Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Navigation through Territorial Sea and Straits—Revisited

  • Chapter
Studies in International Law and History

Part of the book series: Developments in International Law ((DIL))

  • 207 Accesses

Abstract

By the beginning of the nineteenth century it came to be universally accepted amongst the maritime states of Europe that the sea, constituting the great highway for commerce and communications between civilized nations and the remotest regions of the earth, should remain unrestricted during the continuance of peace for the complete enjoyment of every nation. Although a small part of the adjacent sea was deemed to be essential for the security of that coastal state and was accepted as under its dominion, even this part, it was felt, should be held subject to the right of innocent passage by foreign ships.1 The right of innocent passage was, therefore,

the result of an attempt to reconcile the freedom of ocean navigation with the theory of territorial waters. While recognising the necessity of granting to littoral States a zone of waters along the coast, the family of nations was unwilling to prejudice the newly gained freedom of the seas.2

Part of the lectures delivered at the Institute of International Public Law and Relations, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, on 23–27 September 1996.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See Paul Morgan Ogilvie, International Waterways (New York, 1920), p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Philip C. Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction (New York, 1927), p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid., p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See “Harvard Law School Draft on Territorial Waters”. AJIL. (Supp.), vol. 23 (1929), p. 245; see also C. Colombos, The International Law of the Sea (London, 6th ed., 1967), p. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Jessup, note 2, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Harvard Draft, note 4, p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Report of the International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1956, vol. II, p. 274.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., p. 273.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See D.P.O’Connell, The International Law of the Sea, I.A. Shearer [ed]. (oxford, 1984), pp. 274–281.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Jessup, note 2, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  11. O’Connell, note 9, p. 277.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., p. 252.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 283.

    Google Scholar 

  14. ILC., note 7, p. 277, Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Arthur H. Dean, “Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea; What Was Accomplished, AJIL. vol. 52 (1958), pp. 610–12, see also O’Connell, note 9, pp. 288–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See UNCLOS Official Records (1st Committee), vol. 3, UN Doc. A/CONF. 13/ Cl/L 37/Con. 212 (1958), See also ibid., p. 131. para 25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. UNCLOS Official Records Plenary Meetings (1958), p. 67, para 28.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., p. 68, para 46. It failed to receive the two-thirds majority. The vote was 43 to 24.

    Google Scholar 

  19. O’Connell, note 9, p. 298.

    Google Scholar 

  20. This is not only the position taken by NATO Powers, Australia and New Zealand, but it is supported by several writers like Verzil, Kelsen, Jessup, Pharandand and Fitzmourice, ibid., p. 290, n. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Besides the Soviet Union and its allies, this interpretation was supported by the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia. Several Scholars such as Brownlie, Groethem, Slomina, Colombos and Tunkin, also agree with this interpretation, See O’Connell, note 9, p. 291.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Quoted in ibid., p. 291.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See Max Sorensen, “Law of the Sea”, International Conciliation, vol. 520 (1958), p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See O’Connell, note 9, p. 290, n. 205; I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (London, 3rd ed., 1979), p. 198. See also Myron Nordquist, Testimony in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography, Gulf of Mexico and the other Continental Shelf of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives on “The Law of the Sea Treaty and Reauthorization of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act”, on April 26, 1994, US House of Representatives Serial No. 103–97 (Washington, D.C. 1994), p. 220. See also for numerous restrictions on innocent passage of various types of ships by several countries which the United States felt excessive and protested against in US Department of State, Limits in the Sea, No. 112; United States Responses to Excessive National Maritime Claims (March 9, 1992), pp. 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See U.K., Bulgaria, G.D.R., Poland, U.S.S.R., Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Yemen and Fiji, UNCLOS-III Official Records, 3 v., pp. 183, 192, 196 and 203.

