in the sea adjacent to its territory, safeguarding, nonetheless, freedom of navigation
and overflight.
68 Similarly, Uruguay also extended sovereignty over the 200-nm
limit, respecting free navigation and overflight.
69 Slightly different was the move by
Costa Rica, which proclaimed a patrimonial sea with a breadth of 200 nm, measured
from the low tide mark along its coast, which would encompass (but stretch further
seawards) the territorial sea.
70 That sea was also explicitly not intended to impair
freedom of navigation nor overflight.
The concept of patrimonial sea, which gives a clear hint to the prevailing
economic aspect in those waters, was brought by Costa Rica to the sub-regional
level. Thus, in 1972, eleven Caribbean states
71 signed the Declaration of Santo
Domingo, the result of unified efforts to adopt a common maritime policy to the
region and consensus on the issue of maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction.
72 The
signatories expressly recognized that the sovereignty of a state is exercisable solely
in territorial waters, which would have a breadth of up to 12 nm. The Declaration
already used the phrase “sovereign rights” to refer to rights over natural resources
within the “patrimonial sea”, adjacent to the territorial sea. In the patrimonial sea,
some freedoms would not be as intense as in the high seas, a case in point being the
conduct of marine scientific research by other states. Coastal states, in line with the
1972 Declaration, would have the duty to promote and the right to regulate scientific
research within the patrimonial sea. Finally, the document underscored the prevalence of an international agreement over national declarations by coastal states, in the
absence of which signatory parties were entitled to claim a 200-nm zone consisting
of territorial and patrimonial sea.
73 As usual in previous initiatives of the kind, ships
and aircrafts were acknowledged freedom of navigation and overflight within the
patrimonial sea.
The plurality of instruments supra evidences a concerted opposition by Latin
American states to the traditional dual-division of the ocean into territorial sea and
high seas. While the earlier Latin American claims of the 1940s and 1950s were
vague,
74 the newer claims were sturdier in favor of a 200-nm special zone.
75 A
marking feature of those assertions was their fundament on the right of the coastal
68 Act no 17.094, 29 December 1966.
69 Act no 13.833, 29 December 1969.
70 Decree no 2204-RE, 10 February 1970, Art. 3.
71 The 1972 Declaration of Santo Domingo was signed by Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
72 Declaration of Santo Domingo. Specialized Conference of Caribbean Countries Concerning the
Problems of the Sea. AJIL 66 (5), 1972, 918–920.
73 Id. 919.
74 To Ian Townsend-Gault, in 1958, “state practice with respect to claims to offshore jurisdiction
beyond the limits of the territorial sea did not really display the requisite degree of consistency and
uniformity required for the identification of a rule of customary international law”. One claim was
widely shared though: that coastal states’ rights seaward extend beyond the then applicable 3-nm
limit. See Townsend-Gault (2014), p. 71.
75 Garcia-Amador (1974), p. 45.
6.3 Reasons for Alarm?
155
and overflight.
68 Similarly, Uruguay also extended sovereignty over the 200-nm
limit, respecting free navigation and overflight.
69 Slightly different was the move by
Costa Rica, which proclaimed a patrimonial sea with a breadth of 200 nm, measured
from the low tide mark along its coast, which would encompass (but stretch further
seawards) the territorial sea.
70 That sea was also explicitly not intended to impair
freedom of navigation nor overflight.
The concept of patrimonial sea, which gives a clear hint to the prevailing
economic aspect in those waters, was brought by Costa Rica to the sub-regional
level. Thus, in 1972, eleven Caribbean states
71 signed the Declaration of Santo
Domingo, the result of unified efforts to adopt a common maritime policy to the
region and consensus on the issue of maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction.
72 The
signatories expressly recognized that the sovereignty of a state is exercisable solely
in territorial waters, which would have a breadth of up to 12 nm. The Declaration
already used the phrase “sovereign rights” to refer to rights over natural resources
within the “patrimonial sea”, adjacent to the territorial sea. In the patrimonial sea,
some freedoms would not be as intense as in the high seas, a case in point being the
conduct of marine scientific research by other states. Coastal states, in line with the
1972 Declaration, would have the duty to promote and the right to regulate scientific
research within the patrimonial sea. Finally, the document underscored the prevalence of an international agreement over national declarations by coastal states, in the
absence of which signatory parties were entitled to claim a 200-nm zone consisting
of territorial and patrimonial sea.
73 As usual in previous initiatives of the kind, ships
and aircrafts were acknowledged freedom of navigation and overflight within the
patrimonial sea.
The plurality of instruments supra evidences a concerted opposition by Latin
American states to the traditional dual-division of the ocean into territorial sea and
high seas. While the earlier Latin American claims of the 1940s and 1950s were
vague,
74 the newer claims were sturdier in favor of a 200-nm special zone.
75 A
marking feature of those assertions was their fundament on the right of the coastal
68 Act no 17.094, 29 December 1966.
69 Act no 13.833, 29 December 1969.
70 Decree no 2204-RE, 10 February 1970, Art. 3.
71 The 1972 Declaration of Santo Domingo was signed by Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
72 Declaration of Santo Domingo. Specialized Conference of Caribbean Countries Concerning the
Problems of the Sea. AJIL 66 (5), 1972, 918–920.
73 Id. 919.
74 To Ian Townsend-Gault, in 1958, “state practice with respect to claims to offshore jurisdiction
beyond the limits of the territorial sea did not really display the requisite degree of consistency and
uniformity required for the identification of a rule of customary international law”. One claim was
widely shared though: that coastal states’ rights seaward extend beyond the then applicable 3-nm
limit. See Townsend-Gault (2014), p. 71.
75 Garcia-Amador (1974), p. 45.
6.3 Reasons for Alarm?
155