Territorial Sea

Territorial Sea
- Belt of Sea outward from the baseline and up to 12 Nautical Miles
beyond (Under the UNCLOS).
Exception:
– Neighboring Littoral state would result to an overlap.
• Equidistant rule – Dividing line is a median line equidistant from the opposite baselines.
– Exception: Historic Title and other special circumstances
Drawing a Baseline
– Normal Baseline
• Follows the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially
recognize by the coastal state.
– Straight Baseline
• Used by archipelagic states. Connecting selected points on the coast without appreciable
departure from the general shape of the coast
Sovereignty of the state
– Exception: Right of Innocent Passage by other state
• Navigation through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner.
• Not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.
– Passage that are not innocent: fishing, polluting, weapon practice, spying, etc.

General Rule: Flag state has criminal and civil jurisdiction

 Territorial Sea
UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law Of The Seas)

Rules Applicable to Merchant Ships and Government Ships operated for

Commercial Purpose

Article 27 – Criminal Jurisdiction on board a foreign ship

• Shall not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the
territorial Sea, on crimes committed on board the ship during passage.
– Arrest any person
– Conduct Investigation

Except:
• Consequences extend to the coastal state
• Disturb the peace of the country or good order of the territorial sea
• Assistance is requested
• Suppress illicit traffic of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance
 Territorial Sea
Article 28 – Civil Jurisdiction in Relation to foreign ships
• Shall not stop or divert a foreign ship passing through
for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction to a person
on board the ship
• May not levy execution against or arrest the ship
– except for liabilities assumed or incurred by the
ship in course or purpose of its voyage
– Without prejudice to the right of the coastal state
in accordance with its laws.
 Territorial Sea
Rules Applicable to Warships and Other Government Ships
operated for Non-Commercial purposes.

Article 29 – Definition of Warship

– Belongs to the armed forces of a state bearing the
external marks distinguishing such ship of its nationality.
– Under the command of an officer commissioned by the
gov’t of the state

Article 30 – Non Compliance by the Warship with the Laws and

Regulations of the Coastal State
– Coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea
immediately.
 Territorial Sea
Article 31 – Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by
a warship or other government ship operated for non-
commercial purposes.
– Bears international responsibility
• law and regulations of the coastal state
• Provision of the UNCLOS
• Other rules of international law

Article 32 – Immunities of warship and other government ships

operated for non-commercial purpose.
• Exception
– Subsection A
– Article 30
– Article 31
Cases
 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
1st Incident
•In 1973, Gadaffi claimed a 12 mile extension of its territorial
waters in the Gulf of Sidra (22,000 Sq miles) and named it the Line
of Death (crossing the line would invite a military response)
•This prompted US naval forces to conduct Freedom of Navigation
Operation.
•In 1981, President Reagan authorized the deployment of a large
naval force off the Libyan coast.
•Libya responded by deploying a high number of interceptors and
fighter bombers
•During a missile exercise, a Libyan fighter fired a missile at one of
the fighter planes of the US but missed and tried to escape.
•According to the rules of engagement, mandated by self defense.
US was cleared to return, shooting down the 2 Libyan aircraft.
 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
•The Reagan administration intensified its effort to provoke a
war with Libya leading to the 2nd incident in 1986.

2nd Incident
•US has been threatening and provoking Libya with war
•Libya claimed the entire Gulf to be territorial waters, as it
was surrounded by Libyan land.
•US Insisted that international waters ended 12 miles from
the coast.
•US shipped bombarded Libya resulted in the killing of
Libyan Seamen, while US had no casualty.
 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
•US Protested and rejected Libya’s claim for it was a violation
of international law
•300 mile line is not territorial water (1958 Convention
on the Territorial Sea and contiguous Zone)
•Did not meet the IL standard of past, open, notorious,
effective and continuous exercise of authority necessary
to be regarded historically as Libyan internal or territorial
water (historic bay).
 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
Libyan Territorial Sea
•Under the Libyan Law in 1959. Limit to its territorial water
was at 12 nautical miles
•In an announcement made in 1973, contained in a note sent
by the Libyan embassy to the US Department of State.
•The Gulf was within the territory of Libya
•It constitute as its internal waters
•Throughout history, without dispute it has exercise
sovereignty over the Gulf
•The Gulf is within the sovereignty and jurisdiction of
Libya and that Private and Public ships are not allowed to
enter the Gulf without its permission
 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
Issue:

Whether Libya’s claim under the historic bay doctrine is valid?

 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
Ruling: (No. Not Valid)
•Historic bay does not apply to both the 1958 Territorial Sea
Convention and the 1982 Law of he Sea convention
•Under existing laws, a coastal state is entitled to enclose as
internal water a bay whose entrance does not exceed 24 miles.
Libyan line exceeds the maximum permissible closing line.
•Libya’s claim cannot be justified in International Law, for it has not
offered evidence to substantiate its claim.

Doctrine of Historic bays: Claims to historic water in general are relics

of an older and largely obsolete regime. The International community
might still be willing to consider of such claim (exceptional
circumstances), it has rejected attempts to establish new maritime
claims of extravagant character since such claim encroach on what
otherwise would be considered the common domain of international
community.
 The Gulf Of Sidra Incidents
• Under the Convention on the High Seas.
– High Seas being open to all nations. No state may validly purport to
subject any part of them to its sovereignty.
 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (1951)
• In 1935 a Royal Norwegian Decree was implemented,
establishing the lines of delimitation of the Norwegian
fisheries zone. By specifying the limit within which fishing is
prohibited to foreigners.
• The delimitation use straight lines called baselines, 4 miles
deep into the sea which is fishing exclusive for Norwegian
Nationals
• This was opposed by UK by filing in the ICJ an application
instituting proceedings against Norway.
• Both UK and Norway were willing to accept the jurisdiction of
the ICJ and submitted their arguments.
 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (1951)
Issue

Whether the delimitation made by Norway is valid?

