Law of Seas

Rights of Other States

 It is a customary rule of International Law that territorial sea is open to merchant vessels of
all the States for navigation, such vessels have a right of innocent passage through the
territorial sea of a state.
 Thus, every State has the right to demand that in time of peace its merchantmen may
inoffensively pass through the territorial sea of every other State. This is a corollary of the
freedom of the open sea. The above rule was incorporated in the Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1958 under Article 14 which provided that ships
of all States shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
 The same provision has been laid down under Article 17 of the Convention of 1982 by
stating that ships of all States, whether coastal or landlocked enjoy the right of innocent
passage through the territorial sea.
 The consequence of the above right is that no State can levy tolls for the mere passage of
foreign vessels through its territorial sea. Although the littoral State may spend money on
the erection and maintenance of light houses and other facilities for safe navigation within
its territorial sea, it cannot make foreign vessels merely passing pay for such outlays or,
indeed, impose any requirement which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the
right of innocent passage. Any attempt on the part of a coastal State to prevent or to
hamper innocent passage through the territorial sea in time of peace is unlawful.

Innocent Passage
 Vessels of all States have a right of innocent passage in the territorial sea of a State. The
term 'passage' may be defined as passing through the territorial sea from high seas to high
seas, and proceeding to or from a port.
 Entry upon the territorial sea for any other purposes is not 'passage', although it may not be
illegal. Further, the vessel must have the purpose of traversing the territorial sea, and if it
enters for any other purposes, even though its actions amount only to passing in the sense
defined, it is not innocent passage.
 Convention of 1982 has similarly defined the term passage under Para 1 of Article 18 which
lays down that 'passage' means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of : (a)
traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility
outside internal waters; or (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such
roadstead or port facility. Para 2 of Article 18 lays down that passage shall be continuous
and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the
same are incidental to ordinary navigation.
 Innocence of passage has been defined by the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982
under Article 19 by stating that : “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the
 peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in
conformity with this Convention and with other rules of 'International Law'.” It may be
noted that the terms 'peace', 'good order', and 'security' are too vague. They do not have
any definite meaning. The Convention therefore elaborated them under Article 19(2) which
says that 'passage' of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good
order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following
activities :

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independence of the coastal State, or in any manner in violation of the principles of International
Law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the
coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on hoard of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs,
fiscal, immigration regulations of the coastal State,

 The coastal State's right to take the 'necessary steps' in the territorial sea to prevent passage
which is not innocent is laid down under Article 25 of the Convention of 1982. However,
what 'necessary steps', coastal State may take are not provided in the Convention except
that the coastal State may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the
innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its
security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having
been duly published.
 The coastal State have a sovereignty over the territorial sea. It can exercise jurisdiction over
this part of the sea. As to the jurisdiction on board a foreign ship, passing through the
territorial sea, the Convention of 1982 has made elaborate provisions under Article 27 which
provided that it shall not exercise criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship passing
through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection
with any crime committed on board of the ship during its passage, save only in the following
cases : (a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State; (b) if the crime is of a
kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea; (c) if the
assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or (d) if such measures are necessary
for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drug or psychotropic substances.
 Civil jurisdiction of the coastal State over the foreign ship has been provided in the
Convention differently. Article 28 of the Convention states : (1) The Coastal State should not
 stop or divert a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea for the purpose of exercising
civil jurisdiction in relation to a person on board the ship. (2) The Coastal State may not levy
execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings, save only in
respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for
the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State. These prohibitions are,
however, without prejudice of the coastal State's right to take measures of civil process
against a foreign ship in the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE
 Contiguous zone is that part of the sea which is beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters
of the coastal State. The coastal State does not exercise sovereignty over this part of the
sea, however, they may take appropriate action to protect its revenue and like matters. In
other words, police and revenue jurisdiction of the coastal States extend to the contiguous
zone.
 Geneva Convention on Contiguous Zone of 1958 recognized the right of the coastal States
under Article 24, Para I which says that 'the coastal States may exercise the control
necessary to (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary
regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above
regulations committed within the territory or territorial sea.' The Convention of 1982 has
made similar provisions under Article 33.
 The limit of the contiguous zone was provided in the Geneva Convention of 1958. It was to
extend 12 miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured. Thus, the concept of contiguous zone is meaningless for those States which had
claimed the territorial sea upto twelve miles. They assimilated the limit of contiguous zone
into the territorial sea. The limit of contiguous zone has been extended by the Convention of
1982 which provided under Para 2 of Article 33 that it may not extend beyond twenty-four
nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
Thus, the area of contiguous zone would be 12 miles beyond the territorial sea.
  India has claimed contiguous zone to the extent of twenty four nautical miles by enacting
the Maritime Zones Act of 1976. Section 5 of the Act envisages that the contiguous zone of
India is 'an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters' and that the zone extends to
a line which is twenty four nautical miles of the coast. The above section also specifically
recognized the competence of the Central Government to exercise such powers and take
such measures as it may consider necessary, with respect to (a) the security of India; and (b)
immigration, sanitation, customs and other fiscal matters.

