Law of the sea

LAW OF THE SEA

Author: Yukti Gupta

   1.WHAT IS LAW OF THE SEA

It is a well-known fact that since time immemorial ‘SEA’ or ‘OCEANS’ has been fundamental to human life as it consists of numerous uncontrolled natural resources underneath its vast body of waters. The fact that such a body of waters is shared by all the nations a need was felt to enact rules to regulate the administration and functioning of these gigantic bodies of waters. ‘Law of Sea’ is a branch of public international law that binds the states and other subjects of international law in their marine affairs. The instrument that regularizes sea-related issue is called ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of The Sea(hereinafter called as UNCLOS)[1]

   2.IMPORTANCE OF THE ‘CONVENTION ON LAW OF THE LAW’

The sea has always played a vital role by acting as a vast reservoir of resources and a medium of communication. These basic functions prompted the international community to draft rules concerning the use of the sea. The ocean floor has been home to several important minerals such as oil and natural gas playing a major role in meeting the world’s energy needs. Prior to the UNCLOS, the nations used to exploit the principle of ‘Free sea’ by dominating the oceans for their own use which results in disagreements and issues. Thus, the said convention was brought in force to resolve and regulate the International Community’s control over the sea.

   3.HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF UNCLOS[2]

The modern law of the sea has emerged from the customary international law regime based on the principle of ‘Freedom of the seas’ prevalent in the mid-17th century. A Dutch lawyer ‘HUGO GROTIUS’ in his famous book titled ‘Hugo Grotius, Mare Liberum’ advocated the principle of ‘Free Sea’. According to the said principle, the sea was to be considered to be free and open to use by all countries. No nation can claim its sovereignty over the sea and no right is given to any nation to claim things which may be used by everybody and are exhaustible. Therefore, he claimed that oceans were open to navigation, trade and fishing by all. With the passage of time, many maritime powers started to gain consensus over asserting sovereignty rights over the waters immediately adjacent to its coasts. UK & France claimed the 3-mile territorial sea zone in the 17th century which was based on a ‘cannon shot’ rule propounded by the Dutch Jurist Bynkershock. The said rule was based on a rationale that the limit of territorial waters can be determined by firing a cannon in the open sea and the distance covered by such a cannon shall be the limit over which the state could govern its sovereignty. Later stats such as Russia came up with their own limit of 12- mile fishing zone in the early 1900s.

3.1 CODIFICATION OF THE LAW OF THE SEA

As many nations made claims to protect their economic and military interests over the seas, the stress for the codification of the ‘law of the sea’ increased so as to resolve maritime issues and strive uniformity among the nations with respect to the oceans.

a)   Hague Conference for the Codification of International Law (1930)

The major aim of the conference was to codify three major subjects, namely nationality, state responsibility and territorial waters. The conference, however, failed to reach a consensus on the question of the breadth of territorial waters and the problem of the contiguous zone. But the concepts such as Principle of Freedom of Navigation, Territorial Sovereignty over the territorial sea and the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea were recognized at the Conference.[3]

b)   1st UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1958) (Feb 24- April 29)

Post-World War II, a request was made to the UN International Law Commission (ILC) on behalf of the international community to prepare a draft on the codification of laws relating to the oceans. The commission prepared four drafts which were referred to the UN at the First UN Conference on the Law of The Sea (UNCLOS I) held at Geneva in 1958. The Conference resulted in four conventions relating to:

●      Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone

●     The High Seas

●     Fishing and conservation of the living resources of the High Seas

●     The Continental Shelf

        Drawback- No consensus could be reached on the issue of breadth of the            territorial sea.[4]

c)       2nd UN Conference on the Law of The Sea (1960) (March 17- April 26)

The conference was organized on 17th March 1960 with the aim to determine the exact breadth of the territorial sea including the exclusive fishery zone. With the participation of around 88 nations, the conference failed to adopt the joint proposal of the USA and Canada which provided for a six-mile territorial sea + a maximum of the six-mile exclusive fishing zone. The said proposal was turned down on the basis of one single vote resulting in failure of the conference to achieve its aim.

d)   3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973- 1982)

As the earlier conferences on the law of the sea failed to resolve any outstanding issues. The 3rd UN Conference on the Law of The Sea addressed most issues of concern. The said conference attempted to produce a single document on the Law of the Sea which would serve as a ‘package deal’ covering all the aspects of the law of the sea. The whole experience of the conference is termed as the largest and most technically complex as it’s work was conducted in three committees dealing with various issues concerning the ocean and marine resources, legal regime for the deep seabed beyond the limit of national jurisdiction, various zones, protection for the marine environment, etc. The conference was based on ‘General Consensus’ which means a negotiation mechanism would be adopted to obtain the general agreement of all the participating nations instead of the vote, thereby excluding reservations to the Convention. The conference adopted a ‘Group Approach’ wherein discussions were held with a variety of delegation groups having common interests. It took almost 10 years for the conference to conclude the work and a total of 16 years to adopt the Law of the Sea Convention. The treaty on ‘Law of the Sea’ was adopted by the Conference on December 10, 1982, in Montego Bay, Jamaica after being ratified by 117 states. About 130 states voted in favor, four nations( USA, Israel, Turkey, and Venezuela) voted against while seventeen nations abstained from voting. The treaty came into force in November 1994 after achieving the requisite number of signatures. Presently, there are around 168 signatories to the Treaty along with the European Union. The treaty is a comprehensive code of rules of international law on the sea comprising 320 articles and 9 Annexes. The treaty outlines countries’ territorial claim over water within 12 nautical miles of their coastline, and claims over 200 nautical miles as an exclusive economic zone to conduct scientific research and exploitation of marine resources. The treaty pushed back the long-standing principle of ‘Freedom of the sea’ by placing exceptions to the free use of the sea. However, the treaty does recognize any nation’s control over the area outside the above-mentioned regions. It emphasized the general responsibilities of the signatories towards controlling marine pollution and preserving marine resources. The treaty laid down various regulating authorities such as the International Tribunal for the Law of The Sea, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the International Seabed Authority; to resolve any marine issues.

4.  AN OVERVIEW OF THE MARITIME ZONES AS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO ‘ UNCLOS’[5] [6] [7]

4.1 Baseline – Article 5 of UNCLOS prescribes the ‘normal baseline’ as the default baseline which is drawn at the low-water line along the coast, except where otherwise provided in the convention. The other Maritime Zones are measured using the ‘Baseline’ as a base. Simply, it means an outline of the state’s coast. It helps to determine the area of the state’s maritime jurisdiction and its sovereignty by creating a clear demarcation of state’s right over that area. It is an intersection of the plane of low water with the shore.

●              Straight Baseline– Straight line principle is used where the configuration of the coastal area is highly complicated. It is a system wherein specified or discrete points are drawn and joined across the low-water line. It is known as straight base turning points. (Art. 7(1)).

●              Juridical Bays- Bays have a geographical/intimate connection with the land and are a subject of interests to the territorial sovereign. The closing line of bays acts as a baseline for determining the breadth of the territorial sea.

●              River mouths- Article 9 of UNCLOS talks about the baseline wherein the river flows directly into the sea. In such a situation points should be drawn on the low-water line of its bank and joined to form a straight line across its mouth. Thereby, defining a baseline.

●              Ports- In order to delimit the territorial sea, the outermost permanent harbor works which form an integral part of the harbor system are considered as a part of the coast. However, off-shore installations and artificial islands are not considered as permanent harbor work. ICJ explained the term ‘harbor work forming an integral part of the harbor system’ in the 2009 Romania/Ukraine Case[8]. It ruled that these works are general installations that allow ships to be harbored, maintained, or repaired, loading or unloading of goods. (Art. 11)

●              Low-Tide Elevation- It is that naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but they are submerged at high tide. When a low-tide is situated at 12nm or less from the mainland, the low-water line on that elevation could be used as a baseline to measure the breadth of the territorial sea. (Art. 13(2))

4.2 Internal Waters- It covers all water and waterways that lie inward side of the baseline from where the baseline is measured. The coastal state can govern any law, regulate the use of any resource in the internal waters. It also includes waterways such as rivers and canals. The state exercises its sovereignty over the internal waters in the same way as it exercises on the land. (Art 8(1)). The baselines act as the seaward limit of internal waters from where the territorial sea is measured. The right of the innocent passage does not apply to internal waters, however, as per Article 8 of UNCLOS the right of innocent passage shall exist where the internal waters have been newly enclosed by a straight baseline. The coastal state can exercise sovereignty over the foreign ships entering the port and can be subject to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the state under certain situations. ICJ in the Nicaragua Case[9], stated that by virtue of ports falling under the territorial sovereignty of the coastal state, it may regulate access to its ports.

