on the verge of a profound shift. This is by no means the case. The jurisdictional
division of the seas achieved at UNCLOS is a remarkable piece of art, which has
conciliated several opposing interests. However, it is inevitable that the law of the
sea and UNCLOS, as products of social change and relative power distributions in
the international stage, eventually change, in order to internalize newer inputs. Social
change is an intrinsic feature of all legal systems, the international one being no
exception.
As key variables for the ocean legal regime change, so does the equilibrium of
forces in the international arena. Indeed, modifications in the availability of natural
resources, status of technological advancement, knowledge of ocean services, functioning and dynamics, level of ocean pollution, and data on ecosystem interaction,
amongst others, change etc.), can be expected to trigger renewed pressures on the
holy balance sewed during the 1970s. In other words, the edifice created by
UNCLOS is solid, but ought to be flexible enough to resist to strain, when needed,
but also to adapt to tensions in specific cases. Despite the relative stability of the
current maritime political map of the world, the issue of “creeping coastal jurisdiction” is expected not only to remain,
185 but to increase as a tool for operating
transformations in the public order of the oceans, especially in our world primarily
marked by scarcity and deficient distribution of natural resources.
6.5 Partial Conclusions
A renewed balance between territorial sovereignty and freedom of navigation gives a
handful of prestige to the former, with the consolidation of the principle of “respect
for sovereignty and jurisdiction” of states, as well as the physical expansion of the
areas under coastal state’s sovereignty (territorial sea from 3 to 12 nm) and jurisdiction (creation of the EEZ and possibility of expanding jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond 200 nm). Overall, jurisdiction in international law is used as
synonym for competence, power or authority of states over their people and within
their territory. Rules on jurisdiction flow from the acceptance by the state of limits to
their regulatory activity, in a way that even when restricting its powers, states are
exercising sovereignty. However, one should bear in mind that jurisdiction does not
break down to regulatory authority; it is more than just the power to regulate.
Traditionally, jurisdiction has been taken solely as a matter of rights and powers
of the state. However, there is more to that, as the concept encompasses gradually the
notion of duties and obligations. A more up-to-date view on the concept of jurisdictions suggests that it is not solely a matter of rights to prescribe and enforce, but also
an issue of duties and obligations.
186 Jurisdiction should, hence, be conceived not
only as a “ceiling” to state powers, but also as a “floor”, containing the minimum
185 Schofield et al. (2014), p. 57.
186 Mills (2014), p. 188.
182
6 Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational Freedoms or. . .
division of the seas achieved at UNCLOS is a remarkable piece of art, which has
conciliated several opposing interests. However, it is inevitable that the law of the
sea and UNCLOS, as products of social change and relative power distributions in
the international stage, eventually change, in order to internalize newer inputs. Social
change is an intrinsic feature of all legal systems, the international one being no
exception.
As key variables for the ocean legal regime change, so does the equilibrium of
forces in the international arena. Indeed, modifications in the availability of natural
resources, status of technological advancement, knowledge of ocean services, functioning and dynamics, level of ocean pollution, and data on ecosystem interaction,
amongst others, change etc.), can be expected to trigger renewed pressures on the
holy balance sewed during the 1970s. In other words, the edifice created by
UNCLOS is solid, but ought to be flexible enough to resist to strain, when needed,
but also to adapt to tensions in specific cases. Despite the relative stability of the
current maritime political map of the world, the issue of “creeping coastal jurisdiction” is expected not only to remain,
185 but to increase as a tool for operating
transformations in the public order of the oceans, especially in our world primarily
marked by scarcity and deficient distribution of natural resources.
6.5 Partial Conclusions
A renewed balance between territorial sovereignty and freedom of navigation gives a
handful of prestige to the former, with the consolidation of the principle of “respect
for sovereignty and jurisdiction” of states, as well as the physical expansion of the
areas under coastal state’s sovereignty (territorial sea from 3 to 12 nm) and jurisdiction (creation of the EEZ and possibility of expanding jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond 200 nm). Overall, jurisdiction in international law is used as
synonym for competence, power or authority of states over their people and within
their territory. Rules on jurisdiction flow from the acceptance by the state of limits to
their regulatory activity, in a way that even when restricting its powers, states are
exercising sovereignty. However, one should bear in mind that jurisdiction does not
break down to regulatory authority; it is more than just the power to regulate.
Traditionally, jurisdiction has been taken solely as a matter of rights and powers
of the state. However, there is more to that, as the concept encompasses gradually the
notion of duties and obligations. A more up-to-date view on the concept of jurisdictions suggests that it is not solely a matter of rights to prescribe and enforce, but also
an issue of duties and obligations.
186 Jurisdiction should, hence, be conceived not
only as a “ceiling” to state powers, but also as a “floor”, containing the minimum
185 Schofield et al. (2014), p. 57.
186 Mills (2014), p. 188.
182
6 Creeping Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea: Threat to Navigational Freedoms or. . .