Historically, some states have claimed to exercise certain rights over particular zones of high seas. These rights have curbed the freedom of high seas.
These states have claimed such right to prevent infringement of customs, immigration, sanitary lows etc; to conserve fishing stocks; to enable coastal states to have exclusive rights over morine resources.
Earlier CZ had to be specifically claimed. It was limited to 12 miles from baselines. Thus, if coastal state had already claimed 12 miles, question of CZ would not arise. Now, TS < 12.miles and
Earlier, 1958 CZ was part of high seas. Now (1982), CZ is part of EEZ. Thus nature of zone has changed
EEZ/ Patrimonial Sea
EEZ is a sea zone over which a state has special right over the exploration and use of marine resources. It stretches from the seaward edge of state’s territorial sea till 200 nautical miles from the coast.
Generally, a state’s EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles out from its coastal baseline.
EEZ marks a compromise between states seeking 200 mile TS and those wishing restricted system of coastal state power. Major controversy regarding EEZ has been fishing zones.
1958 UNCLOS – no agreement on fishing zones
1962 UNCLOS – TS upto 12 nautical miles.
For next 6 nautical miles – exclusive fishing rights
For next 6 nautical miles – other states may fish if exclusive fishing rights
1982 UNCLOS – EEZ is area beyond and adjacent to TS.
- Sovereign states have sovereign rights over natural resources – living and non-living – waters, sub soil etc and can make artificial islands, installations, structures etc.
- Article 5 + Article 7 – EEZ should not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from baselines from which T.S. is measured. If relevant waters between two states are less than 400 nautical miles, them delimitation is necessary.
- However, other states have right of navigation, over flight, laying submarine cables and pipelines etc in EEZ.
- State of Exclusive Economic Zone can apply its laws on artificial islands of EEZ and not other parts of EEZ. For such installations, safety zones may be built.
Delimitation of EEZ – Article 74 - draw a median line, every point of which is equidistant from nearest points of coastline. Then adopt equidistant principle as preliminary step. Libya v. Malta – CS is natural prolongation from coastline – not accepted to calculate CS.
Libya v. Malta 1985 –
Since right over CS of state with respect to seabed and subsoil are also affected by rights under EEZ of same state with respect to seabed and subsoil, extent of CS is relevant to measure EEZ.
Article 56 – rights, jurisdiction and duties of coastal state in EEZ.
1. Sovereign right to explore, conserve, living and non living and for economic exploitation; and jurisdiction over artificial islands etc.
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. . . . . . . . . . for sea bed and sea soil – refer CS. (CZ and EEZ are different concepts but right in EEZ over subsoil and seabed is calculated with respect to CS. Thus CS may exist without EEZ – definition of CS does not refer to EEZ (see Article 76). But since definition of EEZ refers to CS (see Article 56 (3)), therefore, if there is no CS, there can be no EEZ.)
Waters of EEZ - EEZ consists of –
- Libya v. Malta case (Court was to delimit CS between L and M.)
- Air above EEZ
Sea bed and sea soil of EEZ – to see only its extent, definition of EEZ refers to CS. If no CS this means no EEZ because seabed and sea soil as part of CS always exist for a coastal state. Absence of seabed and sea soil means absence of CS. Absence of CS means absence of coastal area. That in turn means absence of EEZ