4.3 Territorial Sea- It extends from the baseline up to 12 nautical miles (nm) (22.2 km) (Art. 3) and is known as the breadth of the territorial sea. It comprises the seabed, subsoil, adjacent waters, and airspace as well. The coastal state exercises its exclusive sovereignty over the territorial sea which comprises the seabed, sea soil, and also the vertical airspace. The state has complete control over the activities taking place in the territorial sea. The baseline is the landward limit of the territorial sea. The court of Arbitration in the 1909 Grisbadara case[10]commented upon the judicial character of the territorial sea. According to McNair ‘the maritime territory is an inseparable and essential appurtenance of land territory, the possession of which is not optional but compulsory. Ships of all states have the right of innocent passage and transit passage through international straits but it doesn’t give the right to enter the air space of territorial waters (Art. 17).

●              What is an Innocent Passage?

The right of innocent passage has been recognized as an essential means to accomplish freedom of trade. Such passage is innocent so long as it does not prejudice the peace, good order or security of the coastal state (Art. 19(1)). The activities which might prejudice the coastal state are such as 1) threat or use of force 2) spying 3) fishing activities etc. (Art. 19(2). In the 1949 Corfu Channel Case[11], ICJ emphasized on ‘whether the manner in which the passage was carried out was consistent with the principle of innocent passage’. However, such right does not exist for aircraft in the airspace of territorial waters. The coastal states can enact rules governing the innocent passage and prevent the passage which is not innocent.

4.4 Archipelagic Waters- ‘Archipelago’ denotes a group of islands in mid-ocean forming a single unit and regarded as such historically. They are so closely interrelated to form an intrinsic geographical, economic, and political entity. (Art. 46(b)). ‘Archipelagic State’ is defined by Article 46(a) as a ‘state which is wholly formed by one or more archipelago and other islands’. The waters enclosed by the archipelagic baseline irrespective of their depth or distance from the coast are known as ‘Archipelagic waters’.

4.5 Contiguous State(Art. 33) – The coastal state may claim a Contiguous zone from the outer edge of the territorial seas to a maximum of 24nm from the baseline or in other words 12nm from the outer edge of the territorial sea (might vary if the state chose to claim territorial waters of less than 12nm)(Art. 33(2)). The coastal state may exercise control over the zone to prevent and punish the infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory.  The zone overlays Exclusive Economic Zone. It provides full navigational, over-flight, fishing, scientific research, laying of cable rights to foreign nationals subject to the approval of the coastal state and considering no EEZ declared for the latter rights). It does not provide any mining rights to foreign nationals. Foreign nations must observe the coastal state’s sanitary and pollution laws.

4.6 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Art. 55-74)- It is that part of the sea which extends to not more than 200nm from the outer edge of the territorial sea baseline and is adjacent to the 12nm of the territorial sea. (Art. 55 and 57). The main reason for taking 200nm as the breadth of EEZ was due to the presence of most lucrative fishing grounds where the basic food of fish lies, about 87% of all known and estimated hydrocarbon reserves, offshore mineral resources etc. The zone does not fall under the sovereignty of the coastal state, but several ‘sovereign rights’ are exercised by the coastal state over the EEZ which comprises the seabed and its subsoil. The ‘sovereign rights’ here denotes that no other state can make its claim to the EEZ without the express consent of the coastal state.  Within its EEZ, the coastal state may exercise its sovereign right to explore and exploit the natural resources found both in the seabed, its subsoil and water lying over the seabed. These natural resources comprise both living resources, such as fisheries, plants, and non-living resources, such as oil and natural gas. The state has the right to engage in off-shore activities such as the generation of energy from the water, currents, and winds by economically exploiting and exploring the zone. It may also establish artificial islands, installations, structures; conduct marine scientific research and enact regulations for the preservation and protection of the marine environment. The state possesses jurisdiction for the enforcement of the above-mentioned sovereign rights in EEZ. The other states enjoy the complete freedom of navigation over the EEZ which includes aerial navigation, freedom to lay cables or pipelines without the approval of the state concerned, though minor exceptions do exist.

