International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
Saiga (No. 2) (Admissibility and Merits) that a coastal state was not com-
petent to apply its customs laws in respect of other parts of the economic zone. 132 Accordingly, by applying its customs laws to a customs radius which included parts of the economic zone, Guinea had acted contrary to the Law of the Sea Convention. 133 A wide variety of states have in the last two decades claimed exclusive economic zones of 200 miles. 134 A number of states that have not made such a claim have proclaimed fishing zones. 135 It would appear that such is the number and distribution of states claiming economic zones, that the existence of the exclusive economic zone as a rule of customary law is firmly established. This is underlined by the comment of the Interna- tional Court of Justice in the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case 136 that ‘the institution of the exclusive economic zone . . . is shown by the practice of states to have become a part of customary law’. 137 In addition to such zones, some other zones have been announced by states over areas of the seas. Canada has, for example, claimed a 100-mile- wide zone along her Arctic coastline as a special, pollution-free zone. 138 131 Article 59. 132 120 ILR, pp. 143, 190. 133 Ibid., p. 192. 134 The Hydrographic Department of the Royal Navy noted that as of 1 January 2008, 126 states and territories had proclaimed 200-mile economic zones: see www.ukho.gov.uk/content/amdAttachments/2008/annual nms/12.pdf. No state has ap- peared to claim an economic zone of a different width. See also the US Declaration of an exclusive economic zone in March 1983, which did not, however, assert a right of jurisdiction over marine scientific research over the zone, 22 ILM, 1983, pp. 461 ff. On 22 September 1992, eight North Sea littoral states and the European Commission adopted a Ministerial Declaration on the Coordinated Extension of Jurisdiction in the North Sea in which it was agreed that these states would establish exclusive economic zones if they had not already done so, UKMIL, 63 BYIL, 1992, p. 755. 135 The Hydrographic Department of the Royal Navy noted that as of 1 January 2008, forty- five states and territories had proclaimed fishery zones of varying breadths up to 200 miles: see www.ukho.gov.uk/content/amdAttachments/2008/annual nms/12.pdf. 136 ICJ Reports, 1985, p. 13; 81 ILR, p. 238. 137 ICJ Reports, 1985, p. 33; 81 ILR, p. 265. See also the Tunisia/Libya case, ICJ Reports, 1982, pp. 18, 74; 67 ILR, pp. 4, 67. 138 See O’Connell, International Law of the Sea, vol. II, pp. 1022–5. See also the Canadian Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act 1970. The US has objected to this jurisdiction: see e.g. Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, pp. 23961 and 24129. The Canadian claim was reiterated in September 1985, ibid., p. 33984. 584 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw Certain states have also asserted rights over what have been termed se- curity or neutrality zones, 139 but these have never been particularly well received and are rare. In an unusual arrangement, pursuant to a US–USSR Maritime Bound- ary Agreement of 1 June 1990, it was provided that each party would exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction derived from the exclusive eco- nomic zone jurisdiction of the other party in a ‘special area’ on the other Download 7.77 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling