A Comparative Study of the UNCLOS Superiority’s Components to the Coastal State’s Domestic Law in the Criminal Jurisdiction on the Maritime Zones

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor of Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Basis for the Coastal State’s ban on criminal jurisdiction over foreign ship affairs in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Contiguous Zone is subject to the regulations of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. As the observance of the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea is accepted by the Coastal State by its membership, it shall refrain from enforcing or enacting domestic laws contrary to its requirements. Examining the dimensions of this theory by relying on the dispute between the Coastal State and the Flag State in the case of the Enrica Lexie ship in the Contiguous Zone is one of the objectives and topics of this manuscript to answer the related questions. First, what are the requirements of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in relation to the maritime zones and the criminal jurisdiction of the Coastal State in the Contiguous Zone? Second, what confirms the superiority of the requirements of the Convention on the Law of the Sea over the domestic laws of the Coastal State over the Flag State? The research findings show that the area of maritime zones is subject to the provisions of articles 3, (33)2 and 57 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it is not possible to relocate or integrate them into the domestic laws of the Coastal State. The Coastal State’s criminal jurisdiction over incidents in the Contiguous Zone and the involvement of foreign ships is subject to the provisions of articles 33(1)(a), 58(2), 94(7) and 97(1) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, the criminal jurisdiction of the Coastal State in contrast of the Flag State by ignoring the requirements of different maritime zones and the components of criminal jurisdiction of the Coastal States and the Flag State in domestic law is not effective.

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. ابراهیم‌گل، علیرضا و عطار، محمدصالح (1398)، «مبانی نظری قاعدۀ آمره در حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامۀ دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، ش 87، پاییز.
    2. صالحی، جواد (1398)، «رویکرد دولت ساحلی در پرتو اصول و اسناد بین‌المللی در مواجهه با عملکرد کشتی خارجی»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، ش 63، تابستان.
    3. صالحی، جواد (1399)، «اقدامات موقت و بایسته‌های آن در رویۀ قضایی دیوان بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها؛ جلوه‌ای از نفی تحقق ملاحظات حقوق بشری متهم با هدف رعایت مصلحت بزه‌دیده»، مجلۀ مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، ش 1، بهار و تابستان.
    4. مقصودی، رضا (1393)، «دستاوردهای حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی در زمینۀ تعارض دادگاه‌ها»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 50، بهار و تابستان.

     

    ب). خارجی

    1. Gandhi, Manimuthu (2013), “The Enrica Lexis Incident: Seeing Beyond the Grey Areas of International Law”, Indian Journal of International Law, Vol. 53(1).
    2. International Court of Justice (1949), Corfu Channel Case, Reports, Available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/1/001-19490409-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf., Last Visited 11 July 2020.
    3. International Court of Justice (2001), Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/87/087-20010316-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf., Last Visited 20 July 2020.
    4. International Maritime Organization (1988), Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/Conv8-english.pdf., Last Visited 22 July 2020.
    5. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1995), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, Order of 8 November 1995, Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/85/085-19951108-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf., Last Visited 22 July 2020.
    6. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1999), Saint Vincent and Grenadines v. Guinea, the M/V “SAIGA”, Report No. 2, Available at: https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-2/., Last Visited 22 July 2020.
    7. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2015a), The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy v. India), Provisional Measures, Order, 24 August 2015, Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.24_prov_meas/24_published_texts/2015_24_Ord_24_Aug_2015-E.pdf., Last Visited 12 July 2020.
    8. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2015b), Italy’s Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 21 July 2015, Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.24_prov_meas/Request/Request_of_the_Italian_Republic_r.pdf., Last Visited 12 July 2020.
    9. Mouland, T. Satya (2019), “Rethinking Adjudicative Jurisdiction in International Law”, Washington International Law Journal, Vol. 29(1).
    10. Permanent Court of International Justice (1927), The Case of the S.S. Lotus, France v. Turkey, Judgment, Twelfth (Ordinary) Session, Available at: http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1927.09.07_lotus.htm., Last Visited 2 July 2020.
    11. Piper, I. Danielle (2012), “Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction: Does the Long Arm of the Law Undermine the Rule of Law?”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 13(1).
    12. Piper, Danielle (2013), “Prosecutions of Extraterritorial Criminal Conduct and the Abuse of Rights Doctrine”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 9, p. 68-89.
    13. Piper, I. Danielle (2014), “The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony: A Voyage into Jurisdictional Conflict”, Queensland University of Technology Law Review, Vol. 14(2).
    14. Purvis, Chelsea (2011), “Coastal State Jurisdiction Under UNCLOS: the Shen Neng 1 Grounding on the Great Barrier Reef”, the Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 36(1).
    15. Ronzitti, Natalino (2012), “The Enrica Lexie Incident: Law of the Sea
      and Immunity of State Officials Issues”, The Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 22(1).
    16. Subramanian, R. S. (2017), “Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and the Balance between Immunities and the Duty to Respect the Local Laws and Regulations under the Vienna Conventions: The Recent Indian Experience”, The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, Vol. 3.
    17. Supreme Court of India (2012), Indian Fishermen Case, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition, No. 135.
    18. Supreme Court of India (2013a), Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.; Slp(c) No. 20370, Judgment, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78409161/., Last Visited 12 July 2020.
    19. Supreme Court of India (2013b), Republic of Italy and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., Order of the Supreme Court of India, 26 April 2013., Available at: https://law.nus.edu.sg/cmlcmidatabase/republic-italy-v-union-india., Last Visited 20 July 2020.
    20. The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act of India (1976), Available at: https://www.mea.gov.in/acts-legislations-rules.htm?dtl/143., Last Visited 20 July 2020.
    21. UN Security Council (2009), Resolution on Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Vessels in the Waters off the Coast of Somalia, No. S/RES/1897, Available at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b18cff1d.pdf., Last Visited 22 July 2020.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 12, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2021
Pages 219-238

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics