance. ITLOS and ICJ and PCA have jurisdiction to settle international disputes on law of the sea.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982), UNCLOS, is intended to govern the use of oceans for fishing, shipping, exploration, navigating and mining. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the most comprehensive treaty in public international law and covers a range of Law of the Sea topics, such as delimitation of maritime boundaries, maritime zones, marine environment protection, marine scientific research, arrest of ships, criminal acts at sea (piracy, trafficking) and many more.

Part XI UNCLOS on the legal regime on deep seabed mining used to be a main obstacle for ratification by Western states and blocked the entry into force of the UNCLOS as a whole. After more specific regulations in the 1994 Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of UNCLOS about the commercial exploitation of the deep seabed, more countries were willing to ratify and UNCLOS entered into force in 1994. Although the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law, t he US has not yet ratified it.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has jurisdiction over all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, subject to the provisions of article 297 and to the declarations made in accordance with article 298 of the Convention. According to art. 138 Rules of the Tribunal ITLOS may also give an advisory opinion on a legal question if this is provided for by "an international agreement related to the purposes of the Convention". Additional to ITLOS, judicial settlement of international law of the sea disputes has also taken place at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), e.g. see the North Sea continental shelf cases and at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), for example see the Arctic Sunrise Award (Russian Federation v. the Netherlands).

This Research Guide is intended as a starting point for research on Law of the Sea. It provides the basic legal materials available in the Peace Palace Library, both in print and electronic format. Handbooks, leading articles, bibliographies, periodicals, serial publications and documents of interest are presented in the Selective Bibliography section. Links to the PPL Catalogue are inserted. The Library's subject heading (keyword) Law of the Sea are instrumental for searching through the Catalogue. Special attention is given to our subscriptions on databases, e-journals, e-books and other electronic resources. Finally, this Research Guide features links to relevant websites and other online resources of particular interest.

Evans, M.D. and Lewis, R., Islands, Law and Context: The Treatment of Islands in International Law, 2023

Tanaka, Y., The International Law of the Sea, Fourth Edition, 2023

Nguyen, L.N., The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies, 2023

Platjouw, F.M. and A. Pozdnakova (eds.),The Environmental Rule of Law for Oceans: Designing Legal Solutions, 2023

Sources of international law.

• Convention on the Continental Shelf (Geneva, 29 April 1958)
• United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982)
• UNCLOS III and 1994 Implementation Agreement Part XI, UNCLOS
• The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

Collections and compilations of treaties and other documents of international law of the sea

• Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, The Law of the Sea: Official Texts of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982: with Index and Excerpts from the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea , New York, NY, United Nations, 1997.
• International Seabed Authority, The Law of the Sea: Compendium of Basic Documents , Kingston, Jamaica, Caribbean Law Publishing Company, 2001.
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea = Tribunal international du Droit de la Mer (ed.), Basic texts = Textes de base , Leiden, Nijhoff, 2005.
• Lowe, V. and S. Talmon, (eds.), The Legal Order of the Oceans: Basic Documents on the Law of the Sea , Oxford, Hart, 2009.
• Burri, Th. and Trinidad, J. (eds.), The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation: New Directions from the Chagos Advisory Opinion , Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
• Churchill, R., “Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2022.”  The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law , 38 (2023), No. 4, pp. 603–638.
• Gao, J.J., "The Delimitation Method for the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: A Reflection on the Judicial and Arbitral Decisions", Ocean Development & International Law , 51 (2020), No. 2, pp. 116-142.
• García García-Revillo, M., The Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Se a, Leiden, Brill, 2015.
• Horna, Angel V., Law of the sea and maritime delimitation: state practice and case law in Latin America and the Caribbean , Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023 .
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea / Tribunal international du droit de la mer,  Digest of Jurisprudence, 1996-2021 = Répertoire de jurisprudence, 1996-2021 , Hamburg, ITLOS, 2021.
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea / Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer, Pleadings, Minutes of Public Sittings and Documents = Mémoires, procès-verbaux des audiences publiques et documents, Leiden, Brill, 2001-.
• Kolb, R., Perry, A., Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and Commentaries = Jurisprudence sur les délimitations maritimes selon l'équité: répertoire et commentaires , The Hague, Nijhoff, 2003.
• Kwiatkowska, B., Decisions of the World Court relevant to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Reference Guide , Leiden, Nijhoff, 2010.
• Laborías, A.R. and Godio, L.M.A., La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar , Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Aldina Editorial Digital, 2021.
• Olorundami, F., "Objectivity versus Subjectivity in the Context of the ICJ's Three-stage Methodology of Maritime Boundary Delimitation", The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law , 32 (2017), No. 1, pp. 36-53.
• Oude Elferink, A.G., Henriksen, T. and Busch, S.V. (eds.), Maritime boundary delimitation: the case law: is it consistent and predictable? Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• Patel, B.N., Law of the Sea: International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Jurisprudence: Case Commentary, Case-Law, Digest and Reference Guide (1994-2014) , Lucknow, Eastern Book Company, 2015.
• Perez, B., "The Permanent Court of Arbitration and its Contribution to Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea", L' observateur des Nations Unies: revue de l'Association française pour les Nations Unies, Section Aix-en-Provence , 42 (2017), No. 1, pp. 107-116.
• Sohn, L.B., Noyes, J.E., Franckx, E. and Gustafson, K. (eds.), Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea, Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2014.
• Tanaka, Y., South China Sea arbitration : toward an international legal order in the oceans , Oxford, Hart, 2019.
• Recueil des arrêts, avis consultatifs et ordonnances = Reports of judgments, advisory opinions and orders , Cour Internationale de Justice = International Court of Justice, Leyden, Sijthoff, 1947-.
• Tribunal international du droit de la mer = International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Recueil des arrêts, avis consultatifs et ordonnances ... = Reports of judgments, advisory opinions and orders ... , The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000-

