Showing papers on "Internal waters published in 2016"
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare two regions: the Northwest Passage, Canada and the Bering Strait, USA, applying principles of Most Similar System Design (MSSD) and investigate the relationship between prevention and response measures in each regime.
7 citations
TL;DR: The Salish Sea Boundary Straits between the United States and Canada are a vital waterway connecting commercial and military ports in Washington State and British Columbia with the Pacific Ocean as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The Salish Sea Boundary Straits between the United States and Canada are a vital waterway connecting commercial and military ports in Washington State and British Columbia with the Pacific Ocean. Although the international boundary line in the waters has been authoritatively established, questions persist regarding the classification under the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) of the waters on either side of the international boundary as either internal waters or territorial seas. Similar questions on historic waters claims arise in the South China Sea and the Arctic Northwest Passage. This article examines the available evidence that might support a U.S. claim to historic title in the waters and concludes that it falls short of the international law standard. Accordingly, the boundary straits are properly classified as territorial seas and foreign vessels have a right of innocent passage in those waters.
3 citations
DOI•
01 Jan 2016TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the exclusivity of flag state jurisdiction is tempered by the jurisdictional rights given to coastal states, which enjoy full sovereignty, including enforcement jurisdiction, in their internal waters and, subject to the right of innocent passage, within their territorial sea.
Abstract: It is often said that a vessel is subject only to the jurisdiction of its flag state. Indeed, traditionally, exclusivity of flag state jurisdiction has been considered a fundamental principle of the law
of the sea. However, historically the principle has always been tempered by the ascription of
certain jurisdictional rights to other states. As now articulated in the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC),1 the exclusivity of flag state jurisdiction is tempered by the jurisdictional rights
given to coastal states, which enjoy full sovereignty, including enforcement jurisdiction, in their
internal waters and, subject to the right of innocent passage, within their territorial sea.2 Beyond
the territorial sea and within the contiguous zone, coastal states may exercise the control necessary to prevent infringements of their customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary laws by inbound
vessels. Additionally, within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) coastal states enjoy sovereign
rights over, and enforcement jurisdiction in respect of, the exploration and exploitation of the
living and non-living natural resources of the EEZ.3 Likewise, coastal states enjoy a measure of
enforcement jurisdiction in respect of certain activities on the extended continental shelf.4
3 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a methodology for the determination of all indentations along the coastline that can be closed with bay-closing lines without the intervention of the user is presented, which addresses the issue of juridical bays in its entirety.
3 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The Arbitral Tribunal award on the South China Sea, issued on the 12 July 2016, was a legal game changer for Vietnam as mentioned in this paper, which has significant implications for Vietnam.
Abstract: The Arbitral Tribunal award on the South China Sea, issued on the 12 July 2016, was a legal game changer. (1) As a major claimant in the South China Sea, the award has significant implications for Vietnam. This article addresses both the opportunities and challenges for Vietnam, as well as the short term and long term impacts of the Tribunal's award. Vietnam as Major Party in the South China Sea Dispute Vietnam claims sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos on the basis of effectivites of the international law on territorial acquisition. In a note verbale to the United Nations dated 22 February 2016, Vietnam stated that it "has ample legal basis and historical evidence to affirm its indisputable sovereignty over Hoang Sa [Paracel] Archipelago and Truong Sa [Spratly] Archipelago. Successive Vietnamese governments have peacefully and continuously exercised and defended Viet Nam's sovereignty over the two archipelagos since at least the seventeenth century." (2) As a South China Sea coastal state, Vietnam acknowledged the importance of the sea and proclaimed its maritime zones in a declaration in 1977, even before the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into effect. Vietnam declared sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction within five maritime zones: internal waters; territorial seas; contiguous zones; an exclusive economic zone (EEZ); and a continental shelf. This claim was reiterated in the 2012 Law No. 18/2012/QH13 on the Sea of Vietnam. Earlier, in 2009, Vietnam had delineated its 200 nautical mile (nm) EEZ and submitted its extended continental shelf claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). (3) As to the maritime zones of the Paracels and Spratlys, Vietnam has adopted general principles as outlined in UNCLOS, without specifying precise details for the legal regime of each of the maritime features. (4) Regarding dispute settlement, Vietnam has consistently expressed its willingness to settle all disputes in accordance with international law, particularly UNCLOS. (5) In general, Vietnam has relied on international law to support its sovereignty claims over the Paracels and Spratlys, and on UNCLOS to delineate its maritime zones in the South China Sea. Confirmation of the Legal Basis of Vietnam's Maritime Claims In addressing the matter of applicable law for generating maritime zones, the Arbitral Tribunal firmly concluded that UNCLOS provides and defines limits within a comprehensive system of maritime zones that is capable of encompassing any area of the sea or seabed. (6) Essentially, the Tribunal endorsed the methods used by Vietnam to delineate the country's maritime zones in the South China Sea in accordance with UNCLOS. Over the past few years, due to conflicting maritime claims between Beijing and Hanoi, a number of serious incidents have occurred within Vietnam's claimed EEZ and continental shelf. These included the severing of towed cables attached to Vietnamese survey ships by Chinese vessels in 2011, the opening of nine oil blocks in Vietnam's EEZ for bidding by a Chinese state oil company in 2012, the deployment of the Chinese drilling vessel HYSY-981 into Vietnam's EEZ in 2014 and the frequent detention of Vietnamese fishermen by Chinese authorities. Judging by its words and deeds, China appears to be claiming sovereign or historic rights to maritime resources within the nine-dash line, thus placing up to 60 per cent of Vietnam's EEZ and continental shelf in dispute. (7) However, the Tribunal decisively ruled that "upon China's accession to the Convention and its entry into force, any historic rights that China may have had to the living and non-living resources within the 'nine-dash line' were superseded ... by the limits of the maritime zones provided for by [UNCLOS]". (8) The Tribunal's decision represents a major breakthrough for Vietnam, as it means that China has no maritime rights within the nine-dash line and thus there are no overlapping EEZ or continental shelf claims between the countries. …
2 citations
01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: The high seas were treated as a residuary concept and the expression was meant to include all parts of the sea which were not included in the first two categories of internal waters, territorial sea and high seas as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Traditionally the sea was divided for legal purposes into three separate categories of internal waters, territorial sea and high seas.1 The "high seas" was treated as a residuary concept and the expression was meant to include all parts of the sea which were not included in the first two categories.2 In spite of the fact that there was evidence of states like Bahrain and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) claiming exclusive rights to pearl fishing over their respective continental shelves and the British Parliament passed legislation on the Cornish under sea mines as early as 1878, the freedoms of the high seas were regarded as including the freedom to exploit the seabed and subsoil of the high seas3 and this right belonged to all states and could not be exercised by any one particular state to the exclusion of others. Another view concurred in by many experts on international law of the time was that the seabed and subsoil of the high seas were capable of occupation as res nullius in so far as this occupation did not conflict with the freedom of the high seas. With the growth in knowledge about the richness in
2 citations