4.7 Continental Shelf (Article 76-85) –Generally, it is known as a naturally occurring geological formation around the coast which extends from the low-water line to the depth at which an increased declivity to a greater depth is found. The zone is a gently sloping seaward extension of a land boundary extending to a depth of approximately 200 m. Para 1 of Article 76 defines the term ‘Continental Shelf’ by stating that it comprises of seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea through the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nm from the baseline of the territorial sea where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. The said zone has always been a center of interest for the coastal states due to its richness in natural resources such as reserves of oil, gas, certain minerals, and sedentary living resources such as shellfish. The outer limit of the Continental shelf can be extended if it meets the criteria enshrined in Gardiner formulae (Sedimentary Thickness Test) and Hedberg Formulae (fixed distance (60 nm) test). But in either case, 350 nm from the territorial baseline is the maximum limit of the extended Zone. The coastal state enjoys limited sovereign rights over this zone for the purposes of exploring and exploiting its natural resources; authorizing and regulating the drilling of its subsoil; building artificial islands, installations, and structures. In the other state, the convention gives various rights to the other states such as the right to harvest sedentary living resources, like finfish; lay submarine cables and pipelines; conduct marine research and aerial and superjacent navigation over the Continental Shelf.

4.8 High Seas (Art. 86 -90) – The waters beyond the outer edge of EEZ including the extended Continental Shelf are known as High Seas. The rationale behind the High Seas zone rests on the customary principle of ‘Freedom of Sea’ which restricts the coastal state or landlocked state (states not having any sea-coast) to exercise its national jurisdiction and grant equal freedom to all the states to use the high seas in conformity with International Law. However, such freedom should not be exercised to prejudice the interests of the other states over the High Seas. Article 87(1) provides freedom of various uses of the oceans to all the coastal or locked states constructively such as navigation, overflight, laying submarine cables and pipelines, constructing artificial islands and other installations, fishing and marine scientific research. However, the international community follows the principle of exclusive jurisdiction to maintain legal order on the high seas wherein the flag state bestows upon it the responsibility to ensure compliance with the relevant rules of the international law with respect to vessels flying its flag. The said principle is subject to two exceptions namely, Right of visit and Right of Hot Pursuit.

4.9 International Seabed Area (Art. 135-153) – The convention refers to the seabed of the High seas or the seabed beyond the outer edge of the coastal states’ EEZ and continental shelf as the ‘Area’. Such sea-bed, ocean floor, its subsoil and resources are the common heritage of mankind upon which no national jurisdictions apply. If states are to use the Area, they can use it for peaceful purposes such as transit, marine science, and undersea exploration but in a manner not detrimental to the articles of the convention. The convention has created an International Seabed Authority under Article 153. The authority shall organize, carry out, and control the activities in the Area on behalf of mankind as a whole. The activities in the Area denotes exploration and exploitation of the resources of the Area. The main function carried out by the authority involves the transfer of technology and knowledge to developing states, implement regulations for the protection of human life and marine environment, and carry out marine scientific research.

4.10 Settlement of Disputes (Art. 286-299) – Part XV of the convention is totally dedicated to the dispute settlement mechanism by way of voluntary and compulsory procedures. The category of disputes that are subject to the compulsory procedure are mainly; High seas rights in EEZ, standard breach for the protection of the marine environment while two important categories of disputes, namely, fisheries and maritime scientific research are exempted from such compulsory procedure. However, there are some categories of disputes which are subject to compulsory arbitration only if no express declaration has been made by the state party and such category includes maritime boundary delimitations, military activities, and law enforcement, matters before the UNSC. The convention provides four methods for adjudicating disputes to the states, namely, the International Court of Justice, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Arbitration, and special arbitration along with non- binding conciliation.  The Convention established ITLOS located in Hamburg and consists of 21 judges. The majority of disputes referred to ITLOS involves either provisional measures or prompt release of the vessels and crews apprehended for the breach of state law.

5. INDIA’S POSITION ON THE CONVENTION OF LAW OF THE SEA[12]

By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, the Union holds the power with respect to lands, minerals, and valuable things underlying the ocean within the limits of the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone, and other maritime zones. Thereby, the parliament has enacted Maritime Zones Act, 1976[13](hereinafter referred as ‘the act’) in order to determine the limit of various maritime zones and to provide for rules regulating certain matters in order to comply with the convention in the greater interest of the International Community. The following are the limits imposed by the Maritime Zones Act, 1976 on the various Maritime Zones-

●     According to Section 3 of the Act, India exercises sovereignty over its territorial waters, the seabed, the subsoil underlying, and the airspace over their territorial waters.

●     Section 5 of the act enunciates the limit of the contiguous zone to the extent of twenty-four- 24- nm from the baseline of the territorial waters.

●     As per Section 6 of the Act India proclaims the limit of the Continental shelf to the extent of 200nm from the baselines of the territorial waters. However, the government may make regulations in order to declare the continental shelf zone and its overlying waters as designated areas.

●     Section 7 of the Act provides the Union an exclusive right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources (both living and nonliving) on the seabed. Such Zone extends to 200 nm from the baseline of the territorial waters.

The rights and duties of India with respect to these Maritime Zones are similar to other states, as specified in the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The rights of foreign vessels and the right to innocent passage have been carefully looked into while enacting the present regime on Maritime Zones.

6. IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS [14]

         A.  Anglo- Norwegian Fisheries Jurisdiction Case[15]

The concept of a straight baseline was recognized for the first time in the present case. Norway, having a fringe coastline, delimited its fisheries zone (territorial sea) to about 1000 miles of its coastland by a decree of July 1935. The UK while admitting the Norwegian claim of 4 miles of territorial waters challenged the legality of the straight baseline system based on linking some 48 outermost points of the land and drying rocks above water at high tide instead of measuring the zone from the low water mark at every point. ICJ by a vote of 10 to 2 decided in the favor of the Straight baseline system adopted by Norway.  The court propounded that the method adopted by Norway was not contrary to the international law as due regard should be given to the geographical circumstances such as in this case the coastline of the state was rugged, deeply indented, and economic interests peculiar to the region. In situations like this, the court upheld the concept of joining appropriate points at the low water line thus constituting a straight baseline. However, regard should be given to some factors such as transcendence of baseline from the ‘general direction; of the coast, the close link of areas lying within the baselines to the adjacent land and economic interest pertaining to a particular region concerned.

B.  North Sea Continental Shelf Case[16]

In this case, the Netherlands and Denmark filed two separate cases against the federal republic of Germany in order to determine the applicable principles of International law for the determination of the area of the continental shelf in the North Sea appurtenant to both of them beyond the partial. ICJ while pronouncing a single judgment invented the new ‘equitable principle’ to divide a common continental shelf of an adjacent country instead of applying the well-known ‘equidistance principle’. The court also laid down the factors to be considered for the application of the ‘equitable principle’ such as the geographical position of the parties and the natural configuration of the coast, proportionality of the continental shelf appurtenant to the coastal state. The reasoning behind such a rationale was that Germany was not bound by the provision of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958 as it did not ratify the same. Therefore, ICJ ruled in favor of Denmark and the Netherlands.

C.  Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf Case[17]

In the present case, a dispute arose between Tunisia and Libya pertaining to the delimitation of the single continental shelf appertaining to each of them as a natural prolongation of their land territory. Both the states entered into an agreement in June 1977 to let ICJ decide the delimitation of the respective area of the continental shelf. ICJ observed that the principle of natural prolongation could not be applied in the present dispute due to the common continental shelf between the two states, thereby dismissing the application of the equidistance principle. Also, while deciding one of the main issues that whether the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958 or the customary International Law shall be applicable in deciding the case, the court answered in negative as none of the parties to the dispute ratifies the said convention and upheld the application of the ‘principle of equity’ , taking into account all the relevant circumstances to delimit the common area of continental shelf shared by the parties.

D.  Libya-Malta Continental Shelf Case[18]

It was a first off case decided by the ICJ post the signing of UNCLOS in 1982. Libya and Malta both were signatories to the convention and a dispute with regard to the delimitation of the areas of the continental shelf arose between them. The court had to decide the same issue it faced in 1982 in Tunisia- Libya Continental Shelf Case but in this case one of the parties i.e. Libya was not a party to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. ICJ upheld the principle of equidistance in order to delimit the continental shelf and observed that the principles or rules to be applied should bring about an equitable result. Therefore, while placing heavy reliance on ‘equidistance principle’, the court stated that such equitable results could be achieved by drawing a line, every point of which should be equidistant from the low water mark of the two opposite states. The court also opined that the peculiar geographical situation of the coastal state should be taken and thus adjustments should be made in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

