instruments have shown contempt for traditional principles. In fact, esteem for
principle of freedom of navigation featured each of the Declarations, which were
to be interpreted without prejudice to the innocent passage for ships of all nations. As
such, the signatory states asserted jurisdiction over a specific economic aspect of the
200-nm zone, without intention to restrict navigation, nor innocent passage therein.
The documents represented a “controlled detonation” of previous customary rules on
the high seas and gave a clear sign of change in the political dynamics in the
international stage.
Overall, the purposes of the first 200-nm claims were not to exert sovereignty in
all its capacity over the stretched zone—despite the use of phrases such as “exclusive
sovereignty” in some of the afore analyzed declarations. An encompassing and
detailed interpretation of the philosophy and interests underpinning the
abovementioned instruments shows that the objective has been to affirm exclusive
rights for specific purposes—a special economic and environmental jurisdiction
over a wider maritime zone. In fact, none of those claims expressly assail freedom
of navigation. They were excessive in relation to customary norms of the time, but
Latin American states lent the claims a legal clothing, in a sign of appreciation to the
internationally recognized navigational rights. The declarations reassured respect for
navigational freedom, as coastal states understood the relevance of such principle to
the economic development via international trade, and to healthy interstate relations.
What they attempted to limit were the economic freedoms, represented by unlimited
access to marine living and non-living resources beyond the 3 nm territorial sea,
thereby preventing, on the one hand, the perpetuation of an unequal economic order,
and, on the other, the occurrence of the “tragedy of the commons”.
58
In this context, equally important is the 1970 Montevideo Declaration on the Law
of the Sea,
59 signed by nine Latin American states in a combined effort to promote
acceptance of their 200-nm claims by creating a regional consensus on the matter.
60
The document perceives an international law in progressive evolution, which admits
the legitimate priority of littoral states to benefit from maritime resources, based on
geographic, economic and social ties that bind sea, land and the men who inhabit
it. In order to justify the “crept” on jurisdiction, state parties resorted to a vibrant
economic and moral reasoning. Economically, the jurisdictional expansion is viewed
as paramount to increasing life standards of their peoples. Morally, rules on sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea are understood to be fair solely when mindful of
special economic and social needs of less developed states.
61 Besides, enhanced
jurisdiction would also advantage humankind, because of the resulting rational use
58 See generally Hardin (1968).
59 The Declaration of Montevideo on the Law of the Sea, 9 ILM, no. 5, ASIL, 1081–1083,
8 May 1970.
60 Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay signed the
Montevideo Declaration on the Law of the Sea.
61 1970 Declaration of Montevideo on the Law of the Sea, 1082.
6.3 Reasons for Alarm?
153
principle of freedom of navigation featured each of the Declarations, which were
to be interpreted without prejudice to the innocent passage for ships of all nations. As
such, the signatory states asserted jurisdiction over a specific economic aspect of the
200-nm zone, without intention to restrict navigation, nor innocent passage therein.
The documents represented a “controlled detonation” of previous customary rules on
the high seas and gave a clear sign of change in the political dynamics in the
international stage.
Overall, the purposes of the first 200-nm claims were not to exert sovereignty in
all its capacity over the stretched zone—despite the use of phrases such as “exclusive
sovereignty” in some of the afore analyzed declarations. An encompassing and
detailed interpretation of the philosophy and interests underpinning the
abovementioned instruments shows that the objective has been to affirm exclusive
rights for specific purposes—a special economic and environmental jurisdiction
over a wider maritime zone. In fact, none of those claims expressly assail freedom
of navigation. They were excessive in relation to customary norms of the time, but
Latin American states lent the claims a legal clothing, in a sign of appreciation to the
internationally recognized navigational rights. The declarations reassured respect for
navigational freedom, as coastal states understood the relevance of such principle to
the economic development via international trade, and to healthy interstate relations.
What they attempted to limit were the economic freedoms, represented by unlimited
access to marine living and non-living resources beyond the 3 nm territorial sea,
thereby preventing, on the one hand, the perpetuation of an unequal economic order,
and, on the other, the occurrence of the “tragedy of the commons”.
58
In this context, equally important is the 1970 Montevideo Declaration on the Law
of the Sea,
59 signed by nine Latin American states in a combined effort to promote
acceptance of their 200-nm claims by creating a regional consensus on the matter.
60
The document perceives an international law in progressive evolution, which admits
the legitimate priority of littoral states to benefit from maritime resources, based on
geographic, economic and social ties that bind sea, land and the men who inhabit
it. In order to justify the “crept” on jurisdiction, state parties resorted to a vibrant
economic and moral reasoning. Economically, the jurisdictional expansion is viewed
as paramount to increasing life standards of their peoples. Morally, rules on sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea are understood to be fair solely when mindful of
special economic and social needs of less developed states.
61 Besides, enhanced
jurisdiction would also advantage humankind, because of the resulting rational use
58 See generally Hardin (1968).
59 The Declaration of Montevideo on the Law of the Sea, 9 ILM, no. 5, ASIL, 1081–1083,
8 May 1970.
60 Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay signed the
Montevideo Declaration on the Law of the Sea.
61 1970 Declaration of Montevideo on the Law of the Sea, 1082.
6.3 Reasons for Alarm?
153