    Google Scholar 

  27. For example: Bangladesh, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Yemen, passed laws requiring prior authorization before transit of warships, see O’Connell, note 9, p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Article 30, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nordquist, note 25, p. 220; see also Limits in the Sea, No. 112, note 25, pp. 55–56.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See also O’Connell, note 9, p. 292.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See Limits in the Sea, No. 112, note 25, p. 59; see also Hearings before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on “Current Status of the Law of the Sea Convention”, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session, on August 11, 1994, pp. 28, 38, 49–51; see also Hearings, note 25, pp. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Admiral William D, Centre Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, ibid., p. 25. D.O.D. Ocean Policy Review, 1993, ibid., pp. 87–88.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Quoted in Limits in the Sea, No. 112, note 25, p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  35. The United States filed more than 140 such protests including more than 110 since FON Programme began. See, Limits in the Sea, No. 112, note 25, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid., pp. 48–49; 84–85.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See Limits in the Sea No. 112, note 25, pp. 58–68, 73–76; see also Robert E. Osgood, Ann L. Hollick, Charles S. Pearson, James C. Orr, Toward a National Ocean Policy: 1976 and Beyond (Washington, 1975), p. 22; see also Elliot L. Richardson, “Law of the Sea: Navigation and Other Traditional National Security Considerations”, San Diego Law Review, vol. 19 (1982), pp. 554–5, see also Osgood et al, ibid., p. 45 for US bilateral agreements with Indonesia; R. Darman, “The Law of the Sea: Rethinking U.S. Interests”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 56 (1967), p. 376.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See D. Stamp (ed.,) A Glossary of Geographic Terms (1968), p. 436.

    Google Scholar 

  40. At its narrowest point the Dardanelles Strait is only 800 yards wide. On the other hand, the Hudson Straits are about 155 miles wide. See K.L. Koh, Straits and International Navigation: Contemporary Issues (1982), p. 11. Some scholars refer to the difficulty of separating “in principle” gulfs from straits. Thus Hall refers to the Strait of Juan de Fuca (ranging from 10 to 15 miles in width) which he says possesses some of the characteristics of a gulf, W.E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law (Oxford, 8th ed. 1924), p. 195, noted in Koh, ibid. See 1958 Geneva Convention on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone guaranteed in Article 16(4) passage through Strait of Tiran connecting the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red sea, See Koh, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Koh gives a list of 220 such straits from a list by W. Smith, Strategic Quality of International Straits (1973) (unpublished M.A. dissertation available at the University of Rhode Island), quoted in Koh, ibid., pp. 24–26. See also Robert W. Smith, “An Analysis of the Strategic Attributes of International Straits: A Geographical Perspective”, Maritime Studies Management, vol. 2 1974), pp. 88 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Approximately one-sixth of the world’s oil goes through the strait of Malacca, and about 92 per cent of Japan’s oil comes from Persian Gulf via this strait. See Smith, ibid., p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Smith note 41, pp. 97 ff; R.H. Kennedy, A Brief Geographical and Hydrographical Study of Straits Which Constitute Routes for International Traffic Preparatory Document No. 6, 1958 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (hereafter UNCLOS), UN Doc. A/CONF, 13/6 (23 Oct. 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See K.D. Shaw, “Juridical Status of the Malacca Straits in International Law”, vol. 14 (1976), pp. 35–6.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Quoted in R.R. Baxter, The Law of International Waterways (Cambridge, 1964), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid., p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Erik Bruel, International Straits vol. II (London, 1947), p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chile declared the Strait of Magellan as part of its territorial sea for the purposes of defending its neutrality, see Baxter, note 45, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  49. At the Hague Conference in 1930, the German delegate pointed out that while there was a geographical notion of a strait, “no general definition of the term exists in international law”, quoted in Koh, note 40, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  51. O’Connell, note 9, pp. 301–305.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid, pp. 303–306.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Corfu Channel Case (Great Britain v. Albania), ICJ, Rep. 1949, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid., p. 29 (emphasis added).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ibid., p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. 2 (1956), p. 273.

