The document summarizes the history of maritime law and disputes over fishing rights and territorial waters. It discusses the Cod Wars between Iceland and the UK in the 1970s, where Iceland unilaterally expanded its fishing zone, leading to confrontations between Icelandic and British vessels. The disputes highlighted the need for an international agreement on maritime boundaries and rights. The document also examines ongoing territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas involving China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and other countries. These disputes are fueled by competition for oil and gas resources and have increased tensions, though organizations like ASEAN have tried to promote peaceful resolutions.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
The fundamental focus of maritime strategy centres on the control of human activity at sea. There is the effort to establish control for oneself or to deny it to an enemy and there is the effort to use the control that one has in order to achieve specific ends. The security of Sri Lanka derives from a combination of factors, including the maintenance of a highly competent naval force equipped with advanced technology and structured for unique geostrategic environment. Sri Lanka is now in the midst of a transition from a focus on internal security to an external security. The maritime strategy should be as much as it has to deal with the linkage between national strategic interests of the country. This may be the most appropriate time for Sri Lanka to re-appreciate our national interests and to derive National and Military objectives based on those interests.
The Legal Regime of Continental Shelf under the UNCLOS 1982S M Masum Billah
The lecture defines the concept of continental shelf, describes t he nature of rights and duties of the states upon it, then it discusses how any dispute relating to the claim over the continental shelf be resolved with reference to decided cases by the ICJ, ITLOS an Arbitral bodies.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
The fundamental focus of maritime strategy centres on the control of human activity at sea. There is the effort to establish control for oneself or to deny it to an enemy and there is the effort to use the control that one has in order to achieve specific ends. The security of Sri Lanka derives from a combination of factors, including the maintenance of a highly competent naval force equipped with advanced technology and structured for unique geostrategic environment. Sri Lanka is now in the midst of a transition from a focus on internal security to an external security. The maritime strategy should be as much as it has to deal with the linkage between national strategic interests of the country. This may be the most appropriate time for Sri Lanka to re-appreciate our national interests and to derive National and Military objectives based on those interests.
The Legal Regime of Continental Shelf under the UNCLOS 1982S M Masum Billah
The lecture defines the concept of continental shelf, describes t he nature of rights and duties of the states upon it, then it discusses how any dispute relating to the claim over the continental shelf be resolved with reference to decided cases by the ICJ, ITLOS an Arbitral bodies.
Students will work individually or in groups. Fact-check the answers by looking up and citing reliable sources that reveal historical information that is often hidden on the topic of Communist subversion of the United States and the U.N.
“We are now physically, politically, and economically one world and nations so interdependent that the absolute national sovereignty of nations is no longer possible.”
--- Sir John Boyd Orr
“National sovereignty is an obligation as well as an entitlement. A government that will not perform the role of a government forfeits the rights of a government.”
--- Richard Norman Perle
“Relinquishing apparent national sovereignty does not have to entail a loss of national sovereignty, but can actually be a benefit.”
--- Dr. Ulrich Beck
Diplomacy and diplomatic event b/w pak & indafakharsargaana
what is diplomacy , its types and one diplomatic event between pakistan and india ( indus water treaty ),,,,, Comsats institute of information technology lahore... Chemical Engineers.
The presentation sketches the development of the law of the sea from the days of Hugo Grotius to 1982-- when the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention was adopted.
The oceans had long been subject to the freedom of-the-seas doctrine - a principle put forth in the seventeenth century essentially limiting national rights and jurisdiction over the oceans to a narrow belt of sea surrounding a nation's coastline. The remainder of the seas was proclaimed to be free to all and belonging to none. While this situation prevailed into the twentieth century, by mid-century there was an impetus to extend national claims over offshore resources. There was growing concern over the toll taken on coastal fish stocks by long-distance fishing fleets and over the threat of pollution and wastes from transport ships and oil tankers carrying noxious cargoes that plied sea routes across the globe. The hazard of pollution was ever present, threatening coastal resorts and all forms of ocean life. The navies of the maritime powers were competing to maintain a presence across the globe on the surface waters and even under the sea……..
The oceans were generating a multitude of claims, counterclaims and sovereignty disputes.
The hope was for a more stable order, promoting greater use and better management of ocean resources and generating harmony and goodwill among States that would no longer have to eye each other suspiciously over conflicting claims……
On 1 November 1967, Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the world to look around them and open their eyes to a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans, the lifeline of man's very survival……..