For Awards/Judgments on Law of the Sea please take a look at overview pages:

• Law of the Sea ITLOS Cases  
• Law of the Sea ICJ Cases  
• Law of the Sea PCA Cases

UN Declarations and Resolutions

The resolutions and decisions of the  United Nations General Assembly  and  Security Council  may provide valuable information on the law of the sea. Although they cannot themselves constitute international law or serve as conclusive evidence of a rule of customary law, such resolutions do have value in providing evidence of existing or emerging law. This point of view has been acknowledged by the International Law Commission.

As every Member State has been recognized and has a vote in the UN General Assembly, finding General Assembly resolutions that passed unanimously or near-unanimously may serve as an excellent starting point in the legal research process. Pay attention to the language of the resolution. Those with firm obligations versus those that are merely aspirational or advisory in nature are more likely to be considered valuable as evidence of customary international law.

→   Oceans and the Law of the Sea in the General Assembly of the United Nations .

→   Official Document System Search.  ODS is the UN's Official Document System. You can search for UN declarations, resolutions and other documents by keywords, then narrow your search.

→   Start Your Research: (7) Resolutions and Decisions of International Organizations .

Reference works

• Brito, W.,  Moreira, F.C., (eds.), Comentários à Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre Direito do Mar , Coimbra, Almedina, 2022.
• Churchill, R., Lowe, V. and A. Sander, The Law of the Sea , Fourth edition, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2022.
• Fietta, S. and Cleverly, R., Practitioner's Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Forteau, M. et Thouvenin, J.-M. (eds.), Traité de droit international de la mer , Paris, Pedone, 2017.
• García García-Revillo, M.,  The Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2016.
• Jensen, Ø., The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention: the Role of International Courts and Tribunals , Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
• Kittichaisaree, K., The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea , New York, Oxford University Press, 2021.
• Lando, M., Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Nordquist, M.H. (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Commentary, 1985-2012.
• Oda, S. Fifty Years of the Law of the Sea: With a Special Section on the International Court of Justice: Selected Writings of Shigeru Oda, Judge of the International Court of Justice , Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 2003.
• Pancracio, J.-P., Droit de la mer , Paris, Dalloz, 2010.
• Proelss, A., Maggio, A.R., Blitza, E. and O. Daum (eds.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , München, Beck; Oxford, Hart, 2017. 
• Rao, P.C. and Ph. Gautier, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law, practice and procedure , Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
• Rothwell, D. and T. Stephens, The International Law of the Sea , Third edition, Hart, 2023.
• Tanaka, Y., The International Law of the Sea , Fourth Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2023.
• Vitzthum, W.G., und Hafner, G. (eds.), Handbuch des Seerechts , München, Beck, 2006.