CONTINENTAL SHELF
 The concept of the continental shelf is mainly co-related with the exploitation of the natural
resources from the sea adjacent to territorial sea.
 After the US president Truman proclamation that, the resources underlying the earth should
be fully utilized.
 As early as in 1950, Lauterpacht had stated that the concept of the continental shelf had
become a part of customary International Law since consistent and uniform usage of States
could be established in a short span of time.'
 Geologically, continental shelf may be defined as "the zone around the
continent extending from the low water line to the depth at which there
is usually a marked increase of declivity to greater depth.
 The shelf ends at the point where this marked increase occurs. The waters of this so called
"shelf-edge" range, in depth from fewer than 60 meters to more than 500 meters and
average about 130 meters.
 The seaward extension of the continental shelf is called the "continental slope", a zone that
extends from the shelf-edge to a depth of 1200-3500 meters.
 The continental shelf, continental slope and the continental rise together are known as the
continental margin.
 The definition provided by Geneva Convention of 1958 on Continental Shelf was vague and
led States to interpret their own limits of the continental shelf.
 In the North Sea Continental Shelf case,' the International Court of Justice declared the
issues relating to continental shelf in a different way. In the case, a precise limit of the
continental shelf was not laid down. It was held that "the rights of the coastal State in
respect of the area of continental shelf that constitutes a natural prolongation of its land
territory into and under the sea exist ipso facie and oh initio, by virtue of its sovereignty over
the land, and as an extension of it, as an exercise of sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring the sea-bed and exploiting its natural resources. In short, there is here an inherent
right.'
 This Convention of 1982 has defined the term continental shelf under Para I of Article 76 by
stating that the continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the sea-bed and subsoil of the
submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation
of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200
nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured
where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend upto that distance.
 The definition has laid down one criterion for fixing the limit of the continental shelf, i.e., it
shall extend throughout the natural prolongation of its land territoly to the outer edge of the
continental margin.
 The boundary would be median line if no agreement has been made, i.e., the principle of
equi-distance from the nearest points of the baseline shall apply.
 The International Court of Justice in Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions
between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar and Bahrain)' noted that the equidistance principle
which is applicable in particular to the delimitation of the territorial sea and the equitable
principle with regard to the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic
zone are closely interrelated and therefore a single maritime boundary' should be drawn
which may be described as single multi-functional line. The principle of equi-distance was
also stated earlier by the International Court of Justice in North Sea Continental Shelf case.'
 In the case concerning the Continental Shelf Libya, Arab Uamahiria/Malta) the International
Court of Justice has not only recognized the principle of equi-distance, it also said that
"under existing law, it must be demonstrated that the equi-distance method leads to an
equitable result in the case in question, and equitable result may be arrived at by drawing,
as a first stage in the process, a median line every point of which is equi-distance from the
low-water mark of the relevant coast of Malta and the low-water mark of the relevant coast
of Libya.
 The area of continental shelf cannot be appropriated by the States, and therefore, States
cannot exercise sovereignty over this part of the sea. However, they may exercise sovereign
rights over it for the purposes of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. The natural
resources consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil
together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms
 which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the sea-bed or are unable
to move except in constant physical contact with the sea-bed or the subsoil.
 The area of continental shelf cannot be appropriated by the States, and therefore, States
cannot exercise sovereignty over this part of the sea. However, they may exercise sovereign
rights over it for the purposes of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. The natural
resources consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil
together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms
which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the sea-bed or are unable
to move except in constant physical contact with the sea-bed or the subsoil.

