Maritime zones under UNCLOS "EMPOWER IAS"

Maritime zones under UNCLOS

In news:

The explains the implications of a recent incident in which the US 7th fleet asserted navigation freedom and rights inside India’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Freedom of navigation operation in India’s EEZ

The US 7th fleet recently declared that on 7th April, 2021 USS John Paul Jones asserted navigational rights and freedom inside India’s EEZ, without requesting India’s prior consent.
The statement also said that “India requires prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its EEZ, a claim inconsistent with international law.

Baseline:

It is the low-water line along the coast as officially recognized by the coastal state.

Internal Waters:

Internal waters are waters on the landward side of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
Each coastal state has full sovereignty over its internal waters as like its land territory. Examples of internal waters include bays, ports, inlets, rivers and even lakes that are connected to the sea.
There is no right of innocent passage through internal waters.
The innocent passage refers to the passing through the waters which are not prejudicial to peace and security. However, the nations have the right to suspend the same.

Territorial Sea:

The territorial sea extends seaward up to 12 nautical miles (nm) from its baselines.
A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the earth and is equal to one minute of latitude. It is slightly more than a land measured mile (1 nautical mile = 1.1508 land miles or 1.85 km).
The coastal states have sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territorial sea. These rights extend not only on the surface but also to the seabed, subsoil, and even airspace.
But the coastal states’ rights are limited by the innocent passage through the territorial sea.

Contiguous Zone:

The contiguous zone extends seaward up to 24 nm from its baselines.
It is an intermediary zone between the territorial sea and the high seas.
The coastal state has the right to both prevent and punish infringement of fiscal, immigration, sanitary, and customs laws within its territory and territorial sea.
Unlike the territorial sea, the contiguous zone only gives jurisdiction to a state on the ocean’s surface and floor. It does not provide air and space rights.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):

- Each coastal State may claim an EEZ beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea that extends seaward up to 200 nm from its baselines.
- Within its EEZ, a coastal state has:
  - Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil.
  - Rights to carry out activities like the production of energy from the water, currents and wind.
- Unlike the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, the EEZ only allows for the above-mentioned resource rights. It does not give a coastal state the right to prohibit or limit freedom of navigation or overflight, subject to very limited exceptions.

High Seas:

The ocean surface and the water column beyond the EEZ are referred to as the high seas.
It is considered as “the common heritage of all mankind” and is beyond any national jurisdiction.
States can conduct activities in these areas as long as they are for peaceful purposes, such as transit, marine science, and undersea exploration.

Contiguous zone:

The area of the 12 Nautical miles beyond the territorial waters baseline is called Contiguous zone. According to the convention, beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone. The countries that coming within the ambit of this zone can enforce laws only in four areas, i.e. Pollution, taxation, customs and immigration.

Which international law the statement referred to?

The “international law” being cited by Commander 7th Fleet is a UN Convention which resulted from the third UN Conference on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS 1982).
India has ratified the Convention, which came into force in 1994.
However, amongst the 168 nations who have either acceded to or ratified UNCLOS 1982, the US is conspicuous by its absence.

Issues with the UNCLOS 1982

The signatories UNCLOS 1982 have chosen to remain silent on controversial issues with military or security implications and mandated no process for resolution of ambiguities.
Resort to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or a Court of Arbitration are amongst the options available.
However, many states have expressed a preference for “negotiating in good faith”.
The time has, perhaps, come for signatories of UNCLOS 1982 to convene another conference to review laws and resolve issues of contention.

Why US refused to ratify UNCLOS

It was accepted that the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction was not subject to national sovereignty but would be “the common heritage of mankind” .
This seems to have been at the root of the US opposition to UNCLOS.
It was felt in the US that this concept favoured the under-developed countries thereby denying America the fruits of its technological superiority.
The US Senate, therefore, refused to ratify UNCLOS.
Amongst the areas of major contention or sharp divergence in the interpretation of rules are:
Applicability of the EEZ concept to rocks and islets.
The right of innocent passage for foreign warships through territorial seas.
Conduct of naval activities in the EEZ and the pursuit of marine scientific research in territorial waters and EEZ.

Containing China

China has insulated itself against US intervention, through the progressive development of its “anti-access, area-denial” or A2AD capability.
China has accelerated its campaign to achieve control of the South China Sea (SCS).
In 2013, China commenced on an intense campaign to build artificial islands in the SCS on top of reefs in the Spratly and Paracel groups.
In 2016, China disdainfully rejected the verdict of the UN Court of Arbitration in its dispute with the Philippines.
So far, none of the US initiatives including Obama’s abortive US Pivot/Re-balance to Asia, Trump’s Indo-Pacific Strategy and Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, seem to have had the slightest impact on China’s aggressive intent
Therefore, it seems pointless for the US Navy to frighten the Maldives or friendly India and it needs to focus on China instead.

Related Posts