Selected books and articles

• Anderson, W., The Law of the Sea in the Caribbean , Leiden, Boston, Brill, 2022.
• Anthrakefs, G., The right to exploit offshore hydrocarbon in the Southeastern Mediterranean in the light of public international law , Hamburg, Verlag Dr. Kovač, 2023.
• Ascencio-Herrera, A. and Nordquist, M.H. (eds.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part XI Regime and the International Seabed Authority: a twenty-five year Journey , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
• Aurescu, B., Pellet, A., Thouvenin, J.-M., et Gâlea, I. (eds.), Actualité du droit des mers fermées et semi-fermées , Paris, Pedone, 2019.
• Banet,C. (ed.), The Law of the Seabed: Access, Uses, and Protection of Seabed Resources , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2020.
• Caligiuri, A., G. Cataldi and N. Ros (eds.), L’évolution Du Droit De La Mer: Réflexions À l’occasion du 20ème anniversaire de L’assidmer (2001-2021) = the Evolution of the Law of the Sea : Reflections for the 20th Assidmer Anniversary (2001-2021) . Editoriale Scientifica, 2023.
• Caron, D. and Oral, N. (eds.), Navigating Straits: Challenges for International Law, Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2014.
• Castillo, L. del (ed.), Law of the sea, from Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Liber Amicorum Judge Hugo Caminos , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2015.
• Chandra, V., The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Areas of Hydrocarbon Potential: A Review of Global Hot Spots , Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2024.
• De Herdt, S., "Judges ad hoc and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: An Overview of its Practice", Journal of International Dispute Settlement , 11 (2020), No. 3, pp. 438-458.
• De Lucia, V., Oude Elferink, A. and Nguyen L.N., International Law and Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Reflections on Justice, Space, Knowledge and Power , Leiden, Boston, Brill/Nijhoff, 2022.
• Del Vecchio, A. and R. Virzo (eds.), Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals , Cham, Springer, 2019.
• Dingwall, J., International Law and Corporate Actors in Deep Seabed Mining , Oxford, OUP, 2021.
• Duan, W., The International Legal Regime relating to Marine Protected Areas in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: identifying and addressing Gaps , Leiden, Boston , Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
• Ehrle, A., Gubernanz des staatsfreien Raums: eine Untersuchung zu strukturellen Veränderungen des Völkerrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Tiefseebergbauregimes , Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2023.
• Espósito, C., Kraska, J., Scheiber, H.N. and Kwon, M-S. (eds.), Ocean Law and Policy : 20 Years under UNCLOS , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2017.
• Evans, M.D. and Lewis, R., Islands, Law and Context: The Treatment of Islands in International Law , Cheltenham, Edgar Elgar Publishing, 2023.
• Godio, L.M.A. (comp.), El sistema de solución de controversias de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar: contribuciones de su experiencia , Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires, 2019.
• Heidar, T. (ed.), New Knowledge and Changing Circumstances in the Law of the Sea , Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2020.
• Harris, P.G, Climate change and ocean governance : politics and policy for threatened seas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Ivanova, E., The competing jurisdictions of the WTO and the UNCLOS dispute settlement fora in the context of multifaceted disputes ,Studies of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2021.
• Janusz-Pawletta, B., The legal status of the Caspian Sea: current challenges and prospects for future development , Second edition Berlin, Springer, 2021.
• Jiménez Pineda, E., El Arbitraje Internacional y el Derecho del Mar , Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch, 2022.
• Johansen, E., Busch, S. and Jakobsen, I.U. (eds.), The Law of the Sea and Climate Change: Solutions and Constraints , Cambridge, CUP, 2021.
• Kardon, I.B. China’s Law of the Sea: The New Rules of Maritime Order , Yale University Press, 2023.
• Khalilieh, H.S., Islamic Law of the Sea: Freedom of Navigation and Passage Rights in Islamic Thought , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Klein, N. and Parlett, K., Judging the Law of the Sea: Judicial Contributions to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea , First edition, Oxford, UK, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2022.
• Klein, N. (ed.), Unconventional Lawmaking in the Law of the Sea , First edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2022.
• Koh, T., Seah, S. (ed.), Building a New Legal Order for the Oceans , Singapore, NUS Press, 2020.
• Liao, X., The Continental Shelf Delimitation beyond 200 Nautical Miles: towards a Common Approach to Maritime Boundary-making , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022.
• Kraska, J. and Yang, H.C. (eds.), Peaceful Management of Maritime Disputes , Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023.
• Ma, X., The Spratly Islands and International Law: Legal Solutions to Coexistence and Cooperation in Disputed Areas , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
• Matz-Lück, N., Jensen, Ø and Johansen, E.(eds.), The Law of the Sea: Normative Context and Interactions with other Legal Regimes , London, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023.
• Mossop, J., The Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Rights and Responsibilities , Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Mühlendahl, P. von, L'équidistance dans la délimitation des frontières maritimes: étude de la jurisprudence internationale , Paris, Editions Pedone, 2016.
• Murphy, S.D., International Law relating to Islands , Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2017.
• Nguyen, L.N., The Development of the Law of the Sea by UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Bodies , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2023.
• Nordquist, M.H., Moore, J.N. and Long, R. (eds.), Legal Order in the World's Oceans: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2018.
• Palestini, L., La protection des intérêts juridiques de l'État tiers dans le procès de délimitation maritime , Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2020.
• Platjouw, F.M. and A. Pozdnakova (eds.), The Environmental Rule of Law for Oceans: Designing Legal Solutions , Cambridge University Press, 2023.
• Purcell, K., Geographical Change and the Law of the Sea , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020.
• Ribeiro, M.C., Bastos, F.L. and Henriksen, T. (eds.), Global Challenges and the Law of the Sea , Cham, Springer, 2020.
• Roach, J.A., Excessive Maritime Claims , Fourth edition, Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2021.
• Roland Holst, R.J., Change in the Law of the Sea: Context, Mechanisms and Practice , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
• Rothwell, D.R., Islands and International Law , Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2022.
• Siig, K., B. Feldtmann and F.M.W. Billing (eds.), The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A System of Regulation , Routledge, 2024.
• Singh, S. and Marwah, R. (eds.), China and the Indo-Pacific: Maneuvers and Manifestations , Palgrave Macmillan Singapore, 2023.
• Société française pour le droit international, Iles et droit international: journée d'études de Paris , Paris, Pedone, 2020.
• Talmon, S., The South China Sea arbitration: jurisdiction, admissibility, procedure , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
• Vincent, P., Droit de la mer , 2. édition, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2020.
• Vrancken, P.H.G., State Ocean Jurisdiction, London, New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023.
• Wyssbrod, V., L'exploitation des ressources génétiques marines hors juridiction nationale , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2018.
• Yiallourides, C., Maritime disputes and international law: disputed waters and seabed resources in Asia and Europe , Abingdon, Routledge, 2019.
• Yu, C., Marine scientific research and the regulation of modern ocean data collection activities under UNCLOS , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2022.
• Zacharias, M. and Ardron, J., Marine Policy: an Introduction to Governance and International Law of the Oceans , Second edition, London, Earthscan from Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.
• Zou, K. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of the South China Sea , London, New York, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.
• Zou, K. (ed.), The Belt and Road Initiative and the Law of the Sea , Leiden, Boston, Brill Nijhoff, 2020.

