own homeland. Article 5 of the 1921 Åland Convention grants warships the right of
innocent passage through those areas of territorial waters of the Åland Islands’ that
are part of the neutralised zone. However, Article 5 makes references to international
rules and usages in force that therefore sets limits to the application. The Article
indicates that Finland’s authority to enact rules that would prohibit the innocent
passage of warships through the territorial waters of the Åland Islands is restricted.
The Article is also applicable to Finnish warships, and as a result the 1921 Åland
Convention restricts a coastal State’s jurisdiction over its own territorial sea. The
possibility of prohibiting innocent passage was never properly addressed during the
1921 Conference discussions, and only Finland had expressed its view on the matter
by stating its right to prohibit innocent passage in special circumstances.
108
And then, in some rare cases, a State may choose to admit that passage of its
warships in the territorial seas of another coastal State was in breach of the provisions of international law. The admission by Australia is one of those exceptional
cases. The Australian Government admitted that Australian Navy or Customs and
Border Protection vessels entered Indonesian territorial waters six times during
December 2013 and January 2014 which constituted clear breaches of international
law.
109, 110
7.4 Autonomous Ships and Unmanned Maritime Systems
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has commenced work to look into
how safe, secure and environmentally sound Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS) operations may be addressed in IMO instruments. The Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) of the IMO is engaged in a regulatory scoping exercise to identify
current provisions in an agreed list of IMO instruments and assess how they may or
may not be applicable to ships with varying degrees of autonomy and/or whether
they may preclude MASS operations. As a second step, an analysis will be
conducted to determine the most appropriate way of addressing MASS operations
considering human element, technology and operational factors.
108 Kleemola-Juntunen (2017), pp. 239–269.
109 McAdam et al. (2014).
110 It is another matter that Australia has, for many years, been pursuing an aggressive policy of
preventing asylum seekers arriving in boats from reaching its shores. The measures range from the
more benign aerial surveillance of the sea areas, agreements with neighbouring States (Tuvalu,
Papua New Guinea) and engagement with concerned States (Thailand, Indonesia, etc.) to the
preventive and disruptive actions of turning back boats at the fringes of Australian waters and
even going after refugee boats into the waters of another State. The admitted breaches occurred in
the course of such preventive actions.
Innocent Passage Under UNCLOS: An Exploration of the Tenets, Trials. . .
249
innocent passage through those areas of territorial waters of the Åland Islands’ that
are part of the neutralised zone. However, Article 5 makes references to international
rules and usages in force that therefore sets limits to the application. The Article
indicates that Finland’s authority to enact rules that would prohibit the innocent
passage of warships through the territorial waters of the Åland Islands is restricted.
The Article is also applicable to Finnish warships, and as a result the 1921 Åland
Convention restricts a coastal State’s jurisdiction over its own territorial sea. The
possibility of prohibiting innocent passage was never properly addressed during the
1921 Conference discussions, and only Finland had expressed its view on the matter
by stating its right to prohibit innocent passage in special circumstances.
108
And then, in some rare cases, a State may choose to admit that passage of its
warships in the territorial seas of another coastal State was in breach of the provisions of international law. The admission by Australia is one of those exceptional
cases. The Australian Government admitted that Australian Navy or Customs and
Border Protection vessels entered Indonesian territorial waters six times during
December 2013 and January 2014 which constituted clear breaches of international
law.
109, 110
7.4 Autonomous Ships and Unmanned Maritime Systems
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has commenced work to look into
how safe, secure and environmentally sound Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS) operations may be addressed in IMO instruments. The Maritime Safety
Committee (MSC) of the IMO is engaged in a regulatory scoping exercise to identify
current provisions in an agreed list of IMO instruments and assess how they may or
may not be applicable to ships with varying degrees of autonomy and/or whether
they may preclude MASS operations. As a second step, an analysis will be
conducted to determine the most appropriate way of addressing MASS operations
considering human element, technology and operational factors.
108 Kleemola-Juntunen (2017), pp. 239–269.
109 McAdam et al. (2014).
110 It is another matter that Australia has, for many years, been pursuing an aggressive policy of
preventing asylum seekers arriving in boats from reaching its shores. The measures range from the
more benign aerial surveillance of the sea areas, agreements with neighbouring States (Tuvalu,
Papua New Guinea) and engagement with concerned States (Thailand, Indonesia, etc.) to the
preventive and disruptive actions of turning back boats at the fringes of Australian waters and
even going after refugee boats into the waters of another State. The admitted breaches occurred in
the course of such preventive actions.
Innocent Passage Under UNCLOS: An Exploration of the Tenets, Trials. . .
249