Project on
“Territorial waters and its relevance in International Law”
SUBMITTED TO: - Assistant Prof. N. J. Momin
FACULTY, Public International Law
SUBMITTED BY- Humanyu Kabeer
ROLL NO – 19
B.A. L.LB. (Self Finance)
SEMESTER IV
BATCH 2017-22
1|Page
CONTENTS
S. No. Content Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 3
3. WIDTH 4
4. LANDMARK CASES 4
5. CONCLUSION 5
2|Page
INTRODUCTION
Territorial waters, in international law, that area of the sea immediately adjacent to the shores
of a state and subject to the territorial jurisdiction of that state. Territorial waters are thus to
be distinguished on the one hand from the high seas, which are common to all countries, and
on the other from internal or inland waters, such as lakes wholly surrounded by the national
territory or certain bays or estuaries.1
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Historically, the concept of territorial waters originated in the controversy over the status of
the sea in the formative period of modern international law in the 17th century. Although the
doctrine that the sea by its nature must be free to all was eventually upheld, most
commentators did recognize that, as a practical matter, a coastal state needed to exercise
some jurisdiction in the waters adjacent to its shores. Two different concepts developed—that
the area of jurisdiction should be limited to cannon-shot range, and that the area should be a
much greater belt of uniform width adjacent to the coast—and in the late 18th century these
concepts coalesced in a compromise view that proposed a fixed limit of 3 nautical miles (1
marine league, or 3.45 statute miles [5.5 km]). In 1793 the United States adopted three miles
for neutrality purposes, but although many other maritime states during the 19th century
came to recognize the same limit, it never won such universal acceptance as to become an
undisputed rule of international law.
In the course of this historical development, it became settled that the belt of territorial
waters, together with the seabed and subsoil beneath it and the airspace above, is under the
sovereignty of the coastal state. This sovereignty is qualified only by a right of innocent
passage—that is, peaceful transit not prejudicial to the good order or security of the coastal
state—for merchant vessels of other nations. The right of innocent passage does not apply to
submerged submarines or to aircraft, nor does it include a right to fish.
A United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that was convened at Geneva in 1958
and attended by 86 nations developed a convention affirming the commonly accepted
principles of the legal nature of the territorial sea and the right of innocent passage. This
convention took effect in 1964 and by 1970 had been ratified by almost 40 states. A more
comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty was signed by 117 nations in 1982.
WIDTH
On the width of the belt there has developed no universal agreement except that every state is
entitled to a minimum of three nautical miles. Claims in excess of 12 nautical miles (22 km)
commonly meet widespread opposition from other states, though in the 1960s and ’70s a
trend to a 12-nautical-mile limit was evident; among about 40 states taking this view were
China, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, and the Soviet Union.
1
https://www.britannica.com/topic/territorial-waters, visited on 2-04-2019, 14:07 IST.
3|Page
Distinct from territorial waters proper are zones in the adjacent high seas in which coastal
states claim no territorial rights but assert limited jurisdiction for one or more special
purposes. These contiguous zones of 6 to 12 nautical miles (11 to 22 km) beyond territorial
waters are most commonly claimed for the enforcement of customs and sanitary regulations,
but in some instances, they may be established for fishery protection or for security. Also
distinct from territorial waters are the claims made after 1945 by many states to the
continental shelf off their shores, in or on which potentially valuable resources might exist.
Such claims met with little objection from other states when confined to the shelf itself,
without affecting the status as high seas of the waters above, but actions by some states, such
as Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, that asserted jurisdiction over waters as well as shelf for as much
as 200 nautical miles (370 km) offshore evoked wide protest as amounting to unacceptable
extensions of territorial waters.