For all peer-reviewed articles in the PPL Catalogue,  click here .

Periodicals, serial publications

• Annuaire de droit maritime et oceanique
• Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy
• Center for Oceans Law and Policy Publications
• International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law
• International Maritime Boundaries, 7 volumes, Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1993-
• Journal of International Maritime Law
• Maritime Cooperation in East Asia edited by Seokwoo Lee and Zou Keyuan
• Ocean and Coastal Law Journal
• Ocean Development and International Law
• Ocean Yearbook online
• Pleadings, Minutes of Public Sittings and Documents = Mémoires, procès-verbaux des audiences publiques et documents, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea = Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, Leiden, Brill Nijhoff, 2001-..
• Publications on Ocean Development
• Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (ITLOS)
• Studies in International Law of the Sea and Maritime Law
• Yearbook (ITLOS)

Bibliographies

• Abegón Novella, M., Maestro Cortizas, A.M. and Vazquez Rodríguez, B., "A Selection of Spanish Bibliography on the Law of the Sea and LOSC (Spain and the Law of the Sea: 20 Years under LOSC)", Spanish yearbook of international law online , 21 (2017), pp. 479-529.
• Jenisch, U. (et al.), Bibliography of German Publications on the International and Public Law of the Sea, 1982-2007 , Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2008.
• The Law of the Sea: A Select Bibliography , 2008, New York, NY, United Nations, 2008.
• ASIL Electronic Research Guide on the Law of the Sea , by Barbara Bean
• Brill's International Maritime Boundaries

International Maritime Boundaries Online is an unmatched comprehensive reference for international State practice concerning maritime boundary delimitation, and is used and referenced widely by practitioners of international law. Complete with hyperlinked maps and keyword search functionality, features include a systematic examination of all international maritime boundaries worldwide illustrated with maps and detailed analyses of the status of maritime boundary delimitations in each of the ten regions of the world.

• Brill's Sovereign Limits [More info ]
• Brill's United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , edited by Nordquist, M.H., Nandan, S. and Rosenne S.

These Commentaries are based almost entirely on the formal and informal documentation of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, 1973-1982), coupled, where necessary, with the personal knowledge of editors, contributors, or reviewers, many of whom were principal negotiators or UN personnel who participated in the Conference. The scope and duration of the “Virginia Commentary” project is without precedent as an academic undertaking in the field of international law. The project was conceived by its editors to meet the need - particularly essential in the absence of an official legislative history for the Convention - for an objective and comprehensive analysis of the articles in the Convention and in the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention that entered into force in 1996.

• Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law [PPL info ] Peer-reviewed article on International Seabed Authority (ISA) by Michael W.Lodge. Article last updated: September 2020.
• Répertoire de droit international: Mer – Droit de la mer: ses traits fondamentaux – Laurent LUCCHINI – Décembre 1998 (actualisation: Janvier 2017)
• Répertoire de droit international: Frontière – Jean-Marc SOREL – Juillet 2017
• Répertoire de droit international: Pêche / Exploitation durable des ressources halieutiques – Pascale RICARD; Michel VOELCKEL – Janvier 2021

Répertoire de droit international: Zone économique exclusive – Géraldine GIRAUDEAU; Sabrina ROBERT-CUENDET; Laurent LUCCHINI † – Janvier 2021

• Center for International Maritime Security CIMSEC
• Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)
• Chronological Lists of Ratifications of Ratifications of, Accessions and Successions to the Convention and the Related Agreements
• EJIL Talk! Blogs about Maritime Delimitation
• Gallagher Law Library, University of Washingtonnternational Law of the Sea
• International Seabed Authority
• International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
• United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea

Following the people and events that make up the research community at Duke

What Comes Next for the Law of the Sea Treaty?

