3 The United Nations Convention …
47
judgments of the International Court of Justice.
19 Therefore, ‘due regard’ requires all
States to be aware of and consider other States’ interests of freedom to use the high
seas and avoid activities of interfering in other States’ exercise of freedom of the high
seas when they exercise their own freedom of the high seas.
20 In fact, the history of
the development of the law of the sea is the history of the coordination and balance
between the coastal States’ interests and the user State’s rights, i.e. the freedom of
the high seas especially the right of freedom of navigation and overflight. That is to
say, the history of the law of the sea is the history of opposition between regulation
on the jurisdiction claimed by the coastal State and the freedom of the sea claimed by
other States, the coastal States’ interests and the international community’s general
interest.
21
3.3.3 Equidistance Principle
As above-mentioned, the UNCLOS sets forth legal regimes on various sea areas. The
principles for determining the scope and boundary of various sea areas include the
principle of land dominating the sea and the principle of equidistance. The former
plays a leading role and the latter plays a supporting role. Meanwhile the latter may
be altered according to the change of the content of relevant convention provisions.
Although the equidistance principle is not found directly in the system of UNCLOS,
the sea areas determined according to the equidistance principle mainly include the
territorial sea, contiguous zone, Exclusive Economic Zone and the continental shelf
including the outer continental shelf.
22 It is obvious that there are three categories
of maritime zones in the system of the UNCLOS. The first is the territorial sea,
archipelagic waters and Exclusive Economic Zone which need announcement or
declaration by the State. The second is the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles
without the need to make announcement or declaration by the State.
23 The third is
19 For example, the International Court of Justice stated in the judgment of Fisheries Jurisdiction
Case that with the increasing scope of fisheries activities, the result of the development of marine
international law is that the former laissez-faire treatment of the living resources of the sea in the
high seas has been replaced by a recognition of a duty to have due regard to the rights of other States
and the needs of conservation for the benefit of all. See Shigeki Sakamoto, The Impact of Expanded
Functions of Regional Fisheries Management Agency on the Development of International Law:
From Fisheries Regulation to Marine Management, The Practice of International Law edited by
ShunjiYanai, Shinya Murase, Shinzansha, 2015 Edition, p. 459.
20 See Sohn (2014). Also see Sohn et al. (2010).
21 See Mizukami (2004).
22 For example, Article 3, Paragraph 2 of Article 33, Article 57, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 4 and
Paragraph 5 of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
23 Paragraph 3 of Article 77 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea set forth
the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or
notional, or on any express proclamation.
47
judgments of the International Court of Justice.
19 Therefore, ‘due regard’ requires all
States to be aware of and consider other States’ interests of freedom to use the high
seas and avoid activities of interfering in other States’ exercise of freedom of the high
seas when they exercise their own freedom of the high seas.
20 In fact, the history of
the development of the law of the sea is the history of the coordination and balance
between the coastal States’ interests and the user State’s rights, i.e. the freedom of
the high seas especially the right of freedom of navigation and overflight. That is to
say, the history of the law of the sea is the history of opposition between regulation
on the jurisdiction claimed by the coastal State and the freedom of the sea claimed by
other States, the coastal States’ interests and the international community’s general
interest.
21
3.3.3 Equidistance Principle
As above-mentioned, the UNCLOS sets forth legal regimes on various sea areas. The
principles for determining the scope and boundary of various sea areas include the
principle of land dominating the sea and the principle of equidistance. The former
plays a leading role and the latter plays a supporting role. Meanwhile the latter may
be altered according to the change of the content of relevant convention provisions.
Although the equidistance principle is not found directly in the system of UNCLOS,
the sea areas determined according to the equidistance principle mainly include the
territorial sea, contiguous zone, Exclusive Economic Zone and the continental shelf
including the outer continental shelf.
22 It is obvious that there are three categories
of maritime zones in the system of the UNCLOS. The first is the territorial sea,
archipelagic waters and Exclusive Economic Zone which need announcement or
declaration by the State. The second is the continental shelf within 200 nautical miles
without the need to make announcement or declaration by the State.
23 The third is
19 For example, the International Court of Justice stated in the judgment of Fisheries Jurisdiction
Case that with the increasing scope of fisheries activities, the result of the development of marine
international law is that the former laissez-faire treatment of the living resources of the sea in the
high seas has been replaced by a recognition of a duty to have due regard to the rights of other States
and the needs of conservation for the benefit of all. See Shigeki Sakamoto, The Impact of Expanded
Functions of Regional Fisheries Management Agency on the Development of International Law:
From Fisheries Regulation to Marine Management, The Practice of International Law edited by
ShunjiYanai, Shinya Murase, Shinzansha, 2015 Edition, p. 459.
20 See Sohn (2014). Also see Sohn et al. (2010).
21 See Mizukami (2004).
22 For example, Article 3, Paragraph 2 of Article 33, Article 57, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 4 and
Paragraph 5 of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
23 Paragraph 3 of Article 77 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea set forth
the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or
notional, or on any express proclamation.