The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva, representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained and traded national rights and obligations in the course of the marathon negotiations that produced the Convention.
Students will work individually or in groups. Fact-check the answers by looking up and citing reliable sources that reveal historical information that is often hidden on the topic of Communist subversion of the United States and the U.N.
“We are now physically, politically, and economically one world and nations so interdependent that the absolute national sovereignty of nations is no longer possible.”
--- Sir John Boyd Orr
“National sovereignty is an obligation as well as an entitlement. A government that will not perform the role of a government forfeits the rights of a government.”
--- Richard Norman Perle
“Relinquishing apparent national sovereignty does not have to entail a loss of national sovereignty, but can actually be a benefit.”
--- Dr. Ulrich Beck
Diplomacy and diplomatic event b/w pak & indafakharsargaana
what is diplomacy , its types and one diplomatic event between pakistan and india ( indus water treaty ),,,,, Comsats institute of information technology lahore... Chemical Engineers.
The presentation sketches the development of the law of the sea from the days of Hugo Grotius to 1982-- when the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention was adopted.
The oceans had long been subject to the freedom of-the-seas doctrine - a principle put forth in the seventeenth century essentially limiting national rights and jurisdiction over the oceans to a narrow belt of sea surrounding a nation's coastline. The remainder of the seas was proclaimed to be free to all and belonging to none. While this situation prevailed into the twentieth century, by mid-century there was an impetus to extend national claims over offshore resources. There was growing concern over the toll taken on coastal fish stocks by long-distance fishing fleets and over the threat of pollution and wastes from transport ships and oil tankers carrying noxious cargoes that plied sea routes across the globe. The hazard of pollution was ever present, threatening coastal resorts and all forms of ocean life. The navies of the maritime powers were competing to maintain a presence across the globe on the surface waters and even under the sea……..
The oceans were generating a multitude of claims, counterclaims and sovereignty disputes.
The hope was for a more stable order, promoting greater use and better management of ocean resources and generating harmony and goodwill among States that would no longer have to eye each other suspiciously over conflicting claims……
On 1 November 1967, Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the world to look around them and open their eyes to a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans, the lifeline of man's very survival……..
The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva, representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained and traded national rights and obligations in the course of the marathon negotiations that produced the Convention.
Exclusive Economic Zone and Sustainable Ocean.pptxS M Masum Billah
The lecture focuses on the regime of the exclusive economic zone under the UNCLOS and discusses its various uses and implications for sustainable ocean management by referring to case laws.
1. Topic 1: Maritime Conflicts
By Neal Young
A Brief History of Maritime Law
Members of the international community have been attempting to codify maritime law since the
creation of Lex Rhodia by the Byzantines in the 7th century.[10] Their original aims were to
regulate the actions of individuals, especially in regards to property. States, on the other hand,
were left with a free hand to act as they pleased. The maxim ‘might makes right’ applied as legality
was primarily determined by strength.[11] During this time customary maritime law was formed
based upon common practice, but there was no set punishment for violators and many areas of
contention, such as boundaries, were not resolved.
Nearly 1300 years later, with the start of the industrial age, demand for finite resources
skyrocketed.[12] The demand for resources increased competition between countries for
economic, strategic, and social reasons and exacerbated preexisting tensions. Common sources of
contention revolved around territorial sea claims and economic rights within those areas.
Ironically, a fight over cod would eventually push the international community into taking action.
Cod Wars: A Case Study
In 1971, Iceland found itself in a difficult situation. Centuries of overfishing by European
countries had severely depleted the cod population and, with the introduction of larger, high-tech
trawlers by British fishermen, it was only a matter of time before it completely collapsed.[13]
Iceland’s economy relied heavily on this natural resource, but in order to save it Iceland would
have to rewrite the law of the sea.
Based on customary law originating from the 17th century, a country’s territorial sea (an area over
which a state exercised complete control) extended 3 nautical miles (nm) from shore. This was
based on the so-called ‘cannon-shot rule’ stemming from the practical idea that a country was
sovereign over territory that could be easily defended from land by force. The problem was that
the best fishing grounds were much farther away and the British had no desire to hand them over.