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE : (EEZ)

 The concept of EEZ was initiated by Kenya in 1972 at the Geneva Session of the U.N.
Committee on Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National
Jurisdiction. Later on, the concept of EEZ was thoroughly discussed and considered in
different Sessions of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea. The EEZ finally found place
in the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. Since then, it has become a generally
accepted institution of the law of the sea. In Tunisia v. Libya,' it was stated that the concept
of EEZ can be regarded as a part of customary laws.
 The EEZ is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea extending upto 200 nautical
miles seaward from the coast baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured.' The outer limit of the EEZ shall be shown in the chart of a scale which shall be
given due publicity by the coastal States. It is to be noted that there is a difference between
the EEZ and the continental shelf as far as breadth is concerned. While the breadth of EEZ
shall extend upto 200 nautical miles from the coast line, the breadth of the continental shelf
may extend beyond the limits of EEZ that is, 200 nautical miles. In such cases, the
continental shelf covers the area of EEZ. It follows that there can be a continental shelf
where there is no exclusive economic zone, but there cannot be an exclusive economic zone
without a corresponding continental shelf. Thus, the two institutions—a continental shelf
and exclusive economic zone are linked together in modem law because rights enjoyed by a
State over its continental shelf would also be possessed by it over the sea-bed and subsoil of
any exclusive economic zone which it might proclaim.
 In the EEZ, the coastal States have 'sovereign rights' for the purposes of exploring and
exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, living and non-living resources of
the waters superjacent to the sea-bed and its subsoil.' 'Other activties' for the exploitation
and exploration of the zone, such as production of energy from the water, currents and
winds may also be carried out therein.' The expression 'other activities' is important in the
sense that the coastal State may bring the zone for any other economic uses which may be
discovered in future. Thus, the EEZ is limited to the 'exclusive economic functions'. Coastal
States have jurisdiction' with regard to the establishment and use of the artificial islands,
installations and structures; marine scientific research; and over the protection and
preservation of the marine environment.
  Article 56, Para 2 of the Convention of 1982 clearly lays down that the coastal States shall
give due regard to the rights and duties of other States i exercising their rights in the EEZ.
Rights and duties of other States in the EEZ are provided under Article 58 of the Convention.
All Stales (coastal as well as 'land-locked States) have freedom of navigation and overflight in
the FEZ.' They may lay submarine cables and pipelines.

WATERS OF THE ARCHIPELAGIC STATES :

By the term island is meant "a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by
water which is above water at high tide." The term archipelago applies to the
group of many islands. The Convention of 1982 defines the term archipelago 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.' Further archipelagic
State has been defined as a State constituted wholly by one or more Archipelago
and may include other islands.' Such States consider that the entire area of land
and sea within the perimeter of the islands as the national territory.