    Google Scholar 

  57. UNCLOS Official Records, 3. v., UN Doc. A/CONF. 13/cl/L.39, p. 220.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid., 95, para 66.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See O’Connel, note 9, p. 316.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See Baxter, note 45, pp. 166–167.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See R.R Anand, “Tyranny of the Freedom of the Seas Doctrine”, Interntional Studies, vol. 12, no. 3 (July-September 1973), pp. 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See R.R Anand, “Mid-Ocean Archipelagoes in International Law: Theory and Practice”, IJ1L, vol. 19 (1979), pp. 238–42.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See B. Harlow, “UNCLOS III and Conflict Management in Straits”, Ocean Dev. & Int Law J. vol. 15 (1985), p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid., pp. 199–200.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sub-Committee II of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed (hereafter Seabed Committee), UNGA Official Records, Session 26, suppl. no. 21A/ 8421, p. 241, UN Doc.A/A.C.138/S.C.II/L.48.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See Stevenson (U.S.), UN Doc. A/A.C. 138/S.C.II/SR8, pp. 45–47 (3 August 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Stevenson, UN Doc, A/A.C. 138/S.C.II/SR.37, p. 65 (28 July 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Osgood, et al, note 38, p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Stevenson, note 67, p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ibid., p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  71. See Kolesnik (USSR), UN Doc.A/A.C.138/S.C.H/SR.69, pp. 2–4 (24 July 1973), see also Sapozhnikov (Ukranian SSR), UN Doc. A/A.C. 138/S.C.II/SR.71, p. 23 (8 August 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  72. UN Doc.A/A.C. 138/S.C.I1/L.7 (25 July 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  73. See Kolesnik, note 71.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Mark W. Janis, Sea Power and the Law of the Sea (Lexington, 1976), P. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  75. R. Morales (Spain), UN Doc A/AC.138/SR.60, p. 88 (4 April 1973). See also Djalal (Indonesia), ibid., p. 191.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See Supra p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  77. The Nixon administration was prepared for this trade-off. See L. Ratiner, quoted in R.P. Anand, “UNCLOS and the US”, IJIL vol. 24 (1984), p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Most of the objections to the wide archipelagic claims of countries like Indonesia and the Philippines were raised because of the threat to international navigation, see Anand, note 62, p. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Such criticisms were made and doubts raised by II. Gary Knight and Michael Reisman in a memoranda submitted to Senator Barry Goldwater as Chairman of a Senate Committee on the Law of the Sea Negotiation in 1976, quoted extensively in W.T. Burke, “Submerged Passage Through Straits: Interpretations of the Proposed Law of the Sea Treaty”Washington L. Rev., vol. 52 (1977) p. 193. See also Michael Reisman “The Regime of Straits and National Security: An Appraisal of International Law Making”, AJIL, vol. 74 (1980), p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Knight, qoted in Burke, note 79, p. 207.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Reisman, quoted in Burke, Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See Ellion L. Richardson, “Law of the Sea and Other Traditional Security Considerations”, San Diego Law Review, vol. 19 (1982), pp. 564–565, see also John Norton Moore, “The Regime of Straits and the Third UNCLOS”, AJIL, vol. 74 (1980), p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Moore, note 82, p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ibid., p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid., p. 111. See also Richardson, note 82, pp. 566–8.

    Google Scholar 

  86. See Reisman, note 79, p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  87. John R. Stevenson and Bernard Oxman, “The Third UNCLOS: The 1974 Caracas Session”, AJIL, vol. 69 (1975), p. 1 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Reisman observes: “By its nature submerged passage is not the sort of practice that generates customary rights. The notoriety and opportunity for parties thereafter subordinated - requisite components of formation of prescriptive rights - can hardly be fulfilled when the strait state does not or cannot know of the passage or lacks the means of stopping it. And even if such practices were deemed to have generated customary rights in one strait, they could not ipso facto be applied to all straits, nor would they be probative of features of surface or aerial passage”. Reisman, n. 79, p. 57; see also Anthony D’Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law (London, 1971), p. 104 for a detailed discussion of treaty-custom dichotomy.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See Larson, “Security Issues and the Law of the Sea: A General Framework”, Ocean Dev. & Int’IL.J. vol. 15 (1985), pp. 136–7, Appendix B.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Ibid., p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See Summary of Territorial Sea and Fishing Claims ’ U.S. Dept. of State (1984) in Larson, ibid.,. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Larson, note 89, p. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Soundings, vol. 18 (1983), p. 4; see also Schreiber (Peru), Seabed Committee (195th mtg.) UN Doc. S.E.A./M.B./25 (6 Dec. 1982); Castaneda (Mexico)., ibid.; Ballati (Trinidad & Tabago), ibid., p. 6; Nandan (Fiji), UN Doc. 3 (7 Dec. 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Soundings, ibid., p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See a list of 26 such states including Bahrain, Belize, Brunei, Chile, Dominica,- Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadina, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tuaolu and UAE, Larson, note 89, p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See Un Doc. A/Conf. 62/85 (23 August 1979) (declaration by Foreign Minister of Columbia, Ecuador, Chile and Peru), quoted in Oxman, “The Third UNCLOS: The Eighth Session, 1979”, AJIL, vol. 74 (1980), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  97. See Oxman, ibid., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Ibid., p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. R. P. Anand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 R.P. Anand

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anand, R.P. (2004). Navigation through Territorial Sea and Straits—Revisited. In: Studies in International Law and History. Developments in International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13859-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-5600-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation