law, according to which an action that is not expressly allowed is prohibited. As a
direct consequence, difficulties emerge because of the framework (and generalist)
nature of a treaty with the magnitude of UNCLOS. The Convention as such does not,
and could not, prescribe every possible jurisdiction for its state parties in particularly
complex and overlapping zones. The exercise of environmental jurisdiction over
continental shelf activities is a case in point, inasmuch as it confronts four different
regimes: the continental shelf, EEZ, high seas, and the Area.
4.4 Partial Conclusions
Sovereignty and jurisdiction are interrelated concepts, both of which having shaped
the law of the sea for a long time. Understood as a constitutive element of statehood,
sovereignty usually transmits the idea of independence of a people in a territory
vis-à-vis other states. In addition to that, sovereignty also conveys the meaning of a
collection of rights, competences, and powers applicable within a certain territory.
Its corollary, jurisdiction, is an instrumental concept that stems from sovereignty and
consists of the competence to determine the administrative domain over which a
legal authority extends.
A modern conception of jurisdiction comprises not only rights, but also duties. In
this sense, to say that a coastal state has jurisdiction implies also in saying that it is
bound by specific obligations. This remark, though not novel, is a fundamental
premise of this work, especially in light of the task announced in the introduction and
initial titles to map the environmental rights and duties of coastal states over the
continental shelf.
Moreover, as new maritime spaces made their way into positive international law,
the distribution of jurisdiction in the new law of the sea became more complex than
ever, having nothing to compare with its predecessor, the dual-division of the seas.
Hence, from the perspective of coastal states, what started as a black-and-white
opposition between sovereignty and non-sovereignty (marginal sea of 3 nm and the
high seas), shifted into a multicolored scheme of sovereignty, functional jurisdiction,
and non-sovereignty. The very concept of “sovereign rights” embodies this nuanced
approach to sovereignty and jurisdiction in the law of the sea, as seen in Chap. 2.
Such innovative system was grounded on the principle of progression from stronger
to weaker forms of authority over different maritime zones: the farther away
offshore, the less powers a coastal state has.
Yet, upon the adoption of UNCLOS, the international community witnessed the
phenomenon of concurrent or conflicting jurisdictions between the new zones, in
particular the continental shelf, EEZ, high seas and the Area. Chapter 5 addresses the
sometimes tumultuous legal and geographical overlaps between those zones, to
situate the debate on coastal states’ jurisdiction over the continental shelf in a broader
picture. The main question, there, remains how to balance coastal states’ jurisdiction
with freedoms of the high seas and the obligation of due regard for the rights of other
states. The next step will, then, consist of the analysis of coastal states’ jurisdictional
106
4 Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea
direct consequence, difficulties emerge because of the framework (and generalist)
nature of a treaty with the magnitude of UNCLOS. The Convention as such does not,
and could not, prescribe every possible jurisdiction for its state parties in particularly
complex and overlapping zones. The exercise of environmental jurisdiction over
continental shelf activities is a case in point, inasmuch as it confronts four different
regimes: the continental shelf, EEZ, high seas, and the Area.
4.4 Partial Conclusions
Sovereignty and jurisdiction are interrelated concepts, both of which having shaped
the law of the sea for a long time. Understood as a constitutive element of statehood,
sovereignty usually transmits the idea of independence of a people in a territory
vis-à-vis other states. In addition to that, sovereignty also conveys the meaning of a
collection of rights, competences, and powers applicable within a certain territory.
Its corollary, jurisdiction, is an instrumental concept that stems from sovereignty and
consists of the competence to determine the administrative domain over which a
legal authority extends.
A modern conception of jurisdiction comprises not only rights, but also duties. In
this sense, to say that a coastal state has jurisdiction implies also in saying that it is
bound by specific obligations. This remark, though not novel, is a fundamental
premise of this work, especially in light of the task announced in the introduction and
initial titles to map the environmental rights and duties of coastal states over the
continental shelf.
Moreover, as new maritime spaces made their way into positive international law,
the distribution of jurisdiction in the new law of the sea became more complex than
ever, having nothing to compare with its predecessor, the dual-division of the seas.
Hence, from the perspective of coastal states, what started as a black-and-white
opposition between sovereignty and non-sovereignty (marginal sea of 3 nm and the
high seas), shifted into a multicolored scheme of sovereignty, functional jurisdiction,
and non-sovereignty. The very concept of “sovereign rights” embodies this nuanced
approach to sovereignty and jurisdiction in the law of the sea, as seen in Chap. 2.
Such innovative system was grounded on the principle of progression from stronger
to weaker forms of authority over different maritime zones: the farther away
offshore, the less powers a coastal state has.
Yet, upon the adoption of UNCLOS, the international community witnessed the
phenomenon of concurrent or conflicting jurisdictions between the new zones, in
particular the continental shelf, EEZ, high seas and the Area. Chapter 5 addresses the
sometimes tumultuous legal and geographical overlaps between those zones, to
situate the debate on coastal states’ jurisdiction over the continental shelf in a broader
picture. The main question, there, remains how to balance coastal states’ jurisdiction
with freedoms of the high seas and the obligation of due regard for the rights of other
states. The next step will, then, consist of the analysis of coastal states’ jurisdictional
106
4 Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea