Freedom to Navigate Is an International Policy - Essay Example

LAW OF THE SEA TREATY CONCEPT OF FREEDOMOF NAVIGATION Freedom to navigate is an international policy that envisages liberty in the oceans and disapproves any hostility or war in the ocean (Boyle, 2005). The policy was first contained in the high seas convention of 1958 that assured high seas freedom to navigate, fish, laying of submarine cables and pipelines within the oceans. It then with another convention of 1960 got a replacement with Sea Treaty law, formally called the "Third UN Convention on the Sea law" in 1982. The extent of this freedom is widespread as it allowed construction of artificial islands and facilitated the expedition of scientific research. Article 90 of this Act specifically defines the right to navigation the right of every “state” to sail ships carrying its flag on the oceans and seas (Ridenour, 2006). It is, consequently, in the public domain that the freedom of navigation is the right of the state rather than an individual. The 1982 Sea law convention’s objective was to establish with due regard of the sovereignty of all states, a legal Act for seas and oceans to facilitate global communication. Further, the aim was also to promote harmonious use of sea resources efficiently equitable and proper conservation. Regardless of the immense achievements of the treaty in the area of international sea law, it has also had its due share of condemnation. Occasionally the treaty has been questioned of its reliance upon traditional national legislation to execute its stipulations (Logan, 2004). The challenge was on instilling its mandate due to reliance on the national legislature to set laws, for instance; the pollution provisions restrain its power to command adherence. Whereas the advantage of such a format is that it allows the national autonomy, its flaw is that a nation may not view such legislation as a priority (Klein, 2005). Further, some counties have the freedom of navigation to show enthusiasm to justify certain violations happening abroad hence leading to the materialization of flags of convenience states. Politically, the treaty has witnessed challenges by some countries especially the United States that remained un-ratified to the treaty. The US has maintained that the profit sharing provisions related to deep seabed mining is an antithetical to values of free-market capitalism (Bates, 2005; Duff, 2005). Those who support the acceptance in the US hold that ratification will help cast aside customary law and in its place codify the autonomy of navigation rights to necessitate best possible maneuver of the navy. On the hand, those who oppose belief that ratification will infringe on US sovereignty since each party is subject to a superior international oversight (Ridenour, 2006). In the early 20th century, the regulation governing operations in the sea were exclusively customary laws. Their basis essentially was on the concept of autonomy and exclusive flag state authority over ships on the high seas. However, many developments relating to high seas followed this era and have witnessed meetings over sea navigation. One such development is the 1958 convention. It stated that all sections of the ocean that are not incorporated in the exclusive economic zone, in the regional sea or the internal waters of countries are great sea conventions (Marine Insight, 2011; Scovazzi, 2004). The first treaty is the momentous reduction in the area of the high seas that has led to a significant increase of the sea limit of coastal nations. The second was the Geneva Convention, which even though considered having many omissions regarding the confines of national jurisdiction brought transparency and certainty to the law. The third agreement contains detailed regulation of activities that ought to take place on the high seas that way orienting the growth of through the adoption of international conventions. The fourth is the UN Conference on the management of the sea that came into force in November 1994 whose Endeavour is to revise the agreements on high seas. Ever since the inception of the agreement in 1958, there have been instances of conflict between nations over the innocent passage by foreign warships about unacceptable environmental risk. The objective of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea targeted on making an outline of rules concerning states rights and obligations in the territorial sea, continental shelf, and high seas (Stokke, 2007). However, the modern-day international conventions focus mainly not on a particular region but the uses of the sea such as fishing, transport, navigation, and pollution (Ridenour, 2006). These new agreements put more consideration on the economic aspect that the early treaty. The liberty to navigate meant an unrestricted state operation at high sea. However, you will notice that article 89(1) provides a partial explanation of how seas are “open to all states.” The treaty needs to define the word ‘freedom’ in order to preserve the interests of others in the international society. In a draft of article 27 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), there is grant for nation’s abstinence from any actions that might influence the use of navigation areas by other countries or member states (Noyes, 2005). The