[14]
Iceland had won previous concessions from the United Kingdom (U.K.) amounting to 12 nm, and
it now unilaterally expand its economic zone to include fisheries located 50 nm from shore. British
trawlers ignored demands by the Icelandic Coast Guard to leave this area and were subsequently
rammed by navy cutters. Knowing the impact loss of these grounds could have on their own
economy, the UK sent frigates of the Royal Navy to defend the trawlers.[15] No shots would be
fired, but rammings were frequent and the countries seemed at the verge of all-out war.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance agreed to the mutual
defense of its members, but that was only true in case of an external attack. Ironically, Iceland and
the U.K. were both a part of the alliance. Iceland, therefore, could not find protection from what it
deemed to be British aggression and was now threatening to leave and strengthen ties with the
Soviet Union. With this in mind, NATO members pressured the U.K. into accepting Iceland’s 50
2. nm Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in return for the right to catch 130,000 tons of cod each year.
[16]
Just a few years removed from the 50 nm dispute, Iceland would increase its demands to 200 nm.
Fortunately, this time around, international law was on its side. A short, though intense, conflict
did occur, but knowledge of similar provisions in the soon to be ratified United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convinced the U.K. that resistance was futile. It
was the hope that other countries would similarly submitted to UNCLOS provisions and conflict
would be avoided.
Statement of the Problem
At the end of World War II large amounts of cheap energy were made available by new
discoveries and advances in technology. Massive oil fields, such as Ghawar, were reliable, long
lasting, and had low production costs.[17] Finds of this nature led to a new industrial age that
made globalization possible by making power portable and transportation of goods across the
globe feasible.[18] Unfortunately, these ‘conventional’ reserves have ‘peaked’ as their output
steadily decreases by as much as 9% a year.[19]
Our modern economy became heavily reliant on fossil fuels during the 20th century and, though
gaining traction, green technology has not yet replaced it. To make up for declining output and
meet the ever increasing appetite for oil, countries must turn to ‘unconventional’ sources that were
previously too remote or costly to produce. Some of the largest untapped fields of this type are
located in Arctic waters and semi-enclosed seas around China. The former contains up to 22% of
the world’s undiscovered reserves[20] while the latter is estimated to have up to 750 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas and 285 billion barrels of oil.[21] [22]
Of particular concern to this council is that both of these regions are riddled with territorial
disputes that, because the rise of competition for energy reserves, are having a destabilizing effect.
Many of the countries involved see control of these resources as political, strategic, economic, and
social necessities and have taken steps to assert their willingness to defend them. With energy
consumption expected to rise 56% by 2040, it is likely that disputes left unresolved by this council
will become increasingly contentious. [23]
Contradictions and the Law of the Sea
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), commonly referred to as “Law
of the Sea,” is a massive treaty regulating the use and claims of the world’s oceans.[24] There are
167 parties to the convention including both coastal and landlocked states. It should also be kept
in mind that, given the treaties basis on customary law and the power of international norms, any
country may find themselves obligated to follow the principles codified in UNCLOS (that means
you, U.S. & Venezuela!).
Law of Sea, though quite an incredible document, does have its problems. One of the major
problems results from alternative methods for determining a country’s maritime boundaries. As
mentioned previously, all coastal countries have territorial right above and below waters within 12
nm of their coast and exclusive economic rights to resources up to 200 nm away. A lucky few,
3. however, may additionally claim rights to seabed resources (e.g. oil, ground fish, nodules) up to
350 nm from shore based on their continental shelf.[25] It should be noted that waters and sea
beds that do not fall under any country’s sovereignty are known as the “High Seas” and the “Area.”
These are considered property of all mankind and are open to use by all nations.
A continental shelf is described in the treaty as the “submerged prolongation of the land mass of
the coastal State . . . [that] does not include the deep ocean floor.”[26] Determining a continental
shelf is a technical process that can only be verified through the submission of all necessary data
to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). Rulings by the committee are
binding but must be initiated by the coastal state in question.
