Showing papers on "Internal waters published in 2006"

Jurisdiction of the Coastal State over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea

Abstract: Basic Concepts.- Jurisdiction over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters.- Right of Innocent Passage in the Territorial Sea.- Jurisdiction over Foreign Merchant Ships in the Territorial Sea.- Conclusion and Outlook.

The Northwest Passage: Sovereign Seaway or International Strait? A Reassessment of the Legal Status

Abstract: The status of the Northwest Passage has been the subject of disagreement for at least 30 years. The debate has gained new urgency recently as evidence suggests that the warming trends associated with climate change are causing a reduction in Arctic sea ice. The practical consequence of those physical changes is that the formerly ice choked waters of the Northwest Passage might become an attractive route to commercial shippers as early as 2050. The debate surrounding the status of the Passage is relatively narrow. At issue is the degree of control which the coastal state, Canada, has over the waters of the seaway. The Canadian position is that the Northwest Passage forms part of its historical internal waters and, as such, Canada has the right to exercise full sovereignty over the Passage. These sovereign rights mean that Canada is the only country with the automatic right to use the Passage. By contrast, potential user states, including the United States, have argued that the Northwest Passage is an international strait and that foreign ships enjoy navigational rights in those waters. The debate between the coastal states and potential user states has been framed as a legal question and is therefore suited to a legal examination. An analysis of the dispute, placing the positions of the parties against customary law of the sea and the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, indicates that both arguments suffer weaknesses.

The "New" Law of the Sea and the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea

Abstract: : The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a regime for the oceans that includes a number of "zones" in addition to the traditional divisions of internal waters, territorial sea, and high seas. Although explicitly applicable only in peacetime, these new zones have a spillover effect on the law of naval warfare, particularly in the relationships between belligerents and neutral States. The spillover effect is most pronounced in the expanded territorial sea of twelve nautical miles and in archipelagic States. Mechanical extension of rules that were applicable to a narrow (three-nautical mile) territorial sea to these broader areas of national jurisdiction is likely to create additional tensions between neutrals and belligerents, perhaps widening the areas of conflict and drawing neutrals into it. The study concludes that despite the dangers of such a result, the developing law, as reflected in the military manuals of several maritime States, seems to accept the old rules as applicable to the new and expanded national zones in the oceans.

Changes in the Views on Jurisdiction over Piracy under International Law

Abstract: Jurisdiction over piracy under international law is universal according to UNCLOS, but piracy itself has changed since the regulations that UNCLOS is based on was concluded. This thesis discusses the question whether the views on jurisdiction over piracy under international law has changed and the conclusion that is reached is that views have changed, at least in areas that are badly affected by piracy, but they have not changed enough to make any changes possible to, for example, UNCLOS. The starting point is the definition of piracy under international law, both the traditional view and the more modern view and the way that it has influenced the jurisdiction over piracy and what the differences are. It is clear that differences exist and that the traditional universal jurisdiction was based on the fact that piracy could only occur on the high seas where no state had exclusive jurisdiction and it was therefore accepted that all states could exercise jurisdiction over pirates. When comparing the traditional view on piracy with the modern view, or the acts that occur today it is apparent that the traditional view on jurisdiction over piracy is no longer effective and does not match the incidents. After looking at cases that have been reported to IMB/PRC it can be shown that piracy is no longer a problem mainly on the high seas as it used to be. Piracy is now getting more and more common in areas that are under the jurisdiction of a state, for example in territorial waters, international straits and even in internal waters and in ports. The problem is therefore that the regulations under international law that apply to acts of piracy and jurisdiction over such acts are still used to fight piracy on the high seas and not in areas that are under the jurisdiction of a state. It would not be a major problem if all states had the capability of dealing with piracy in their own waters, but the fact is that most states that are now badly affected, do not have any resources to do so. One example that is used in this thesis is Somalia, which is considered to be one of the most dangerous places in the world for international shipping and where the number of incidents of piracy has risen considerably. The conclusion reached is that since no changes have been made regarding jurisdiction over piracy in international conventions like UNCLOS and because the likelihood of such changes taking place is very small, other solutions have to be found. Various suggestions of such solutions are discussed in the thesis and the most useful is to consider regional agreements between states that have severe problems with piracy. It is then possible to find solutions especially designed to deal with the problems in the specific area and ultimately to assist each other with policing the waters in order to apprehend and prosecute the pirates.