“The concept of economic zone is probably the most dramatic development that has taken place under the law of the sea in the recent times”-Illustrate & Explain
Introduction
As soon as ocean-going ships were developed, the seas became a battleground, or a route to a battleground. Countries also began to claim ownership or control of oceans nearby. But it became clear that if the seas could be claimed in the same way as land territory, there was an increased potential for competition and conflict between countries. To reduce that risk, the legal concept of ‘freedom of the seas’ was developed in the early 17th century. The underlying philosophy was that the oceans were an infinite resource, and that anyone could exploit them, or uses them for travel and transport. This became generally accepted for waters outside a ‘territorial’ sea of about 3 nautical miles from land.
International law based on freedom of the seas remained largely unchanged and unchallenged until the middle of the 20th century. But by then, many states with sea coasts realized that the relatively few countries with large naval, merchant or fishing fleets could engage in threatening or dangerous activities. They could also exploit fisheries or mineral resources such as oil, at great distances from their own shores and close to the coasts of other countries. Economic zone is a sea zone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources. The law of the sea sprung up namely because of the need of the 3rd world countries to try and protect their natural resources of the sea may they be living or mineral. However, the establishment of Exclusive Economic Zones (henceforth referred to as EEZ) of 200 nautical miles has instead led to a decline of sea areas which had traditionally belonged to the high seas. It resulted in the transfer of property rights for 90% of the world’s then active fisheries to coastal States, many of whom were developing island States.
New laws of the sea which have come up in the past few decades have had some very crucial consequences such as wealth redistribution, and more so for those countries who are not bordering areas rich in minerals and living resources. These mechanisms of trying to have a jurisdiction over the seas can be seen as long ago as 1958 in the Convention on the Continental Shelf which had an exploitability criterion enshrined in it.
The freedom of the seas need safeguarding as it contributes to the free movement in the high seas, for both commercial and military purposes leading to lesser chances of military confrontations. Old rules need amending and new rules need to be framed to work out the passage in the new national jurisdictions. The new resource oriented international law of the sea needs has clear implications for the strategic military field, e.g. the leading military powers need room for operations and maneuvers in the sea
What is economic zone?
Law of the Sea, branch of international law concerned with public order at sea. Much of this law is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed Dec. 10, 1982. The convention, described as a “constitution for the oceans,” represents an attempt to codify international law regarding territorial waters, sea-lanes, and ocean resources. It came into force in 1994 after it had been ratified by the requisite 60 countries; by the early 21st century the convention had been ratified by more than 150 countries. The concept of economic zone is also prescribed by the united nation convention under the law of the sea. An economic zone or exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a point extending 200 nautical miles (370 km.) from a country’s low water mark, which is a point on the shoreline that may not necessarily coincide with a low tide. In this zone, the proprietary country has exclusive rights to explore, exploit, and protect the assets of the sea within that area. The exclusive economic zone, for example, makes clear that a country can drill and sell oil, or the rights to oil, within that defined area. This zone is an extension of territorial waters and the contiguous zone.
The Law of the Sea Convention in 1982 set up the current rule for the exclusive economic zone. Although established in the early 1980s, the convention did not go into effect until 1994. Since that time, the zones have been in effect for all coastal nations. In some cases, countries or jurisdictions without a coast may also have access to some EEZ areas.
Historical background
The expressions “patrimonial sea”, “economic zone” or “exclusive economic zone” were first used in the early 1970s in regional meetings and organizations in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa.[1] The claim for 200-mile offshore sovereignty made by Peru, Chile and Ecuador in the late 1940s and early 1950s was sparked by their desire to protect from foreign fishermen the rich waters of the Humboldt Current (more or less coinciding with the 200-mile offshore belt. This limit was incorporated in the Santiago Declaration of 1952 and reaffirmed by other Latin American States joining the three in the Montevideo and Lima Declarations of 1970. The idea of sovereignty over coastal-area resources continued to gain ground.
The economic zone was established on the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. The first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) was held on 1952 at Geneva, Switzerland and the second one (UNCLOS II) also held on same place on 1960.
The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in New York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The resulting convention came into force on November 16, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state, Guyana, ratified the treaty. In this convention most of the issues were brought in and covered like economic zone.
