mentioned “rise” of coastal states shifted the balance from the principle of freedom
of the sea to the principle of territorial sovereignty.
As international relations changed and adapted to current power dynamics and
values shared by different peoples of the world, in particular environmental conservation, that centuries-old opposition made way to a new kind of tension: security and
trade interests vs. environmental concerns.
161 It would not be accurate to depict the
relation between both categories as a dichotomy, as security and environmental
concerns may come hand-in-hand, in the case of measures taken to repress illegal
fishing or human trafficking by sea. However, it is undeniable that a tension between
them exists, a tension which is ultimately informed by the traditional binary between
freedom and sovereignty.
For that reason, it is widely disseminated worldwide that territorial practices
(or “jurisdictional crept”) towards the EEZ and the continental shelf, while generating benefits for the coastal states, “negatively impacts the maritime and security
interests of naval powers”.
162 If, in the past, territorialism often dressed up as blunt
jurisdictional assertions, such as the unilateral measures by coastal states decreeing
exclusive uses to a 200-nm zone,
163 which led to the emergence of the EEZ,
nowadays naval powers worry substantially that territorialism may camouflage as
environment-based measures. Admittedly, actions justified as seeking and
implementing increased marine environmental health standards enjoy more persuasive power before the international community, having thus become coastal states’
161 The tension between environment and trade has been exhaustively discussed by scholars in the
field of international trade law, in particular the relationship between Art. XX of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and impacts on world trade. Art. XX GATT beefed up
environmental clauses allowing for discrimination against products which may harm the environment, having been claimed in different occasions by members of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), such as Brazil in the “Brazil Tires Case”. This section of the work focuses rather on the
opposition between military and environmental considerations pertaining to the oceans.
162 Ikeshima (2011), p. 6.
163 State practice related to maritime security considerations which allegedly amount to excessive
claims, so James Kraska, is provided by states such as Brazil, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan,
among others. For instance, Bangladesh has declared upon the ratification of UNCLOS that “The
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh understands that the provisions of the
Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the
continental shelf military exercise or maneuvers, in particular, those involving the use of weapons
or explosives, without the consent of the coastal State”, in 27 July 2001. India deposited a similar
declaration upon ratification on 29 June 1995, and so did Pakistan, on 26 February 1997. The
staunchest opposers to that interpretation have been the United States, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom, among other developed countries. The latter has declared that “declarations and
statements not in conformity with Arts. 309 and 310 include, inter alia, the following: those which
are not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention relating to the exclusive economic zone
or the continental shelf, including those which claim coastal state jurisdiction over all installations
and structures in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, and those which purport
to require consent for exercises or maneuvers (including weapons exercises) in those areas. See The
United Kingdom Interpretative Declaration upon Accession, on 25 July 1997.
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental Perspective:. . .
175
of the sea to the principle of territorial sovereignty.
As international relations changed and adapted to current power dynamics and
values shared by different peoples of the world, in particular environmental conservation, that centuries-old opposition made way to a new kind of tension: security and
trade interests vs. environmental concerns.
161 It would not be accurate to depict the
relation between both categories as a dichotomy, as security and environmental
concerns may come hand-in-hand, in the case of measures taken to repress illegal
fishing or human trafficking by sea. However, it is undeniable that a tension between
them exists, a tension which is ultimately informed by the traditional binary between
freedom and sovereignty.
For that reason, it is widely disseminated worldwide that territorial practices
(or “jurisdictional crept”) towards the EEZ and the continental shelf, while generating benefits for the coastal states, “negatively impacts the maritime and security
interests of naval powers”.
162 If, in the past, territorialism often dressed up as blunt
jurisdictional assertions, such as the unilateral measures by coastal states decreeing
exclusive uses to a 200-nm zone,
163 which led to the emergence of the EEZ,
nowadays naval powers worry substantially that territorialism may camouflage as
environment-based measures. Admittedly, actions justified as seeking and
implementing increased marine environmental health standards enjoy more persuasive power before the international community, having thus become coastal states’
161 The tension between environment and trade has been exhaustively discussed by scholars in the
field of international trade law, in particular the relationship between Art. XX of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and impacts on world trade. Art. XX GATT beefed up
environmental clauses allowing for discrimination against products which may harm the environment, having been claimed in different occasions by members of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), such as Brazil in the “Brazil Tires Case”. This section of the work focuses rather on the
opposition between military and environmental considerations pertaining to the oceans.
162 Ikeshima (2011), p. 6.
163 State practice related to maritime security considerations which allegedly amount to excessive
claims, so James Kraska, is provided by states such as Brazil, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan,
among others. For instance, Bangladesh has declared upon the ratification of UNCLOS that “The
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh understands that the provisions of the
Convention do not authorize other States to carry out in the exclusive economic zone and on the
continental shelf military exercise or maneuvers, in particular, those involving the use of weapons
or explosives, without the consent of the coastal State”, in 27 July 2001. India deposited a similar
declaration upon ratification on 29 June 1995, and so did Pakistan, on 26 February 1997. The
staunchest opposers to that interpretation have been the United States, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom, among other developed countries. The latter has declared that “declarations and
statements not in conformity with Arts. 309 and 310 include, inter alia, the following: those which
are not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention relating to the exclusive economic zone
or the continental shelf, including those which claim coastal state jurisdiction over all installations
and structures in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, and those which purport
to require consent for exercises or maneuvers (including weapons exercises) in those areas. See The
United Kingdom Interpretative Declaration upon Accession, on 25 July 1997.
6.4 Coastal States’ Jurisdictional Expansion from an Environmental Perspective:. . .
175