HIGH SEAS
 By the term 'high seas' is meant under customary rule of International Law that part of the
sea which are not included in the territorial waters. The rule was formulated in 1609 by
Grotius in his treatise mare liberum by arguing that the sea cannot be owned. According to
him "the sea is one of those things which is not an article of merchandise, and which cannot
become private property." Hence, it follows, to speak strictly, that no part of the sea can be
considered as territory of arty people whatsoever."
 Many scholars of the 18th and 19th century also gave similar theory regarding the
independence of the high seas, which ultimately became a universal principle.
 That meaning of the high seas was transformed into treaty rules in the year 1958 when the
Geneva Convention on High Seas was adopted. Article 1, the Convention defined the term
high seas by stating that 'high seas is that part of the sea that are not included in the
territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State'.
 the regime of the high seas has been considerably changed under the Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 1982 which lays down under Article 86 that all parts of the sea that are not
included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a
 State or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State would constitute high seas. Thus,
the area of the high seas has been substantially reduced under the Convention of 1982.
 Under the customary rule of International Law, high seas were free and open to all States.
'Freedom of the high sea' was a well recognized principle which means that the high seas
being common to all States, no State may purport to subject any part of them to its
territorial sovereignty. Since, the open sea is not the territory of any State, no State as a rule
has a right to exercise its legislation, administration, jurisdiction or police over parts of the
high seas.
 The freedom of high seas may he exercised by Stales. However, the
above basic rule is subject to certain restrictions and limitations which of
course is f a complex nature. Convention of 1982 under Article 87(2) lays
clown the limitation of the general nature on the freedom of the high seas
by stating that the freedom of the high seas "shall be exercised with due
regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of
the high seas." The principle underlying this rule states that the exercise
of one freedom by one State has to be acconunodated with the exercise of
the freedom of the sea by other States. No preferences are given and the
co-existence of the various activities has to be sought through the
necessary accommodation. In addition to this general limitation following
are the other limitations on the right to exercise the freedom of the seas
:—
 (1) Freedom of Fishing :—All States have freedom of fishing on the high
seas but Article 117 of the Convention of 1982 lays down that all States
have the duty to take, or to cooperate with other States in taking, such
measures for the conservation of living resources of the high seas.
 (2) Freedom of Navigation :—Every State-coastal as well as land-locked
have freedom of navigation in the high seas but they have certain
obligations to perform while exercising the freedom of navigation. Article
94 of the Convention of 1982 sets a group of substantive minimum
requirements with which all States must comply as regards safety of
navigation especially as regards construction, equipment, sea worthyness
and manning of ships, labour conditions on board, the use of rights,
maintenance of communications and avoidance of collisions.
 (3) Freedom of Scientific Research :—States have freedom to carry on
scientific research. However, Article 261 of the Convention of 1982
appears to give preference to the exercise of freedom of navigation over
the freedom of scientific research, though only as regards deployment of
scientific installations
  (4) and equipment in established international shipping routes. Non-
interference with the Warships :—Convention of 1982 under Article 95
lays down that warships on the high seas have complete immunity from
the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Thus, the exercise
of the freedom of the high seas through those ships cannot be interfered
with by other States. In other words, other States have a duty not to
interfere with the freedom of warships. Some forms of interference are
specified and regulated in International Law. For instance, the right of
visit, as provided under Article 110 of the Convention of 1982, which
consists in the right to board a ship when there is a reasonable ground for
suspicion that the ship is engaged in piracy; the ship is engaged in slave
trade; the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting; the ship is
without nationality; or though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show
 (5) its flag, the ship is, in reality of the same nationality as the warship.
Activities in the Area :—Activities in the Area are conducted on behalf of
mankind and therefore they are given preference over high seas freedom.
Article 87 Para 2 of the Convention of 1982 lays down that freedoms
shall be exercised by all States,...with due regard for the rights under the
Convention with respect to activities in the area. Thus, States have to
accommodate themselves.

International Sea-bed Area :

The term 'Area' has been defined under Para 1(1) of Article 1 of the Convention
which says that 'Area means the sea-bed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction'. Since the jurisdiction of the State
extends to the limit of the continental shelf, that part has been excluded from the
'Area'. Area, therefore, would be beyond the limit of the continental shelf of the
coastal States. Legal status of the Area has been expressly laid down in the
Convention under Article 137 which says that 'no State shall claim or exercise
sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor
shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof. If any
claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights is made, it shall not be
recognized. The Convention under Article 137 Para 2 further says that "all
rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose
behalf the Authority shall act'. These resources are not subject to alienation:
However, it may be alienated in accordance with this Part and the rules,
regulations procedures made by the International Sea-Bed Authority.