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a sea zone prescribed by the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights regarding the
exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and
wind.2 It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from its coast. In
colloquial usage, the term may include the continental shelf. The term does not include either
the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nmi limit. The difference between
the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers
full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which
refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters, as can be
seen in the map, are international waters.3
LANDMARK CASES
1. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries4 case, before the International Court of Justice, concerned
a Norwegian decree delimiting its territorial sea along some 1,000 miles of its
coastline. However, instead of measuring the territorial sea from the low-water line,
the Norwegians constructed a series of straight baselines linking the outermost parts
of the land running along the skjaergaard (or fringe of islands and rocks) which
parallels the Norwegian coastline. This had the effect of enclosing within its territorial
limits parts of what would normally have been the high seas if the traditional method
had been utilized. As a result, certain disputes involving British fishing boats arose,
and the United Kingdom challenged the legality of the Norwegian method of
baselines under international law. The Court held that it was the outer line of the
skjaergaard that was relevant in establishing the baselines, and not the low-water line
of the mainland. This was dictated by geographic realities. The Court noted that the
normal method of drawing baselines that are parallel to the coast (the tract parallde)
was not applicable in this case because it would necessitate complex geometrical
2
"Part V – Exclusive Economic Zone, Article 56". Law of the Sea. United Nations.
3
"Part V – Exclusive Economic Zone, Articles 55, 56". Law of the Sea. United Nations.
4
ICJ Reports, 1951, p. 116; 18 ILR, p. 86.
4|Page
constructions in view of the extreme indentations of the coastline and the existence of
the series of islands fringing the coasts.5
2. The Court in Qatar v. Bahrain noted that article 15 was to be regarded as having a
customary law character7'and may be referred to as the 'equidistance/special
circumstances' principle. The Court went on to declare that, 'The most logical and
widely practiced approach is first to draw provisionally an equidistance line and then
to consider whether that line must be adjusted in the light of the existence of special
circumstances.6
3. Article 16(4) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea declares that: there shall
be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are
used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of
the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign state. This provision should be read in
conjunction with the decision in the Corfu Channel case7. In this case, British
warships passing through the straits were fired upon by Albanian guns. Several
months later, an augmented force of cruisers and destroyers sailed through the North
Corfu Channel and two of them were badly damaged after striking mines. This
impelled the British authorities to sweep the Channel three weeks later, and to clear it
of some twenty mines of German manufacture. The Court, in a much-quoted passage,
emphasized that: states in time of peace have a right to send their warships through
straits used for international navigation between two parts of the high seas without the
previous authorization of a coastal state, provided that the passage is innocent.99 It
was also noted that the minesweeping operation was in no way 'innocent' and was
indeed a violation of Albania's sovereignty, although the earlier passages by British
naval vessels were legal8.
4. in the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases9 stated that the concept of the fishing zone, the area
in which a state may claim exclusive jurisdiction independently of its territorial sea
for this purpose, had crystallized as customary law in recent years and especially since
the 1960 Geneva Conference, and that 'the extension of that fishing zone up to a
twelve mile limit from the baselines appears now to be generally accepted'.
CONCLUSION
The rights of coastal States to regulate and exploit areas of the ocean under their jurisdiction
are one the foundations of the LOSC. These rights need to be balanced with the freedom of
navigation and access to resources outside State control – the freedom of the seas. To
demarcate the proverbial rules of the road, the LOSC permits coastal States to establish
several different maritime zones. These zones give coastal States different jurisdictional
rights. In general, a State has more rights in zones near to its coastline than it does further into
the ocean.
5
ICJ Reports, 1951, p. 128; 18 ILR, p. 91. Note also the Court's mention of the courbe tailgente method of drawing
arcs of circles from points along the low-water line, ibid.
6
ICJ Reports, 2001, para. 176.
7
ICJ Reports, 1949, y. 4; 16 AD, p. 155.
8
Ibid., pp. 30-1, 33; 16 AD, pp. 163, 166. Note the final settlement of the case, UKMIL, 63 BYIL, 1992, p. 781.
9
ICJ Reports, 1974, pp. 8, 175; 55 ILR, p. 238.
5|Page
