coastal states by international law.
118 Finally, an example of inconsistency with
UNCLOS could be seen in claims by India, Pakistan, Mauritius and Seychelles to
specific areas within their EEZs and the continental shelves, where these states may
take measures regarding nearly all activities that are subject to their jurisdiction and
control within these spaces.
119
Thus far, this book has outlined powerful critiques both on coastal states’
insurrection against the pre-UNCLOS dual-division of the oceans and coastal states’
challenging of the jurisdiction edifice erected after 1982. The lines below are
dedicated to highlighting some of the main theses that lie implicit or explicit from
scholarly reactions contrary to all kinds of jurisdictional crept, in particular the
assertion of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction on environmental grounds.
This time, from a coastal state’s and an environmental perspective.
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from
an Environmental Perspective: Creeping Jurisdiction
or Valid Attempt at Raising the Bar?
The abovementioned critiques on the practice of creeping jurisdiction, or on the
“territorial temptation” of coastal states in the law of the sea, allow for a few
conclusions on the dominant theses in specialized literature. Firstly, most analyses
give priority to the principle of freedom of navigation, the unofficial overriding
principle, and to the detriment of territorial sovereignty and environmental conservation. Secondly, the practice of creeping jurisdiction is depicted as consisting of
excessive unilateral claims of jurisdiction seaward held both before and after the
adoption of UNCLOS, without distinguishing between time-periods. In other words,
to creep on jurisdiction is considered illegal and undesired in every scenario and,
therefore, damaging to the maintenance of peace and order in the world oceans.
120
The early claims have violated customary law and newer claims have infringed
UNCLOS provisions.
Thirdly, there is widespread concern that an excessive jurisdictional assertion
may open the gate for many assertions more, thereby stimulating the indefinite
territorialization of the seas and triggering a downward spiral adverse to the stability
of the world’s oceans. Finally, acts of creeping jurisdiction disguised with an
environmental clothing may be a sort of Trojan horse that could implode the
carefully sewed balance between territorial sovereignty and freedom of navigation
within UNCLOS. Hence, bold assertions of environmental jurisdiction over the EEZ
and continental shelf are to be fought against to the hilt.
118 For the Brazilian Declaration, see Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General,
UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.E/8 (New York: United Nations, 1990), 283–284.
119 Kwiatkowska (1991), p. 164.
120 See, for instance, Burke (1970).
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental Perspective:. . .
163
118 Finally, an example of inconsistency with
UNCLOS could be seen in claims by India, Pakistan, Mauritius and Seychelles to
specific areas within their EEZs and the continental shelves, where these states may
take measures regarding nearly all activities that are subject to their jurisdiction and
control within these spaces.
119
Thus far, this book has outlined powerful critiques both on coastal states’
insurrection against the pre-UNCLOS dual-division of the oceans and coastal states’
challenging of the jurisdiction edifice erected after 1982. The lines below are
dedicated to highlighting some of the main theses that lie implicit or explicit from
scholarly reactions contrary to all kinds of jurisdictional crept, in particular the
assertion of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction on environmental grounds.
This time, from a coastal state’s and an environmental perspective.
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from
an Environmental Perspective: Creeping Jurisdiction
or Valid Attempt at Raising the Bar?
The abovementioned critiques on the practice of creeping jurisdiction, or on the
“territorial temptation” of coastal states in the law of the sea, allow for a few
conclusions on the dominant theses in specialized literature. Firstly, most analyses
give priority to the principle of freedom of navigation, the unofficial overriding
principle, and to the detriment of territorial sovereignty and environmental conservation. Secondly, the practice of creeping jurisdiction is depicted as consisting of
excessive unilateral claims of jurisdiction seaward held both before and after the
adoption of UNCLOS, without distinguishing between time-periods. In other words,
to creep on jurisdiction is considered illegal and undesired in every scenario and,
therefore, damaging to the maintenance of peace and order in the world oceans.
120
The early claims have violated customary law and newer claims have infringed
UNCLOS provisions.
Thirdly, there is widespread concern that an excessive jurisdictional assertion
may open the gate for many assertions more, thereby stimulating the indefinite
territorialization of the seas and triggering a downward spiral adverse to the stability
of the world’s oceans. Finally, acts of creeping jurisdiction disguised with an
environmental clothing may be a sort of Trojan horse that could implode the
carefully sewed balance between territorial sovereignty and freedom of navigation
within UNCLOS. Hence, bold assertions of environmental jurisdiction over the EEZ
and continental shelf are to be fought against to the hilt.
118 For the Brazilian Declaration, see Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General,
UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.E/8 (New York: United Nations, 1990), 283–284.
119 Kwiatkowska (1991), p. 164.
120 See, for instance, Burke (1970).
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental Perspective:. . .
163