Contradictions occurring when a country's EEZ or continental shelf claim conflicts with that of
another are supposed to “be resolved on the basis of equity,” but does not demand arbitration.[27]
This means that even though the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (Tribunal) can
adjudicate disputes, it only has the power to do so if all countries involved request that it does.[28]
Threats to Regional Peace and Security
South and East China Sea
Increased competition for resources has led to a growing number of conflicts in the South and East
China Seas.[29] Tensions between Vietnam and China have been especially violent with each state
making clear its willingness to use force. In 1988 three Vietnamese vessels were sunk during a
confrontation[30] and recently, in 2014, another vessel, this time a fishing boat, was sunk after
being rammed.[31]
Encounters between China and Japan may have so far resulted in less damage, but the stakes are
ultimately much higher. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has steadily increased military
spending and taken a more forceful stance towards China than many of his predecessors.[32] If the
situation deteriorated into armed conflict, the United States would be bound by a security
agreement to defend Japan.[33] This could quickly escalate a regional war into one between the
world’s two largest militaries.
Several parties have attempted to resolve issues using the Law of the Sea, but it is unclear what
the results will be or if they would be respected. In response to a submission by Malaysia and
Vietnam to CLCS, made in accordance with UNCLOS Article 76, China made what has become
known as the “9-Dash-Line Declaration” in which it publicly claimed sovereignty over most of the
SCS. [34]
It is unclear if this claim applies to the islands solely on historical right or as part of their
continental shelf.[35] It should also be noted that the islands included in the 9-Dash-Line
declaration include the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Scarborough Reef - all of which are
claimed in whole or in part by Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Many of
these countries also stand to be deprived of their 200 nm EEZs if China’s attempts are successful.
4. Past Actions by ASEAN
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional organization committed
through promoting stability and prosperity through peaceful means. Its members include many
currently involved in maritime disputes within the S & ECS. These are Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Brunei, and Vietnam. In 2002 ASEAN passed a declaration with China on
the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in which all countries agreed to resolve maritime
disputes peacefully and in accordance with the Law of the Sea.[36]
Unfortunately the principles of this declaration have not been consistently followed and China has
so far refused to enter into a binding agreement with ASEAN.[37] China prefers to negotiate with
individual countries as it leaves it in a much more powerful position.
Arctic Ocean
Arctic sea-ice is melting away as a result of climate change and revealing vast amounts of natural
resources including fisheries, minerals, natural gas, and oil.[38] As mentioned previously, these
reserves are becoming uncovered as conventional sources are becoming depleted and global
demand is skyrocketing. Every arctic coastal state has, unsurprisingly, sought to assert their claims
to them. A few of the disputes, such as that between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island, fall
into the grey area discussed earlier where one countries 200 nm conflicts with another’s
continental shelf claim.[39] Others results from a country claiming a continental shelf that extends
into what others contend should be left as the Area.
Past Actions by Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is a regional forum meant to resolve disputes and coordinate efforts.[40] Its
membership includes all eight Arctic states[41] and twelve non-arctic observers. Of particular
importance are the five coastal members (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russian
Federation and U.S.) and influential Observers such as China, Japan, Spain, France, and the
United Kingdom. Though they have made attempts to resolve the sovereignty claims that threaten
regional stability, anything that was passed would not be binding. Additionally, counterclaims sent
by its member to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, such as those from
Denmark[42] and Russia[43] regarding the Lomonosov Ridge, demonstrate that the Arctic
Council may be unable to resolve disputes on its own.
Bloc Positions
The actions of a government are based on a wide range of complex factors. The bloc positions laid
out below provide general information that may, or may not, prove to be the primary motivators
for your country’s actions. It is important to know who your trade partners are, what military
alliances you are a part of, where your oil comes from or goes to, and what your nation’s core
principles are. It is especially important to know if your country has a border dispute of its own or
if it currently operates in the High Seas as this may lead your country to lean one way or another.
Landlocked & Developing Countries
If UNCLOS is followed, it is likely that “donut-hole” shapes will be left open in the center of the
Arctic and the SCS. Articles 87 & 140 of the convention make clear that resources found beyond
5. territorial claims are for the “benefit of mankind” and can be used by any member of the
international community with special consideration for the rights of landlocked and developing
countries. Even in areas where a continental shelf is claimed, countries still have the right to
resources above the subsoil such as fish.
Article 82 should also be kept in mind as it taxes resources extracted from the continental shelf
beyond 200 nm and then redistributes it to countries based on need. Given the trillions of dollars at
play, some may benefit more from having another country develop the Area if they are unable to.
Articles 124-132 lay out other rights given to landlocked states including the access to ports and
freedom of navigation.
United States
President Obama’s foreign policy ‘pivot’ towards Asia is in recognition of the region’s importance.
