limited rights, and where third parties cannot expect to exercise certain economic
freedoms. That can also be said of the continental shelf.
Hence, it is paramount to understand that the EEZ is a sui generis and
multifunctional zone. Art. 55 of the Convention defines it as the “area beyond and
adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this
Part”, in which both the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal state and some of the
freedoms of the high seas shall apply.
6 Moreover, Art. 58, paragraph 1 UNCLOS
establishes that all states enjoy freedoms of navigation, overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and “other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to
these freedoms”. Both provisions clearly posit the overlapping nature of the EEZ as a
zone marked by the combination of rules from different maritime spaces, what
renders the conciliation of powers between coastal and other states necessary.
The multifunctional feature of the EEZ relates to the possibility acknowledged to
coastal states to determine the rights and competences they will exercise within
the 200 nm, a characteristic that renders the EEZ rather plastic in comparison to the
continental shelf.
7
“Plastic” here means that the state is given discretion to opt for the
bundle of powers (or functions) it will exercise over the zone. International practice
thus far has shown a plurality of different functions claimed over the EEZ ranging
from powers over fisheries, to energy sources within the zone, or just competences to
protect and preserve the marine environment therein. Whether the coastal state will
exercise authority over fisheries alone, or over the ecological protection of the
marine environment, it remains entirely up to that state to decide.
Despite the commonalities shared between both zones, differences exist. The first
considerable one relates to the conditions for the exercise of rights in each space.
Whereas “the rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf do not depend on
occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation”,
8 the EEZ must be
expressly proclaimed by coastal states. Thus, where a coastal state has no EEZ, Part
VI provisions apply only to the submerged areas from the 12-mile territorial sea until
6 Apart from the maritime zone known as the EEZ, coastal states may also proclaim other types of
200 nm zones, despite the fact that such zones are not expressly in UNCLOS. It is the case of
Exclusive Fishery Zones (EFZ), which preceded the EEZ during the 1960s, claimed by the
Netherlands, Norway and others; Fisheries Protection Zones (FPZ), claimed by Norway, Spain,
Libya and others); Ecological Protection Zones (EPZ), claimed by Italy and Slovenia, among
others; Ecological and Fisheries Protection Zone (EFPZ), as claimed by Croatia. Such 200 nm
functional zones are in principle consist with UNCLOS as long as coastal states do not claim more
sovereign rights and jurisdiction than that granted by the Convention. See Molenaar (2015), p. 299.
7 The concept of “function” adopted in this book is akin to that used by Maria Gavouneli, which
refers to the different categories of themes ratione materiae that the coastal state may regulate.
Examples of functions in the law of the sea are: environment; resource exploration and exploitation;
customs, immigration, and health regulation, among others. See Gavouneli (2007), p. 10. The term
“functional jurisdiction”, however, was not coined by Gavouneli. Already in 1984, María Teresa
Infante posits that “the Convention makes distinctions on a ratione materiae basis, according to
which functional jurisdiction are introduced”. See Infante (1984), p. 169.
8 Art. 77, paragraph 3, UNCLOS.
5.1 The Continental Shelf and the EEZ: Parallelism and Integration
111
freedoms. That can also be said of the continental shelf.
Hence, it is paramount to understand that the EEZ is a sui generis and
multifunctional zone. Art. 55 of the Convention defines it as the “area beyond and
adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this
Part”, in which both the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal state and some of the
freedoms of the high seas shall apply.
6 Moreover, Art. 58, paragraph 1 UNCLOS
establishes that all states enjoy freedoms of navigation, overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and “other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to
these freedoms”. Both provisions clearly posit the overlapping nature of the EEZ as a
zone marked by the combination of rules from different maritime spaces, what
renders the conciliation of powers between coastal and other states necessary.
The multifunctional feature of the EEZ relates to the possibility acknowledged to
coastal states to determine the rights and competences they will exercise within
the 200 nm, a characteristic that renders the EEZ rather plastic in comparison to the
continental shelf.
7
“Plastic” here means that the state is given discretion to opt for the
bundle of powers (or functions) it will exercise over the zone. International practice
thus far has shown a plurality of different functions claimed over the EEZ ranging
from powers over fisheries, to energy sources within the zone, or just competences to
protect and preserve the marine environment therein. Whether the coastal state will
exercise authority over fisheries alone, or over the ecological protection of the
marine environment, it remains entirely up to that state to decide.
Despite the commonalities shared between both zones, differences exist. The first
considerable one relates to the conditions for the exercise of rights in each space.
Whereas “the rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf do not depend on
occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation”,
8 the EEZ must be
expressly proclaimed by coastal states. Thus, where a coastal state has no EEZ, Part
VI provisions apply only to the submerged areas from the 12-mile territorial sea until
6 Apart from the maritime zone known as the EEZ, coastal states may also proclaim other types of
200 nm zones, despite the fact that such zones are not expressly in UNCLOS. It is the case of
Exclusive Fishery Zones (EFZ), which preceded the EEZ during the 1960s, claimed by the
Netherlands, Norway and others; Fisheries Protection Zones (FPZ), claimed by Norway, Spain,
Libya and others); Ecological Protection Zones (EPZ), claimed by Italy and Slovenia, among
others; Ecological and Fisheries Protection Zone (EFPZ), as claimed by Croatia. Such 200 nm
functional zones are in principle consist with UNCLOS as long as coastal states do not claim more
sovereign rights and jurisdiction than that granted by the Convention. See Molenaar (2015), p. 299.
7 The concept of “function” adopted in this book is akin to that used by Maria Gavouneli, which
refers to the different categories of themes ratione materiae that the coastal state may regulate.
Examples of functions in the law of the sea are: environment; resource exploration and exploitation;
customs, immigration, and health regulation, among others. See Gavouneli (2007), p. 10. The term
“functional jurisdiction”, however, was not coined by Gavouneli. Already in 1984, María Teresa
Infante posits that “the Convention makes distinctions on a ratione materiae basis, according to
which functional jurisdiction are introduced”. See Infante (1984), p. 169.
8 Art. 77, paragraph 3, UNCLOS.
5.1 The Continental Shelf and the EEZ: Parallelism and Integration
111