E.  Fisheries Jurisdiction Case[19]

In this case, the UK initiated proceedings before the ICJ claiming that Iceland was not entitled to extend its water territory to the extent of 50 miles from a straight baseline to conserve the economic zone for the purpose of fish stocking. The UK also claimed that such an extension is a subject of bilateral arrangements between the two states. In the past, Iceland has declared 12 nm of its water territory as an exclusive fisheries zone, post the Geneva Conference in 1958 which was accepted by the UK in 1961. The court while combining the dispute initiated by the UK with the one instituted by Germany against Iceland on the same issue held that Iceland was not entitled to unilaterally extend its economic zone by 5o nm beyond its territorial waters. The court observed that the government of all three states i.e. UK, Iceland, and West Germany were under an obligation to negotiate an equitable solution among them while keeping an account of ‘preferential rights’ of each one of them. The rationale behind this decision was that ICJ has earlier established a principle of preferential rights over this particular zone of the sea and if facts to be looked into, the total economy of Iceland depends on the fishing which undoubtedly gives Iceland a preferential right over the EEZ. However, the court did point out that such a declaration by Iceland was neither legal nor illegal under the principle of International Law. While the hearing of this dispute was going on, the overlapping of EEZ over the contiguous zone became a top issue of discussion. Thus, due to a lot of pressure from the international community to claim fishing rights over 200nm towards the high seas, the 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea enacted that EEZ shall extend to 200nm from the baseline of the coastal state.

7. CONCLUSION

After an overall review of the Convention on Law of the Sea, it is certain that the ocean is a rich source of living and non-living things and the regulations of such natural resources are much needed in order to their equal distribution among the nations across the globe. However, there are some grey areas in the maritime zones which prove to be an interest for the litigation such as overlapping of Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf; the varying rights over the High seas and the seabed in its beneath among the states; use of High seas for the purpose of piracy and smuggling of weapons, etc. But it can be said with an acuity that the authorities set up by the Convention perform their functions diligently in order to protect the coastal states’ rights over their maritime zones while balancing it with the sustainable development of the marine environment.

References

[1]The United Nation Convention on Law of the Sea <https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf >

[2] Franklyn Katyega, Internation Law of the Sea (April 1, 2020) < https://www.academia.edu/32854348/INTERNATIONAL_LAW_OF_THE_SEA> .

See Also < https://www.studocu.com/enau/document/charlesdarwinuniversity/administrativelaw/lecturenotes/lecture-4-2018-noteslawofthesea/4055736/view>

[3] International Law of the Sea, 2nd edition Yoshifumi Tanaka, page 21

[4] Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea, Second Edition Book by Louis B. Sohn, John Noyes, Erik Franckx and Kristen Juras

[5] Yoshifumi Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea, 2012, University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law. Cambridge University Press.

<https://www.academia.edu/37481566/The_International_Law_of_the_Sea_The_International_Law_of_the_Sea>

[6] Samiur Rahman, A comprehensive look at the codification process of the International Law of the Sea (April1st 2020)

<https://www.academia.edu/38299050/A_comprehensive_look_at_the_codification_process_of_the_International_Law_of_the_Sea_>

[7] Law of the Sea: A primer Project, LL.M. in International Law Program, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy < https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/files/2017/07/LawoftheSeaPrimer.pdf>

[8] ICJ Reports 2009, p. 106, para. 133.

[9] ICJ Reports 1986, p. 111, para. 213.

[10] ICJ Reports 1986, p. 111, para. 213.

[11] ICJ Reports 1949, p. 30.

[12] Mayank Shekhar, Law of the Sea- History, Evolution and Provision < https://www.legalbites.in/publicinternationallawnoteslawofsea/>

[13] The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 <http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/Biodiversityindia/Legal/19.%20Territorial%20Water,%20Continental%20Shelf,%20Exclusive%20Economic%20Zone%20and%20other%20Maritime%20Zones%20Act,%201976.pdf>

[14] Ahmed, Arif. (2017). International Law of the Sea: An Overlook and Case Study. Beijing Law Review. 08. 21-40. 10.4236/blr.2017.81003.

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314292546_International_Law_of_the_Sea_An_Overlook_and_Case_Study#pf14>

[15] ICJ Reports 1951 (England vs. Norway)

[16] ICJ Reports, 1969 (Federal Republic of Germany vs. Denmark and Netherlands)

[17] ICJ Reports, 1982

[18] ICJ Reports, 1985

[19] ICJ Reports, 1974 (USA and Germany vs. Iceland)

Join Our WhatsApp Group for regular updates

Click