rules envisaged that the freedom of anything on the high seas is used by all countries while keeping practical regard to the concern of other nations in their application of the freedom of the high seas. One case law on the application of this principle is the 1987 trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Fisheries Administration lawsuit between United Kingdom and Iceland. Under the statute then in force, the Iceland enjoyed privileged fishing rights in the pertinent part of the high seas (Icj-cij.org, n.d). As per the 1958 Geneva Convention article 2 on high seas, the principle of practical concern for welfare of another nation need to be adhered. Therefore, the treaty required that both the Iceland and the United Kingdom show regard to each other interest and in extension to other states’ interest in sea resources. Because the Iceland had not ratified the Geneva Convention, application of customary law the court’s ruling was used. The decision reached that both countries ought to negotiate reasonably under mutual agreement for an equitable solution of their differences keeping in mind the interest of other states. The law of the sea has maintained to illicit and enjoyed mixed reception since the states’ interests have not yet yielded one unified response. Further, the needs of the countries for greater control of resources have not complemented the objective of the maritime interest for sustained in commercial undertaking on the sea. The liberty to navigate has employed two conflicting principles: first one being freedom from sovereignty of any state, and the other has been the freedom of navigation and commerce both in peace and war. The recognition, sustenance and expansion of Sovereignty, have been a critical consideration for shaping the perspective behind territorial waters as some countries feel they will lose their independence in ratifying standard sea laws (Smith II, 1976). Such strong beliefs and stands have made it difficult to pursue permanent resolution to conflicts. Such complexities come into play when some states are dissatisfied with innocent passage because of the alleged weakness to its operation. More often, they then proceed to modify or even completely change this freedom into the broader right of the free shipment through certain territorial waters in the international straits in disregard of other states. Other nations emphasize that until an agreement is reached on the extent of expanded fishing rights, navigation, and exploitation of seedbed resource, no modification or evaluation of rights can take place. The controversies facing the free navigation and innocent passage are the stalemate the sea laws enforcers’ encounter in trying to promote safe sea operation. Considering all the deadlocks above, how then does the law of sea strike a balance between providing facilitation of free passage and impose restraints on violators of the navigation laws? The balance is not yet achieved. However, there is an ongoing contemporary process of reassessment and the efforts to reach an accommodation to agree to both innocent passage and free navigation exercise. The Conventions Nations law of the sea conference without misunderstanding is undertaking it (Smith II, 1976). As with free passage, and its terms are firmly in the international law, and its existence is owed to sustain freedom of navigation on the sea that way promoting commerce. It is also the result of the enforcers’ effort to allow coastal states or littoral states a right to pursue policies of territory sovereignty. In circumstances where coastal land standards are regarded by the international law as excessive an abridgement to rights of innocent passage, a more reasonable general criteria is applied. That is whenever a conflict arises over the validity of state standards, and a balancing point has to be struck. It is between promoting the international requirements for unhindered or unburdened navigation and protecting the autonomy honor of the coastal states. Such sense of balance should accord the coastal nation a fair quantity of discretion in determining the extent of fortification necessary to ensure its safety. Nonetheless, the state should not act with flight of the imagination or caprice. The law provides that in event that the state is challenged of whether the passage of a particular vessel through its territory would be innocent; the state should be compelled to demonstrate: that the ship it challenges would present a considerable threat to the state; and that the interest it seeks to protect is significant and of authentic substance. Such are the modalities that the sea law convention puts in place to impose restraint on innocent passage. One example to show how the sea laws invoke a balance is case of two British ships that got fired at by Albanians in May 1946, while passing southwards through north Corfu channel in the case of Albanian vs. British in which the court’s ruling was a reflection of the view of the immunity of warships to pass through a channel used for sea navigation. Therefore, the obligation of Albania was to warn foreign shipping of the danger to navigation to such channels. At variance of the case, the government of the United Kingdom argued that the mine could have been laying devoid of the Albanian government’s