By Gabrielle Douglas

On April 15, 2024

In History , Law , Lecture , Oceans , Policy

More than 40 years since its signing, the United States still has not ratified an international agreement known as the “constitution of the oceans.” In a webinar held April 2, two of the world’s leading ocean diplomacy scholars met to discuss its history, challenges, and the U.S.’s potential role in the future.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was truly revolutionary for its time. Unraveling against the backdrop of decades of conflict pertaining to maritime affairs, the significance of this conference and its attempts at negotiating a comprehensive legal framework cannot be understated. Key figures in this development include the members of the United Nations, coastal and landlocked states, the scientific community, environmental community, and developing nations. Yet, with the conclusion of this unifying conference, a singular question remained: What comes next? 

This question is what David Balton , the executive director of the U.S. Artic Steering Committee, and David Freestone , a Professor at George Washington University and the Executive Secretary of the Sargasso Sea Commission, aimed to address in a webinar titled, “ The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea at 40 .” In this discussion a range of topics were discussed but the primary focus was providing viewers with a comprehensive understanding of the events of this convention and the way this history plays out in modern times. 

The 1982 convention was one of multiple attempts at setting parameters and guidelines for maritime control. In 1958, the council met for the first time to discuss growing concerns regarding the need for a comprehensive legal framework regarding ocean governance. In this they brought multiple representatives worldwide to discuss the breadth of territorial waters, the rights of coastal states, freedom of navigation, and the exploitation of marine resources. This conversation laid the groundwork for future discussions. However, it was largely ineffective at generating a treaty as they were unable to reach a consensus on the breadth of territorial waters. This first conference is referred to as UNCLOS I. 

Following 1958, in 1960 the members of the council and associated parties convened once again to discuss the issues brought forth by UNCLOS I. The purpose of this conference was to further discuss issues pertaining to the Law of the Sea and build a framework to begin ratification of a binding treaty to ensure that conflict regarding the sea diminishes greatly. This discussion was set in the context of the Cold War. This new setting complicated discussions as talks regarding the implementation of nuclear weapons under the deep seabed further elicited great debate and tensions. While the aim of this meeting was of course to reach a general agreement on these subjects, major differences between states and other parties prohibited UNCLOS II from producing said treaty. 

UNCLOS III served as the breadwinner of this development, yet this is not to say that results were immediate. Negotiations for UNCLOS III were the longest of the three as they spanned from 1973 to 1982. UNCLOS II was particularly special due to its ability to produce revolutionary concepts such as archipelagic status and the establishment of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), granting coastal states exclusive rights over fishing and economic resources within 200 miles of their shores. In addition, this led to the development of the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Despite the limitations and unfinished agenda that preceded this, the treaty was officially ratified in 1994 at Montego Bay. The convention initially received 157 signatories and currently holds participation from 169 parties. Absent from this group are the United States, Turkey, and Venezuela. The convention was designed to work as a package deal and required nations to fully commit to the agreement or abstain entirely. For this reason, the United States retains a nonparty, observer status despite to their adherence to the rules and guidelines of the treaty. 

After this explanation, Balton and Freestone addressed the big question: What comes next? As of right now, the United States is still not a signatory of this treaty. However, this is not to say that they are in violation of this treaty either. The United States participates in discussions and negotiations related to UNCLOS issues, both within the United Nations and through bilateral and multilateral engagements. In addition, the Navy still upholds international law in dealings concerning navigational rights. The one factor many claims prohibits the United States from signing is the possibility of their sovereignty being challenged by certain provisions within the treaty. In spite of this, many continue to push to change this reality, advocating for the United States to ratify this agreement. 

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea remains a pivotal moment in the history of international maritime governance. This Convention led to many insightful and necessary developments which will continue to set precedent for generations to come. While imperfect, the efforts put forth by many nations and third parties to ensure that it remains consistent with modern day times is very telling of the hopeful development of this treaty. Furthermore, while the future of U.S. involvement in the treaty is uncertain, the frameworks established by the three UNCLOS’ provide a solid foundation for addressing contemporary challenges and furthering international cooperation. 

We Are Killing Birds. Solutions Exist. Research Can Help.

Post-covid: the new normal in the health care system.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Iran says MSC Aries vessel seized for 'violating maritime laws'

• Medium Text

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Dubai Newsroom and Jonathan Saul in London; Editing by Michael Georgy and Kevin Liffey

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Baby in gaza saved from womb of mother killed in israeli strike.

A baby girl was delivered from the womb of a Palestinian killed along with her husband and daughter by an Israeli attack in the Gaza city of Rafah, where 19 people died overnight in intensified strikes, Palestinian health officials said.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

UN refugee agency tells Cyprus to stick to the law in its efforts at sea to thwart refugee boats

FILE - Migrants aboard a Cyprus marine police boat as they are brought to harbour after being rescued from their own vessel off the Mediterranean island nation’s southeastern coast, at Protaras, Cyprus, on Jan. 14, 2020. The United Nations agency for refugees says on Friday, April 29, 2024, Cypriot efforts at sea to stop numerous Syrian refugee-laden boats departing Lebanon from reaching the European Union-member island nation mustn’t contravene international human rights laws. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias, File)

