despite the IMO Guidelines, access to a place of refuge, even in the territorial seas,
appears to be largely wrapped in a shroud of mystery even to this day.
35
4 Spatial Dimension
4.1 Spatial Dimension: Safety Attribution
The last two and half decades or so have been particularly testing times for the
doctrine of innocent passage given the effect of rather creeping jurisdiction created
by other treaties and regulations, especially the SOLAS Convention. Examples are
aplenty—sea lanes and traffic separation schemes,
36 mandatory ship routeing systems,
37 preventing breach of conditions for entering ports and, internal waters as
well as the possibility of imposing temporary suspensions,
38 Vessel Traffic Services
39 and possibly marine spatial planning.
Many a times, measures introduced by a coastal State in its territorial waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) may practically amount to imposing of restrictions
on freedom of navigation. For example, Australia imposes several measures which
impinge on the right of innocent passage and the freedom of navigation in its EEZ
such as compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait,
40 prohibited anchorage areas
around undersea cables in the EEZ, mandatory ship reporting in areas adjacent to
the Great Barrier Reef, and declaration of the entire Australian EEZ as a submarine
exercise area.
41
UNCLOS makes no reference to maritime or marine spatial planning as a
management process although some articles do cite to management in relation to
living resources of the EEZ and the high seas, and the exploitation of non-living
resources on the deep seabed. However, this does not prevent coastal states from
taking spatial planning initiatives in their maritime areas. In the territorial seas, based
on sovereignty, coastal states have full jurisdiction for zoning and marine spatial
planning. Examples of zones which at least notionally have the effect of impinging
on the passage of ships through the territorial seas include concession zones for
exploitation of non-living resources, dumping zones for dredged material, zones for
35 There are exceptions though. Denmark, for example, is known to have explicitly notified 22 places
of refuge (Ohlson 2006).
36 UNCLOS Article 22(1), Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in the territorial sea, p. 32.
37 SOLAS Regulation V/10. Details of IMO adopted schemes are contained in IMO Resolution
A.572(14) General provisions on Ships Routeing as amended.
38 UNCLOS Article 25 (2&3), Rights of protection of the Coastal State, p. 33.
39 SOLAS Regulation V/12. For details see Guidelines on Vessel Traffic Services adopted by the
IMO vide Resolution A.857(20).
40 Breide and Saunders (2008). Also see further discussion in next section.
41 Bateman (2015), p. 62.
234
A. Hebbar
appears to be largely wrapped in a shroud of mystery even to this day.
35
4 Spatial Dimension
4.1 Spatial Dimension: Safety Attribution
The last two and half decades or so have been particularly testing times for the
doctrine of innocent passage given the effect of rather creeping jurisdiction created
by other treaties and regulations, especially the SOLAS Convention. Examples are
aplenty—sea lanes and traffic separation schemes,
36 mandatory ship routeing systems,
37 preventing breach of conditions for entering ports and, internal waters as
well as the possibility of imposing temporary suspensions,
38 Vessel Traffic Services
39 and possibly marine spatial planning.
Many a times, measures introduced by a coastal State in its territorial waters or
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) may practically amount to imposing of restrictions
on freedom of navigation. For example, Australia imposes several measures which
impinge on the right of innocent passage and the freedom of navigation in its EEZ
such as compulsory pilotage in the Torres Strait,
40 prohibited anchorage areas
around undersea cables in the EEZ, mandatory ship reporting in areas adjacent to
the Great Barrier Reef, and declaration of the entire Australian EEZ as a submarine
exercise area.
41
UNCLOS makes no reference to maritime or marine spatial planning as a
management process although some articles do cite to management in relation to
living resources of the EEZ and the high seas, and the exploitation of non-living
resources on the deep seabed. However, this does not prevent coastal states from
taking spatial planning initiatives in their maritime areas. In the territorial seas, based
on sovereignty, coastal states have full jurisdiction for zoning and marine spatial
planning. Examples of zones which at least notionally have the effect of impinging
on the passage of ships through the territorial seas include concession zones for
exploitation of non-living resources, dumping zones for dredged material, zones for
35 There are exceptions though. Denmark, for example, is known to have explicitly notified 22 places
of refuge (Ohlson 2006).
36 UNCLOS Article 22(1), Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in the territorial sea, p. 32.
37 SOLAS Regulation V/10. Details of IMO adopted schemes are contained in IMO Resolution
A.572(14) General provisions on Ships Routeing as amended.
38 UNCLOS Article 25 (2&3), Rights of protection of the Coastal State, p. 33.
39 SOLAS Regulation V/12. For details see Guidelines on Vessel Traffic Services adopted by the
IMO vide Resolution A.857(20).
40 Breide and Saunders (2008). Also see further discussion in next section.
41 Bateman (2015), p. 62.
234
A. Hebbar