portion of the seabed beyond 200 nm. The entire Part VI UNCLOS makes no
reference to the marine environment, neither to coastal states environmental rights
and duties on the continental shelf. As such, it identified the need to clarify the
regulatory maneuver room left to coastal states when governing their continental
shelves, especially the portion beyond 200 nm. To assess that, this study delved into
the issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction in the law of the sea.
Chapter 4 demonstrated that sovereignty and jurisdiction are interrelated concepts, both having shaped the law of the sea for a long time. Understood as a
constitutive element of statehood, sovereignty conveys the meaning of a collection
of rights, competences, and powers applicable within a certain territory. Its corollary,
jurisdiction, is an instrumental concept which stems from sovereignty and consists
of the competence to determine the administrative domain over which a legal
authority extends. This book joined efforts with modern theories on jurisdiction,
according to which the concept comprises not only rights, but also duties. In this
sense, to say that a coastal state has jurisdiction implies that it is bound by specific
obligations. The very concept of “sovereign rights” embodied this nuanced approach
to sovereignty and jurisdiction in the law of the sea.
The chapter then emphasized that the emergence of new maritime zones
prompted the shift from the black-and-white opposition between sovereignty and
non-sovereignty (marginal sea vs. high seas), characteristic of the pre-UNCLOS era,
into a polychrome, trichotomic scheme of sovereignty, functional jurisdiction, and
non-sovereignty. The continental shelf lies precisely in the added category of
functional jurisdiction, subject neither to the full powers of coastal states, nor the
freedoms of the high seas as prescribed at UNCLOS Art. 87.
The functioning of the multizonal regime designed within UNCLOS is made
possible by the principles of legality and regression, according to which jurisdiction
shall not be presumed, and shall diminish the farther away from mainland one
is. Those principle have not been enough to prevent conflicts arising from concurrent or conflicting jurisdictions between maritime zones, in particular the continental
shelf, EEZ, high seas and the Area. Thus, issues such as the extent of coastal states
rights over the EEZ, the respect for freedoms of the high seas; the interactions
between coastal states’ authority over the continental shelf and the legal regime
applicable to the Area have made it to the spotlight. Such jurisdictional conflicts
assume greater proportion when the subject matter in dispute is the protection of the
marine environment.
Chapter 5 dealt with the jurisdictional intersections between the continental shelf
and other maritime spaces, namely EEZ, high seas and the Area. Regarding the first
one, it was said that, despite the merging of provisions for both zones in the
Convention, as in the case of Art. 60 and 80, on artificial islands, installations and
structures, the relationship between continental shelf and EEZ rules is marked by
autonomy and parallelism. Both zones have upheld slightly differing rules, which
run, however, in parallel to each other. They are zones in which coastal states
exercise differing competences in differing degrees, as is the case of jurisdiction to
manage and conserve natural resources, a power explicitly acknowledged to them
over the EEZ, but not over the continental shelf.
356
11 Conclusions
reference to the marine environment, neither to coastal states environmental rights
and duties on the continental shelf. As such, it identified the need to clarify the
regulatory maneuver room left to coastal states when governing their continental
shelves, especially the portion beyond 200 nm. To assess that, this study delved into
the issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction in the law of the sea.
Chapter 4 demonstrated that sovereignty and jurisdiction are interrelated concepts, both having shaped the law of the sea for a long time. Understood as a
constitutive element of statehood, sovereignty conveys the meaning of a collection
of rights, competences, and powers applicable within a certain territory. Its corollary,
jurisdiction, is an instrumental concept which stems from sovereignty and consists
of the competence to determine the administrative domain over which a legal
authority extends. This book joined efforts with modern theories on jurisdiction,
according to which the concept comprises not only rights, but also duties. In this
sense, to say that a coastal state has jurisdiction implies that it is bound by specific
obligations. The very concept of “sovereign rights” embodied this nuanced approach
to sovereignty and jurisdiction in the law of the sea.
The chapter then emphasized that the emergence of new maritime zones
prompted the shift from the black-and-white opposition between sovereignty and
non-sovereignty (marginal sea vs. high seas), characteristic of the pre-UNCLOS era,
into a polychrome, trichotomic scheme of sovereignty, functional jurisdiction, and
non-sovereignty. The continental shelf lies precisely in the added category of
functional jurisdiction, subject neither to the full powers of coastal states, nor the
freedoms of the high seas as prescribed at UNCLOS Art. 87.
The functioning of the multizonal regime designed within UNCLOS is made
possible by the principles of legality and regression, according to which jurisdiction
shall not be presumed, and shall diminish the farther away from mainland one
is. Those principle have not been enough to prevent conflicts arising from concurrent or conflicting jurisdictions between maritime zones, in particular the continental
shelf, EEZ, high seas and the Area. Thus, issues such as the extent of coastal states
rights over the EEZ, the respect for freedoms of the high seas; the interactions
between coastal states’ authority over the continental shelf and the legal regime
applicable to the Area have made it to the spotlight. Such jurisdictional conflicts
assume greater proportion when the subject matter in dispute is the protection of the
marine environment.
Chapter 5 dealt with the jurisdictional intersections between the continental shelf
and other maritime spaces, namely EEZ, high seas and the Area. Regarding the first
one, it was said that, despite the merging of provisions for both zones in the
Convention, as in the case of Art. 60 and 80, on artificial islands, installations and
structures, the relationship between continental shelf and EEZ rules is marked by
autonomy and parallelism. Both zones have upheld slightly differing rules, which
run, however, in parallel to each other. They are zones in which coastal states
exercise differing competences in differing degrees, as is the case of jurisdiction to
manage and conserve natural resources, a power explicitly acknowledged to them
over the EEZ, but not over the continental shelf.
356
11 Conclusions