FILE - Migrants sit on a Cyprus marine police boat as they are safely brought to a harbor after being rescued from their own vessel off the Mediterranean island nation’s southeastern coast, of Protaras, Cyprus, on Jan. 14, 2020. The United Nations agency for refugees says on Friday, April 29, 2024, Cypriot efforts at sea to stop numerous Syrian refugee-laden boats departing Lebanon from reaching the European Union-member island nation mustn’t contravene international human rights laws. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias, File)

FILE - Migrants aboard a Cyprus marine police patrol boat as they’re brought to a harbor after being rescued from their own vessel off the Mediterranean island nation’s southeastern coast of Protaras, Cyprus, Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020. The United Nations agency for refugees says on Friday, April 29, 2024, Cypriot efforts at sea to stop numerous Syrian refugee-laden boats departing Lebanon from reaching the European Union-member island nation mustn’t contravene international human rights laws. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias, File)

FILE - Migrants stand aboard a Cyprus’ marine police patrol boat as they are brought to harbour after being rescued from their own vessel off the Mediterranean island nation’s southeastern coast, near Protaras, Cyprus, on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020. The United Nations agency for refugees says Cypriot efforts at sea to stop numerous Syrian refugee-laden boats departing Lebanon from reaching the European Union-member island nation mustn’t contravene international human rights laws. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias, File)

• Copy Link copied

NICOSIA, Cyprus (AP) — The United Nations’ refugee agency said Friday that Cypriot efforts at sea to stop numerous Syrian refugee-laden boats departing Lebanon from reaching the European Union-member island nation mustn’t contravene international human rights laws or put passengers at risk.

Cypriot authorities have reportedly dispatched police patrol vessels just outside Lebanese territorial waters to thwart boat loads of Syrian refugees from reaching the island about 110 miles (180 kilometers) away.

The Cypriot government says a crumbling Lebanese economy coupled with the uncertainty brought on by the Israeli-Hamas war and the recent tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Lebanon has resulted in a huge number of rickety boats overloaded with migrants – almost all Syrians – reaching the island.

Earlier this week, Cypriot patrol craft reportedly intercepted five boats carrying hundreds of Syrian refugees and migrants. The boats turned back and the passengers disembarked safely.

UNCHR spokesperson in Cyprus Emilia Strovolidou told The Associated Press that according to testimonies of passengers’ relatives, Cypriot authorities “forcibly pushed back” the boats using “violence” and “techniques to destabilize the boat.”

Strovolidou said the U.N. agency was “not in a position to confirm” those testimonies.

A Cypriot senior official strenuously denied that any coercion was used in any way to get the boats to return to Lebanon, insisting that the Cypriot government doesn’t engage in any pushbacks and acts “fully in accordance with international law.”

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he cannot disclose details of ongoing operations, dismissed as “lies” allegations that Cypriot authorities resorted to using any type of force.

Strovolidou said Cyprus is also bound by international law not to return individuals to any country which could in turn deport them to their homeland where they could be at risk of harm or persecution.

The Lebanon office of UNHCR said in a statement that it was aware of more than 220 people who had disembarked from the returned boats in northern Lebanon on Wednesday. Of those, 110 were refugees registered with UNHCR and all of them were released, it said.

Saadeddine Shatila, executive director of the Cedar Center for Legal Studies, a Lebanon-based human rights organization that tracks migration issues, said his group had information that the Lebanese army had detained and possibly deported Syrians from at least one of the returning boats who weren’t registered with UNCHR.

The Lebanese army has in the past occasionally deported all Syrians aboard seized migrant boats, including registered refugees, a practice that drew an outcry from human rights organizations.

Lebanese political officials have been calling for years for the international community to either resettle the refugees in other countries or assist in returning them to Syria, and security forces have stepped up deportations of Syrians over the past year. Some of the deportees have reportedly faced detention and torture upon their return.

The Cypriot official said the Cyprus government in coordination with the European Commission is preparing an additional financial support package for Lebanon to help the country stop migrant boat departures. He said that support is conditional on Lebanon’s effectiveness in stopping migrant boat departures.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen are due in Beirut May 2 to discuss the aid package.

The official said people smugglers are exploiting people’s fears over the ongoing conflicts in the region and are brazenly advertising in Lebanese coffee shops available seats on boats to Cyprus for $3,000 a head – a bargain compared to the $7,000 required for a trip to Italy.

Cyprus will convene a meeting of other EU countries next month to elicit additional support for its initiative for the bloc to formally redesignate some areas of Syria as safe zones. The Czech Republic and Denmark are behind the idea.

According to the Cypriot official, doing so wouldn’t mean that Syrians hailing from those safe zones are deported back to their country, but they would lose any allowances, benefits and the right to work, creating a disincentive to others to come to Cyprus.

He said Denmark is already implementing such a policy on its own and it’s a measure that the Cypriot government could consider if arrivals continue to increase.

Sewell reported from Beirut.