awareness. Article 110 of the treaty gives permission for nations to trail, apprehend, and board ship for violation of international and other laws within the states jurisdiction. However, this act is limited to “hot pursuit of the ship” (Imo.org, n.d.). In order qualify or pigeonhole a pursuit on a ship as a hot pursuit, such pursuit must originate in the internal waters, the Territory Sea, or the contagious zone of the chasing state or nation. As long as the quest remains uninterrupted, the law allows the trail or chase to continue outside the territorial sea of the infringed state (Thao, 2003). The agreement also provides reasons that may legalize the detaining of the ship. However, if a state snubs the reasons and employs different means other those prescribed in the convention, the action could be subjected to evaluation a and judgment. Nevertheless, if a settlement is arrived at, the fifth paragraph of article 290 of the sea law specifies that automatic adjudication will follow, and settlement will prevail within two weeks (Ridenour, 2006) On whether to board or not military ships, Article 110 of the sea treaty envisages that it is not justified in boarding a foreign ship unless there is sensible justification for suspicion that can warrant the board. These grounds can either be that: the ship is affianced in piracy, in the slave trade, unlawful broadcasting, the ship is devoid of nationality or is in the same nationality as the warship (Kraska, 2007). The law by extension allows for interception and boarding of the ship implicated in illegal drug commerce transits. In the facilitation of innocent passage and imposing restraints in sea and oceans, the sea laws are designed to relative to such mission- some promoting free passage while others takes care of the violators of the regulations. As with unauthorized broadcasting, the convention considers it necessary to board ship whereas it is inadmissible to board ships suspected of carrying terrorists or weaponry of mass destruction (Ridenour, 2006) Thus, since the adoption of the Law of the sea treaty otherwise formally called the Third United Nations Convention in 1982, it has received tremendous developments. Its agenda to establish a comprehensive set of regulations has grown to surpass the previous conventions on sea law of 1958 and 1960. Ultimately, the influence of the sea treaty will grow as it rides itself in unshakable conceptualism in abolishing obsolete concepts which render a sense of injustice. It relies on contemporary ideas of ownership and mutual interest. Bibliography Bates, C. L., 2005. US Ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Passive Acceptance is Not Enough to Protect US Property Interests. NCJ Intl L. & Com. Reg., 31. Boyle, A., 2005. Further Development of the Law of the Sea Convention: Mechanisms for Change. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(03). Duff, J. A., 2005. United States and the Law of the Sea Convention: Sliding Back from Accession and Ratification, The. Ocean & Coastal LJ, 11, 1. Icj-cij.org, (n.d.). Cases: Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland). Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 2 February 1973. [online] Available: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=302&p1=3&p2=3&case=55&p3=5 [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014]. Imo.org, (n.d.). IMO | Facilitation. [online] Available: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Facilitation/Pages/Home.aspx [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014]. Klein, N. S., 2005. Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Vol. 256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraska, J., 2007. The law of the Sea Convention and the Northwest Passage. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 22(2). Logan, S. E., 2004. Proliferation Security Initiative: Navigating the Legal Challenges, The. J. Transnatl L. & Poly, 14, 253. Marine Insight, (2011). Nautical Law: What is UNCLOS?. [Online] Available at: http://www Murawski, R. (n.d.). Fact Sheet: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. [online] Center for Arms Control. [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014]. Available: http://armscontrolcenter.org/publications/factsheets/potential_ratification_lawofthesea/ .marineinsight.com/misc/maritime-law/nautical-law-what-is-unclos/ [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014]. Noyes, J. E., 2005. United States, The Law of the Sea Convention, and Freedom of Navigation, The. Suffolk Transnatl L. Rev., 29, 1. Ridenour, D., 2006. Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage. [Online] Nationalcenter.org. Available at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014]. Scovazzi, T., 2004. Marine protected areas on the high seas: some legal and policy considerations. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 19(1). Smith II, G. P., 1976. The Politics of Lawmaking: Problems in International Maritime Regulation: Innocent Passage v. Free Transit, 37 U.PITT. L. REV. 487. Stokke, O. S., 2007. A legal regime for the Arctic?: Interplay with the Law of the Sea Convention. Marine Policy, 31(4), 402-408. Thao, N. H., 2003. The 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea: A Note. Ocean Development &International Law, 34(3-4). Read More