Chapter 4
Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law
of the Sea
UNCLOS’ contributions to the stability and certainty of the international legal
system are numerous and have rightfully deserved the praising of lawyers from all
over the world.
1 One of the categories of provisions that has levered that recognition
is that allocating jurisdictional rights and duties to the different actors currently
engaged in ocean-related activities, i.e. coastal, port, flag states, amongst others.
Throughout its 320 provisions, the Convention has regulated conflicting uses of the
ocean and codified a delicate system of multiple maritime zones, in which progressive territorial jurisdiction applies. In other words, coastal states are granted varying
jurisdiction over different zones offshore, in a system that may have the undesired
outcome of complexifying the already complicated relations between states
concerning the oceans.
It is imperious to analyze the relevant UNCLOS provisions on jurisdiction,
particularly vis-à-vis the continental shelf, both within and beyond 200 nm. The
first items offer a detailed view on sovereignty and jurisdiction both in general
international law and the international law of the sea. Those are crucial concepts to
the conveyance of this thesis and have deserved a specific chapter. Moreover, as one
of the resolutions of this work is to map out the rights and duties attributable to
coastal states on their respective continental shelves, particularly in light of the
delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, the final
part of the chapter will depict how the concept of “functional jurisdiction” applies to
the EEZ and continental shelf of coastal states.
1 It is not the same as to claim the Convention would still be up-to-date and perfectly suited for
tackling, at least in the legal arena, current problems and challenges posed to the world’s oceans.
Issues such as climate change and sea-level rise would in theory call for amendment procedures,
based on Art. 300 UNCLOS, a strategy that is immediately dismissed an unrealistic by both lawyers
and politicians, due to the difficulties entangled in amending such a carefully and hard-fought
package-deal as UNCLOS.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura, Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_4
85
Sovereignty and Jurisdiction in the Law
of the Sea
UNCLOS’ contributions to the stability and certainty of the international legal
system are numerous and have rightfully deserved the praising of lawyers from all
over the world.
1 One of the categories of provisions that has levered that recognition
is that allocating jurisdictional rights and duties to the different actors currently
engaged in ocean-related activities, i.e. coastal, port, flag states, amongst others.
Throughout its 320 provisions, the Convention has regulated conflicting uses of the
ocean and codified a delicate system of multiple maritime zones, in which progressive territorial jurisdiction applies. In other words, coastal states are granted varying
jurisdiction over different zones offshore, in a system that may have the undesired
outcome of complexifying the already complicated relations between states
concerning the oceans.
It is imperious to analyze the relevant UNCLOS provisions on jurisdiction,
particularly vis-à-vis the continental shelf, both within and beyond 200 nm. The
first items offer a detailed view on sovereignty and jurisdiction both in general
international law and the international law of the sea. Those are crucial concepts to
the conveyance of this thesis and have deserved a specific chapter. Moreover, as one
of the resolutions of this work is to map out the rights and duties attributable to
coastal states on their respective continental shelves, particularly in light of the
delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm, the final
part of the chapter will depict how the concept of “functional jurisdiction” applies to
the EEZ and continental shelf of coastal states.
1 It is not the same as to claim the Convention would still be up-to-date and perfectly suited for
tackling, at least in the legal arena, current problems and challenges posed to the world’s oceans.
Issues such as climate change and sea-level rise would in theory call for amendment procedures,
based on Art. 300 UNCLOS, a strategy that is immediately dismissed an unrealistic by both lawyers
and politicians, due to the difficulties entangled in amending such a carefully and hard-fought
package-deal as UNCLOS.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
V. Alencar Mayer Feitosa Ventura, Environmental Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50543-1_4
85