Follow AP’s global migration coverage at: https://apnews.com/hub/migration

Edinburgh Research Archive

•   ERA Home
• Law, School of

Law thesis and dissertation collection

By Issue Date Authors Titles Subjects Publication Type Sponsor Supervisors

Search within this Collection:

Presented here is a selection of theses and dissertations from the School of Law. Please note that this is not a complete record of all degrees awarded by the School.

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Recent Submissions

Challenges and limitations of granting legal personality to distributed/decentralized autonomous organizations , development of international shipping standards under the auspices of the imo and their implementation in practice: a case study of thailand , adequacy of the ex post armed attack framework of the jus ad bellum in relation to the evolving means and methods of warfare , governing disputed maritime areas , what we say when we criminalise: a metanormative inquiry , testamentary law in england, c. 1450-1540 , sovereign immunity from execution of foreign arbitral awards in the 21st century , conceptualizations of addiction in harm reduction strategies for effective and ethical uk drug policy , liminality and the lived experience of law in medicine: the legal consciousness of physicians in encounters with people living as undocumented migrants , contested citizenship and statelessness in question: an anlysis of cases of overseas taiwanese people and tibetan exiles in taiwan , eternity and the constitution: the promise and limits of eternity clauses , hate speech in the british press: a theoretical and practical assessment of the case for broader regulation , liberty versus security under illiberal constitutionalism: the legality of criminalising humanitarian assistance in hungary and greece , operationalising ‘publicness’ in data-intensive health research regulation: an examination of the public interest as a regulatory device , worldmaking powers of law and performance: queer politics beyond/against neoliberal legalism , development of law of the sea by unclos dispute settlement procedures: towards a coherent jurisprudence , evaluating the european union's response to online misinformation and disinformation: how to address harm while maximising freedom of expression , reconciling reverse burdens of proof with the presumption of innocence: a new approach , uses of roman law in the construction of the concept of possession in the german-speaking countries in the nineteenth century , paths of effectiveness, fairness and legitimacy for eliciting public confidence in policing and cooperation with the police in monterrey metropolitan neighbourhoods .

UN refugee agency tells Cyprus to stick to the law in its efforts at sea to thwart refugee boats

NICOSIA, Cyprus — The United Nations’ refugee agency said Friday that Cypriot efforts at sea to stop numerous Syrian refugee-laden boats departing Lebanon from reaching the European Union-member island nation mustn’t contravene international human rights laws or put passengers at risk.

Cypriot authorities have reportedly dispatched police patrol vessels just outside Lebanese territorial waters to thwart boat loads of Syrian refugees from reaching the island about 110 miles (180 kilometers) away.

The Cypriot government says a crumbling Lebanese economy coupled with the uncertainty brought on by the Israeli-Hamas war and the recent tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Lebanon has resulted in a huge number of rickety boats overloaded with migrants – almost all Syrians – reaching the island.

Earlier this week, Cypriot patrol craft reportedly intercepted five boats carrying hundreds of Syrian refugees and migrants. The boats turned back and the passengers disembarked safely.

UNCHR spokesperson in Cyprus Emilia Strovolidou told The Associated Press that according to testimonies of passengers’ relatives, Cypriot authorities “forcibly pushed back” the boats using “violence” and “techniques to destabilize the boat.”

Strovolidou said the U.N. agency was “not in a position to confirm” those testimonies.

A Cypriot senior official strenuously denied that any coercion was used in any way to get the boats to return to Lebanon, insisting that the Cypriot government doesn’t engage in any pushbacks and acts “fully in accordance with international law.”

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he cannot disclose details of ongoing operations, dismissed as “lies” allegations that Cypriot authorities resorted to using any type of force.

Strovolidou said Cyprus is also bound by international law not to return individuals to any country which could in turn deport them to their homeland where they could be at risk of harm or persecution.

The Lebanon office of UNHCR said in a statement that it was aware of more than 220 people who had disembarked from the returned boats in northern Lebanon on Wednesday. Of those, 110 were refugees registered with UNHCR and all of them were released, it said.

Saadeddine Shatila, executive director of the Cedar Center for Legal Studies, a Lebanon-based human rights organization that tracks migration issues, said his group had information that the Lebanese army had detained and possibly deported Syrians from at least one of the returning boats who weren’t registered with UNCHR.

The Lebanese army has in the past occasionally deported all Syrians aboard seized migrant boats, including registered refugees, a practice that drew an outcry from human rights organizations.

Lebanese political officials have been calling for years for the international community to either resettle the refugees in other countries or assist in returning them to Syria, and security forces have stepped up deportations of Syrians over the past year. Some of the deportees have reportedly faced detention and torture upon their return.

The Cypriot official said the Cyprus government in coordination with the European Commission is preparing an additional financial support package for Lebanon to help the country stop migrant boat departures. He said that support is conditional on Lebanon’s effectiveness in stopping migrant boat departures.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen are due in Beirut May 2 to discuss the aid package.

The official said people smugglers are exploiting people’s fears over the ongoing conflicts in the region and are brazenly advertising in Lebanese coffee shops available seats on boats to Cyprus for $3,000 a head – a bargain compared to the $7,000 required for a trip to Italy.