 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (1951)
Ruling: Yes it is valid.
• Delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect
and cannot be dependent upon the will of the coastal state as
expressed on it municipal law.
• Delimitation is a unilateral act and only the coastal state is
competent to undertake it, it’s validity with regards to other
state depends upon international law.
• The geographical realities and historic control of the
Norwegian coast contributed and considered to the final
decision of the ICJ.
– The coast of Norway is too indented and is an exception under
international law from the 3 miles territorial water rule.
– The sunds along the coastline which have the characteristic of a bay or
legal straits should be considered Norwegian for historical reasons
that the territorial sea is measured from the line of low water mark.
 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (1951)
• Norway had the right to clam a 4 mile belt of territorial sea.
• There is one consideration that goes beyond the geographical
factor. That of certain economic interest peculiar to a region,
the reality and importance of which are clearly evidenced by
long usage
 El Salvador Vs. Honduras (1992)
• Central America was a colony of Spain under Spanish
administration
• In 1821, Independence was achieved by the Federal
Republic of Central America
• In 1839 the Federal Republic broke up, with
Honduras and El Salvador becoming an independent
state.
• In 1969; Land, island and maritime dispute between
Honduras and El Salvador erupted.
 El Salvador Vs. Honduras (1992)
• One of the issue of dispute was the legal status of
the islands located in the Gulf of Fonseca.
• The tension between the two state led to an armed
conflict in 1969.
• Series of dispute resolution efforts were conducted
but still unresolved disputes still exist.
• El Salvador and Honduras reached a Special
Agreement for the ICJ to resolve the remaining
disputes.
• Sovereignty over the islands had been achieved
according to the uti possidetis juris principle
(colonial boundaries are continually adopted)
 El Salvador Vs. Honduras (1992)
• Lacking persuasive documentary evidence, the court
was forced to concentrate more on the behavior of
the parties with regards to the island after 1821.
– El Tigre was appertained to Honduras
– Meanguera and Meanguerita to El Salvador
 El Salvador Vs. Honduras (1992)
Issue

Whether Sovereignty over the Gulf of Fonseca belongs

to a specific state in the case?
 El Salvador Vs. Honduras (1992)
Ruling: No
• The Gulf was not a single state bay but constituted as a
historical bay which is not defined on any convention, thus
decision shall be base on customary international law.
• Base on the Central American Court of Justice of 1917, the
Gulf of Fonseca constitute a “close sea” belonging to all 3
coastal states communally
– Exception: 3 mile zone established unilaterally by each coastal state
• The Gulf had been a single state bay belonging to Spain
but on the time of independence no boundaries were
delimited and thus water remained undivided.
• The Gulf was a case of historic waters whereby 3
coastal state had succeeded to communal sovereignty.
• The communal succession was a logical consequence
of the uti possidetis juris principle as to the sovereignty
of the Gulf.
 US Vs. California (1965)
• US brought a suit in 1945 against California to determine
the dominion over the submerge lands and mineral rights
under the 3-mile belt of sea off the California coast.
• In 1947, the court held that the US possessed paramount
rights in such lands and minerals underlying the pacific
ocean seaward of the low water mark on the California
Coast and outside of inland waters.
• The court appointed a special master to determine for
specific coastal segments.
• In 1952, the Master base his definition on inland water on
that applied by the US on its foreign relation.
• In 1953 the Submerge Land Act was enacted. Giving the
state ownership of lands beneath navigable waters within
their boundaries. But in no event extending from coastline
more than 3 geographic miles into the pacific ocean.
 US Vs. California (1965)
• The act did not define what inland water is
from which the Coast line has derivatively
defined.
• In 1963 the US filed an amended complain,
reviving the report and redescribing the issue
as modified by the Submerge land act
• State of California and the Federal
government are trying to determine who
owns and has jurisdiction over the subsoil,
seabed of the continental shelf and resources
located along california coast
 US Vs. California (1965)
Issue:

Whether the Federal government has

jurisdiction or owns over the California coast
within the 3-mile belt?
 US Vs. California (1965)
Ruling: No
• The Federal government owns and has exclusive
jurisdiction over such beyond the 3 miles
seaward from the coastline.
• California owns and has exclusive jurisdiction
over such within 3 miles or the tidelands along
the coast.
• Adopting the meaning of inland water in terms of
the convention definition. With a 24-mile
maximum closing line for bays and a semi circle
test for the sufficiency of the water area
enclosed. Has provide stability and definiteness
to the rights granted in the act.
 US Vs. Louisiana (1969)
• Through the Submerged Land Act of 1953, the
court held that US had a quitclaimed to
Louisiana’s lands underlying the Gulf of Mexico.
• The United State and Louisiana filed a cross-
motion for a supplemental decree designating
the boundary of the land under the Gulf.
• Parties differ: “the Line marking the seaward
limit of the inland waters”.
• US contends that inland water contained in the
Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous
zone should determine the location of the line.
• Louisiana argues that it should be the “inland
water line” fixed by the commandant of the coast
guard in 1895.
 US Vs. Louisiana (1969)
Issue:

Whether the definition of US of inland water

should prevail over Louisiana?
 US Vs. Louisiana (1969)
Ruling: Yes
• Sustaining the definition under the US Vs. California
case. The court held that the convention’s definition
were the best and most workable
• The same was adopted for the purposes of the
submerge land act.
• “the line of ordinary low water along that portion of
the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea
and the line marking the seaward limit of inland
waters.”
• The US has decided not to draw straight baselines
along the Louisiana coast.
• The court leaves the special master the task of
determining whether any of Louisiana’s water are
“historic bays”