[44] The administration has lauded the benefits that could come from strengthening economic ties
between East and West[45] while making clear America’s intention of following through on its
military commitments.[46] The U.S. does not have an official position on the 9-Dash-Line
Declaration as it believes China has not properly clarified the basis for its claims.[47]
The U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS but may find it a useful tool in negotiations over territory in
the Arctic.
China
China’s 9-Dash-Line claims are said to be based on historical rights not expressly granted in the
Law of The Sea. Historical claims have been accepted in accordance with customary international
law by the International Court of Justice, but it is unlikely that this would apply to the sea beds as
well as the islands.[48] With this said, China can apply extensive pressure on individual parties
and potentially garner favorable outcomes through bilateral treaties and therefore has been
apprehensive to enter binding agreements with ASEAN.
As a non-arctic observer in the Arctic Council, China must also keep in mind how actions in the S
& ECS could lead affect its access to resources in the Arctic Ocean.
Other Powers
UNCLOS can prove to be an asset or a hindrance depending on your position. Some superpowers
may seek to use their strength to force acceptance of their claims, but doing so may come at the
cost of economic or military retaliation by others. Setting precedents should also be thought over
carefully. For example, if you want a rather expansive sovereignty claim not supported by
UNCLOS to be accepted, you may choose to support another country’s similar claim if it does not
come at too much of a political or strategic cost. Alternatively, if you have a vested interest in
denying another country’s claims on UNCLOS grounds, it may benefit you to follow international
law even if it has a short-term cost attached
.
Questions to Consider
6. How could UNCLOS be improved? Are UNCLOS institutional bodies effective?
What role do resources play in geopolitics? How do they impact IPS?
Is our current economic system sustainable? Should it be changed? How?
What are the consequences of exploiting the fossil fuels in question? Benefits?
Should disputes resources be distributed equitably?
How powerful a force is international law? Should it be strengthened?
Is the idea of “might makes right” applicable to this situation?
Who, if anyone, should arbitrate disputes?
What role should regional bodies play in the international community?
Should the Area & High Seas be expanded or administered differently?
Conclusion
Rising global demand for resources combined with the depletion of traditional reserves is leading
to increased competition. Countries will look to control these resources for their economic and
strategic importance. Other countries may benefit from increased production as a result of lower
energy prices, while others may lose out from consequences of global warming which are
accelerated by exploitation. Additionally, oil and natural gas producing countries could be
damaged by lower prices that would come from expanding supply.
Contradictions in the Law of the Sea, especially between claims based on EEZs and continental
shelves, are creating the potential for conflict in the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the
Arctic Ocean. All of these areas are of vital importance to the global economy because of the
important trade routes that pass through them currently or are likely to in the future. Conflicts
would disrupt these routes and limit access to manufactured goods and resources that need to pass
through.
As the members of the Security Council, you are responsible for the maintenance of international
peace and security and must do everything in your power to alleviate tensions and avoid war.
7. How could UNCLOS be improved? Are UNCLOS institutional bodies effective?
What role do resources play in geopolitics? How do they impact IPS?
Is our current economic system sustainable? Should it be changed? How?
What are the consequences of exploiting the fossil fuels in question? Benefits?
Should disputes resources be distributed equitably?
How powerful a force is international law? Should it be strengthened?
Is the idea of “might makes right” applicable to this situation?
Who, if anyone, should arbitrate disputes?
What role should regional bodies play in the international community?
Should the Area & High Seas be expanded or administered differently?
Conclusion
Rising global demand for resources combined with the depletion of traditional reserves is leading
to increased competition. Countries will look to control these resources for their economic and
strategic importance. Other countries may benefit from increased production as a result of lower
energy prices, while others may lose out from consequences of global warming which are
accelerated by exploitation. Additionally, oil and natural gas producing countries could be
damaged by lower prices that would come from expanding supply.
Contradictions in the Law of the Sea, especially between claims based on EEZs and continental
shelves, are creating the potential for conflict in the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the
Arctic Ocean. All of these areas are of vital importance to the global economy because of the
important trade routes that pass through them currently or are likely to in the future. Conflicts
would disrupt these routes and limit access to manufactured goods and resources that need to pass
through.
As the members of the Security Council, you are responsible for the maintenance of international
peace and security and must do everything in your power to alleviate tensions and avoid war.