Cyprus will convene a meeting of other EU countries next month to elicit additional support for its initiative for the bloc to formally redesignate some areas of Syria as safe zones. The Czech Republic and Denmark are behind the idea.

According to the Cypriot official, doing so wouldn’t mean that Syrians hailing from those safe zones are deported back to their country, but they would lose any allowances, benefits and the right to work, creating a disincentive to others to come to Cyprus.

He said Denmark is already implementing such a policy on its own and it’s a measure that the Cypriot government could consider if arrivals continue to increase.

Sewell reported from Beirut.

Follow AP’s global migration coverage at: https://apnews.com/hub/migration

• Boeing & Aerospace
• Law & Justice
• Traffic Lab

What we know about the protest that closed traffic near Sea-Tac Airport

A pro-Palestinian protest shut down much of the traffic flow into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Monday afternoon.

Part of what organizers called a “global call for an economic blockade ” on April 15, Tax Day, protesters called for an end to the Israel-Hamas war. Police arrested 46 people accused of blocking the expressway leading to the airport.

Representatives for the event organizer, A15 Seattle, Alaska Airlines and Port of Seattle police, did not immediately respond Tuesday to inquiries about the demonstration from the Times. 

Here’s what we know:

What happened?

Video of the rush-hour demonstration showed people and cars blocking the roadway, with some protesters waving Palestinian flags and lifting a banner reading, “Our taxes are funding genocide.” The protest began around 3 p.m. Monday and continued for about three hours. 

Footage of the protest showed some people lying in the street and others locked arm-in-arm using the “sleeping dragon” technique , which has participants form a human chain by linking their arms inside PVC tubing. The technique tends to slow down police, as cutting off the tubing runs the risk of injuring protesters. 

Police led demonstrators away in handcuffs shortly before 6 p.m. as tow trucks removed vehicles blocking the roadway. Thirty arrestees were booked Monday night into the South Correctional Entity jail, or SCORE, in Des Moines about 2 miles south of the airport, and 16 others were booked into the King County Jail, according to King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office spokesperson Casey McNerthney.

Who are the protesters? 

A15 Seattle, which organized the protest, wrote in an Instagram post last week that it planned to “identify and blockade major choke points in the economy … with the aim of causing the most economic impact,” but did not specify where the protest would happen. On Sunday, the group advertised three events for Monday — at U.S. Rep. Adam Smith’s office, UW light rail station and the federal courthouse in Tacoma — but not at the airport. 

The protesters demanded “no more U.S. arms to support Israel,” one Seattle demonstrator said in footage posted online by the event organizer Monday afternoon. An email from organizers pointed to Alaska Airlines’ partnership with Boeing, which supplies planes and other military equipment to the Israel Defense Forces.

Protesters calling for an end to the war and to U.S. aid to Israel have blocked Seattle-area streets nearly every week since October. 

More on Hamas-Israel

• The latest: Friday, April 19
• U.S. says U.N. agency has agreed to help distribute aid to Gaza via sea route
• Israel reportedly warned U.S. about drone attack on Iran
• Israel’s credit rating downgraded because of conflict
• U.S. vetoes widely supported resolution backing full U.N. membership for Palestine
• US, UK sanction Iran for attack on Israel
• House Ukraine, Israel package gains Biden’s support
• Our collected stories on the Israel-Hamas war

How did this protest affect travel from the airport? 

McNerthney said demonstrators prevented cars from accessing the airport’s terminal and passenger drop-off areas.

Still, the protest had a “pretty minimal” impact on flight operations, partly because it wasn’t a busy time of day for flights, the airport spokesperson Perry Cooper said Monday.

On Tuesday, he said about two dozen flights were delayed, the majority for 20 minutes or less. A couple international flights were delayed for up to 90 minutes, because their crews were caught in the traffic, Cooper said.

What happened to the protesters after their arrest? Will they face charges? 

Port of Seattle Police is recommending SeaTac City Attorney’s Office to charge those arrested with disorderly conduct, failure to disperse or both, Cooper said. Both charges are misdemeanors.

All 46 arrested have been released after making bail, Cooper said.

In January, protesters calling for a cease-fire in Gaza shut down northbound I-5 just south of Mercer Street , blocking traffic for about five hours on a Saturday afternoon. 

Washington State Patrol referred misdemeanor charges against 12 protesters, but King County prosecutors sent the cases back to the agency, writing that they couldn’t move forward without additional evidence. WSP sent additional information to prosecutors on March 21, and it is under review, McNerthney said. 

Seattle Times reporters Caitlyn Freeman and Lauren Girgis contributed to this report.

Most Read Local Stories

• Semi Bird supporters beat back WA GOP attempt to stop endorsement vote VIEW
• WA GOP endorses Semi Bird for governor at Trump-dominated convention VIEW
• Providence to pay $200M for illegal timekeeping and break practices
• Photos: Full bloom, full crowds at tulip festival VIEW
• Seattle's a stubborn outlier on the pandemic crime good news story