10
“of fisheries restocking”) and certainly not on historical claims, by now no longer
applicable given the evolution of the new law of the sea. Unfortunately, to date this
issue has progressed no further. Rather, in 2005 Tunisia declared an EEZ unilaterally, fixing its outer boundary coincident with the line of demarcation envisaged in
the 1971 bilateral agreement with Italy, the latter however relating only to the continental shelf.
28
One of Conforti’s activities as an expert on the law of the sea is little known but
is nevertheless highly interesting. I refer to the consultations and opinions he provided to the Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI) when ENI was negotiating for concession rights to explore and exploit oil resources in offshore areas in which
sovereignty was often controversial. For example, in a typewritten document dated
6th April 1978 and now in my possession, he provides an opinion pro veritate on
“Chinese claims over the Nansha islands” that is impressively current, as it concerns
the status of several islands in the South China Sea (or Oriental Sea as referred to by
Vietnam), that is currently at the center of sharp controversies placing China in
opposition to other States of the area, and regarding which an arbitration decision
between the Philippines and China was issued on 16th July 2016 pursuant to
UNCLOS Annex VII. In that document Conforti explains that territorial sovereignty
is acquired over the mainland and then eventually spreads to adjacent waters, thus
where there is no human settlement one cannot legally claim sovereignty over the
seas.
5 His Final Writings
In his last two writings on the law of the sea the Maestro, as usual, deals with legal
questions that are currently of great relevance and interest, the resurgence of the
phenomena of piracy and criminal jurisdiction on the high seas (the case of the
Italian Navy officers held captive in India).
29
This second paper analyses the controversial question of jurisdiction regarding
two Italian naval officers accused of causing the death of two Indian fishermen.
30
Excluding every ‘emotional’ element that is unfortunately present in other writings
regarding a controversy that has drawn the attention of the international public, he
focuses solely on the maritime aspect of the issue, eschewing from his analysis the
question of functional immunity to be conceded to the two officers. On the basis of
remote but famous precedents, which he reviews (cases Franconia, Costa Rica
Packet and Lotus) Conforti concludes that in this case India does have at least a
concurrent jurisdiction in light of two links of the alleged crime with the Indian
community: the Indian nationality of the victims and the fact that the event took
28 On this issue see Cataldi (2010).
29 The two papers commented here are the only ones written by the Maestro and quoted in this
report that do not also appear in Conforti (2003).
30 Conforti (2014).
G. Cataldi
“of fisheries restocking”) and certainly not on historical claims, by now no longer
applicable given the evolution of the new law of the sea. Unfortunately, to date this
issue has progressed no further. Rather, in 2005 Tunisia declared an EEZ unilaterally, fixing its outer boundary coincident with the line of demarcation envisaged in
the 1971 bilateral agreement with Italy, the latter however relating only to the continental shelf.
28
One of Conforti’s activities as an expert on the law of the sea is little known but
is nevertheless highly interesting. I refer to the consultations and opinions he provided to the Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI) when ENI was negotiating for concession rights to explore and exploit oil resources in offshore areas in which
sovereignty was often controversial. For example, in a typewritten document dated
6th April 1978 and now in my possession, he provides an opinion pro veritate on
“Chinese claims over the Nansha islands” that is impressively current, as it concerns
the status of several islands in the South China Sea (or Oriental Sea as referred to by
Vietnam), that is currently at the center of sharp controversies placing China in
opposition to other States of the area, and regarding which an arbitration decision
between the Philippines and China was issued on 16th July 2016 pursuant to
UNCLOS Annex VII. In that document Conforti explains that territorial sovereignty
is acquired over the mainland and then eventually spreads to adjacent waters, thus
where there is no human settlement one cannot legally claim sovereignty over the
seas.
5 His Final Writings
In his last two writings on the law of the sea the Maestro, as usual, deals with legal
questions that are currently of great relevance and interest, the resurgence of the
phenomena of piracy and criminal jurisdiction on the high seas (the case of the
Italian Navy officers held captive in India).
29
This second paper analyses the controversial question of jurisdiction regarding
two Italian naval officers accused of causing the death of two Indian fishermen.
30
Excluding every ‘emotional’ element that is unfortunately present in other writings
regarding a controversy that has drawn the attention of the international public, he
focuses solely on the maritime aspect of the issue, eschewing from his analysis the
question of functional immunity to be conceded to the two officers. On the basis of
remote but famous precedents, which he reviews (cases Franconia, Costa Rica
Packet and Lotus) Conforti concludes that in this case India does have at least a
concurrent jurisdiction in light of two links of the alleged crime with the Indian
community: the Indian nationality of the victims and the fact that the event took
28 On this issue see Cataldi (2010).
29 The two papers commented here are the only ones written by the Maestro and quoted in this
report that do not also appear in Conforti (2003).
30 Conforti (2014).
G. Cataldi