The most dramatic development
The economic zone is one of the most dramatic developments and consists a lot of disputes with it. The concept of the exclusive economic zone is one of the most important pillars of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. The regime of the exclusive economic zone is perhaps the most complex and multifaceted in the whole Convention. The accommodation of diverse issues contributed substantially to the acceptance of the concept and to the Convention as a whole. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is often referred to as a package. The metaphor is derived from a decision made during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that the Convention would be adopted in toto, as a “package deal”. No single issue would be adopted until all issues were settled. This decision provided an essential mechanism for reconciling the varied interests of the states participating in the Conference. If a state’s interests in one issue were not fully satisfied, it could look at the whole package and find other issues where its interests were more fully represented, thereby mitigating the effects of the first. Thus, the Convention became an elaborately-constructed document built on trade-offs, large and small.
Disputes over the exact extent of Exclusive Economic Zones are a common source of conflict between states over marine waters.
· One well-known example of such a dispute is the Cod Wars between the United Kingdom and Iceland.
· The South China Sea (and the Spratly Islands) is the site of an ongoing dispute between several neighboring nations.
· Norway and Russia dispute both territorial sea and EEZ with regard to the Svalbard archipelago as it affects Russia’s EEZ due to its unique treaty status. A treaty was agreed in principle in April 2010 between the two states and subsequently ratified, resolving this demarcation dispute. The agreement was signed in Murmansk on September 15, 2010.[2]
· The dispute over Rockall is mainly due to its effect on EEZ, not on its resources or strategic benefits.
· The South China Sea (and the Spratly Islands) is the site of an ongoing dispute between several neighboring nations.
· Croatia’s ZERP (Ecological and Fisheries Protection Zone) in the Adriatic Sea caused friction with Italy and Slovenia, and cause problems during Croatia’s accession to the European Union.
· A wedge-shaped section of the Beaufort Sea is disputed between Canada and the United States, as the area reportedly contains substantial oil reserves.
· France claims a portion of Canada’s EEZ for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon based on a new definition of the continental shelf and EEZ between the two countries. Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is entirely surrounded by Canada’s EEZ.
· Mauritius claims EEZ for Tromelin from France and EEZ for British Indian Ocean Territory from the UK.
· Northern Cyprus claims a portion of Cyprus’ EEZ overlaps with that of Northern Cyprus in the south/southeastern part of the Cyprus Island.
· Cyprus claims a portion of Turkey’s EEZ overlaps with its own EEZ.
Regions where a permanent ice shelf extends beyond the coastline are also a source of potential dispute.
In some ways, the law of the sea has always had a tension between states supporting the doctrine of an open sea (mare liberum) and states that seek control over a more closed sea (mare clausum). This struggle has been continuous throughout the evolution of the law of the sea and many UNCLOS provisions reflect this balance between coastal state and maritime state interests.
UNCLOS provides for different maritime zones with varying substantive regimes. For instance, the coastal state has sovereignty over the territorial sea, which extends up to 12 nm from the baseline. Foreign warships must follow the conditions of Article 19 for ‘innocent passage’ if they are to navigate through the territorial seas of a coastal state. Article 25 permits the coastal state to protect itself and ‘take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.’ On the other hand, all states equally enjoy the freedom of navigation and over flight in the high seas, an area beyond national jurisdiction. Situated between these two substantive regimes is the EEZ, which is arguably the most complicated of the maritime zones in terms of regulation and enforcement.
The concept of an EEZ developed early in the course of negotiations during the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). Asian and African states adopted the 1972 Addis Ababa Declaration recognizing the right of a coastal state to establish an EEZ up to 200 nm in which ‘the coastal state would exercise permanent sovereignty over all resources without unduly hampering other legitimate uses of the sea, including freedom of navigation, of over flight and laying cables and pipelines.’ During UNCLOS III, there was considerable debate regarding the EEZ’s legal status. Maritime powers maintained that the EEZ should have the traditional freedoms of the high seas, while coastal states argued for more rights and control over the zone.30 the result is an EEZ that is a compromise between the varying positions.
UNCLOS Article 56 establishes the substantive regime of the EEZ. This maritime zone begins where the territorial sea ends and is to extend no more than 200 nm from the baseline. The coastal state has the sovereign rights for the economic exploitation and exploration of all resources in the EEZ, including, for instance, energy production. The coastal state also has jurisdiction over artificial islands and installations, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. In its regulation of the EEZ, the coastal state is obliged to give ‘due regard’ to the rights and duties of other states and must act in a ‘manner compatible’ with the Convention. It is important to note that ‘sovereign rights’ does not mean sovereignty. Other states enjoy freedoms in the EEZ similar to those of the high seas, such as navigation and over flight. Article 58 outlines the rights and duties of other states in the EEZ and mandates a similar obligation upon maritime states to have ‘due regard’ to the rights and duties of the coastal state. Thus, articles 56 and 58 strike a balance between the interests of the coastal states, and the right to the freedom of navigation of all other states. The cross-reference to Articles 88 to 115 in Article 58 applies certain high seas provisions to the EEZ, so long as they are compatible with this regime. Therefore, Article 58(2) envisions that other states may need to engage in certain non-economic, high-seas activities in the EEZ, such as hot pursuit, counter-piracy efforts, assistance and rescue missions, and the suppression of drug trafficking.[3]
Conclusion
International law provides a framework within which the states have to act. It must always be able to provide solutions for problems between states and normative solutions for relations between countries. The law of the sea sprung up namely because of the need of the 3rd world countries to try and protect their natural resources of the sea may they be living or mineral. However, the establishment of Exclusive Economic Zones (henceforth referred to as EEZ) of 200 nautical miles has instead led to a decline of sea areas which had traditionally belonged to the high seas.
References
1. “Part V – Exclusive Economic Zone, Article 56”. Law of the Sea. United Nations. Retrieved
2. from: <href=”#ixzz2NdZXkUUN”>http://www.answers.com/topic/exclusive-economic-zone-1#ixzz2NdZXkUUN
3. Law of sea Retrieved from <href=”#ref913546″>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/530433/Law-of-the-Sea#ref913546
4. Tatjana, R. ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ (August 26, 2008) available from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Exclusive_economic_zone_%28EEZ%29
5. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Available from http://www.answers.com/topic/united-nations-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea
6. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1998) available from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm
7. THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE available from <href=”#TopOfPage”>http://www.fao.org/docrep/s5280T/s5280t0p.htm#TopOfPage
8. Russia and Norway Reach Accord on Barents Sea, (28 April 2010) New York Times, available from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/europe/28norway.html
9. Harding, L. ‘Russia and Norway resolve Arctic border dispute’ (15 September 2010 ), Moscow available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/russia-norway-arctic-border-dispute
10. The Washington Institute available from http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/gas-partnership-netanyahu-visits-cyprus
11. Galdoresi, GV & Kaufman, AG ‘Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Preventing Uncertainty and Defusing Conflict’ (2001) 32 Cal W Int’l LJ 253, 254
12. Mahmoudi, S. ‘Foreign Military Activities in the Swedish Economic Zone’ (1996), 11 Int’l J Marine and Coastal L 365, 366.
13. CE Pirtle, ‘Military Uses of Ocean Space and the Law of the Sea in the New Millennium’ (2000) 31 Ocean Dev and Int’l L 7, 11.
14. Dyke, V. JM. ‘Military ships and planes operating in the exclusive economic zone of another country’ (2004) 28 Marine Policy 29, 36.
15. Rothwell DR. & Stephens, T. “The International Law of the Sea” (Hart Publishing, Portland 2010) 428.
16. MacKay, D. ‘Law of the Sea – and the Continental Shelf.’ Address to the 1996 New Zealand Petroleum Conference, 11 March 1996. New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade Record 4, no. 11 (May 1996): 4–7.
17. Beeby, C. ‘The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: a New Zealand view.’ Pacific Viewpoint 16, no. 2 (September 1975): 113–142.
[1] Tatjana, R. ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ (August 26, 2008) available from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Exclusive_economic_zone_%28EEZ%29 [Accessed 15 March 2013]
[2] Harding, L. ‘Russia and Norway resolve Arctic border dispute’ (15 September 2010 ), Moscow available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/russia-norway-arctic-border-dispute
[3] Dyke, V. JM. ‘Military ships and planes operating in the exclusive economic zone of another country’ (2004) 28 Marine Policy 29, 36.