Right of States in Exclusive
Economic Zone : A Special
Right Over The Sea
• OBJECTIVES:
• To understand the meaning and nature of the EEZ in detail.
• To understand the difference between the continental shelf and EEZ.
• To analysed the dispute settlement provisions of UNCLOS.
KEY ELEMENTS IN THE EEZ REGIME
• Specific Legal Regime
• Rights of a coastal states in the EEZ
• Rights and Duties of the other states in the EEZ.( Art 58)
MEANING & DEFINITION OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
• MEANING & DEFINITION OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
• The EEZ was a significant innovation of UNCLOS developed at the year of 1974 to
1982. This new arena of sea, extending from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a
distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines. It largely comprises over 35% of the
Ocean Space. Prior to UNCLOS, the Concept of Exclusive Fishing Zone, developed in
line up with continental shelf and many Latin American States and African States put
forth claim to extent the territorial sea and fishing zones, with the former calling for
the ''patrimonial sea'' up to 200nm.
• This space is subjected to a sui genesis legal regime in which the coastal state
claims or exercises the sovereign right for the conservation and management of the
living and non living resources of the zone, exploration and exploitation, and other
activity such as production of energy from water, currents and winds, the coastal state
can exercise right and have exclusive jurisdiction over the activities in the EEZ.”
Coastal state have exclusive jurisdiction and control of the natural resources of
the sea bed, subsoil and superadjacent waters adjacent to its coast to a
maximum up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth
of the territorial sea is measured.
Under the 1982 Convention, each coastal state is entitled to
• Claim a territorial sea.
• Contiguous Zone and maximum permissible breadths within 12 to 24 nm.
• Claim an exclusive economic zone beyond adjacent to the territorial waters
permissible limits of 200nm from the baselines. From the baselines, breadth
of the territorial sea is measured or 188 m from the outer limit of the 12 m
territorial sea.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EEZ AND
CONTINENTAL SHELF
• The EEZ is optional, whereas rights to explore and exploit the resources of the shelf inhere in the coastal
state by operation of law. Thus several states of the Mediterranean have shelf rights unmatched by an EEZ
(Which is less relevant in semi- enclosed seas in any case)
• Shelf rights exist beyond the limit of 200 nm from the pertinent coasts when the continental shelf and
margin extend beyond the limit . Consequently, within the UNCLOS regime the rights of the International
Sea - Bed Authority must be reconciled with those of the coastal state.
• The EEZ regime involves the water column and consequently it resources are subject to the rules about the
sharing the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ with other states and in particular with the land locked
and geographically disadvantages states of the same region or sub region (UNCLOS Art 62,68,69,70 and 71).
• The EEZ regime confers upon the coastal state a substantial jurisdiction over pollution by ships, and also
greater control in respect of marine scientific research.
In case of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta, although the institution of the continental shelf and the EEZ are
different and distinct, the right which the exclusive economic zone entails over the sea bed of the Zone are
defined by reference to the regime laid down for the continental shelf. Although there can be a continental
shelf where there is no EEZ, there cannot be an EEZ without a corresponding continental shelf.
UNATTRIBUTED RIGHTS AND JURISDICTION IN THE EEZ. ( ART 59)
• There may be rights or jurisdiction in the EEZ attributed to neither the coastal
state or other states in the EEZ.
• It reinforces sui generis nature of the EEZ regime. If there are rights that are not
covered by the rights of either the coastal state or the rights of the other states ,
there is no presumption in favour of either the coastal states or other states.
• The article does not refer to any specific procedures for resolutions of the
Conflict , however, it has been suggested that it includes both negotiations as well
as recourse to the dispute settlement procedures in Part XV.
• The coastal state has the power to take all reasonable measures of enforcement
of its rights and jurisdiction within the zone in accordance with the standards of
General International Law and UNCLOS itself (Art 73).
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS IN RELATION WITH UNATTRIBUTED
RIGHTS
In the Part XV of the UNCLOS, there are certain comprehensive provisions concerning disputer resolutions.
Art 297 (1) provides that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of UNCLOS
with regard to the exercise by a coastal state of its Sovereign rights or jurisdiction shall be subject to the
compulsory binding dispute settlement system in the Section 2 of Part XV in the Following cases.
• when it is alleged that the coastal state has acted in contravention of the provisions of the convention
with regard to the freedoms and rights of the other state in the EEZ as set out in Art 58(1)
• When it is alleged that another state, when exercising its rights under Art 58(1) has acted in
contravention of the convention or in contravention of law
It is to be noted that the dispute concerning the interpretation or application of Art 58 will be subject to
system of compulsory binding dispute settlement in S.2 of part XV. It also specifically provides that the
coastal states can challenge the actions of the maritime powers, if they contravene the provisions of the
convention or laws and regulations of the coastal state adopted in conformity with the convention. Art 297
(2) and 297 (3) imposes the limits on the system of compulsory binding dispute settlement in S.2 of Part XV
of UNCLOS. It can be infer that it is very difficult to challenge the discretionary decisions of the coastal state
with respect to maritime research and utilization of fisheries and other activities in the EEZ.”
CONCLUSION
The coastal state have to exercise their '' Due regard obligations '' in good faith in order to resolve
the conflict and controversies arisen between the activities of the coastal states. Coastal states
should not pass any law which may not have jurisdiction under the UNCLOS, which infringes the
freedom of other states in EEZ. The User state should not unilaterally exercise their rights or freedom
in the EEZ when such acts may infringe the rights and duties of the other coastal state in its EEZ. The
Interpretation or application of UNCLOS including Art 56,58,59. would be subject to compulsory
binding dispute settlement system. But most of the states does not wanted to unilaterally invoke the
dispute because it was costly, a state may feel that it does not have enough stake. It may sometimes
regarded as unfriendly act and it should not have negative impact on the relations of the other states.
Since US is not party to UNCLOS, the dispute settlement system cannot be provoked against it. Most
of the major powers, including china have made declarations under the Art 298 to resolve the dispute
concerning with the military activities. There is possibility of the concerned state to seek an advisory
opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). There is no express provisions
in UNCLOS as well as Statue of ITLOS speaks about the same. It is necessary for the state to make
greater use of dispute settlement mechanism prescribed by UNCLOS.
