Additionally, although Peru claimed “exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty” over a 200–nautical–mile maritime zone, in practice the precise nature of its claim is unclear. MCRM, supra United Nations, Maritime Space: Maritime Zones and Maritime Delimitation, available at. Department of State in 1998 that Benin now recognizes a 12–nautical–mile territorial sea, although Benin’s Decree 76 -92 of April 1976 claiming a 200–nautical–mile territorial sea remains listed on the UN Web site as that state’s official claim. A representative of the Benin Foreign Ministry, for instance, provided an informal statement to the U.S. However, since five of these states are party to UNCLOS (Benin (1997), Congo (2008), Liberia (2008), Nicaragua (2000), and Somalia (1989)), which through Article 3 explicitly limits the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, the number of states currently claiming a 200–nautical–mile territorial sea may in fact be only two (Ecuador and Peru). By 2008, only seven states continued to retain laws claiming a 200–nautical–mile territorial sea: Benin, the Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Liberia, Nicaragua, Peru, and Somalia. Dep’t of Defense, Maritime Claims Reference Manual2–3 (July 1990). The effect upon coastal State claims and interests-that is, upon natural resources and the environment- must be considered before deciding upon the nature and scope of a naval operation in a foreign EEZ.”).ģ2 In 1990 thirteen states claimed a 200–nautical–mile territorial sea: Argentina, Benin, Brazil, the Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Uruguay. 253, 279 ( 2002) Google Scholar (referring to the authority of a coastal state to regulate the EEZ to protect its environmental and economic interests, and concluding that “he ability of maritime powers to engage in naval activities is therefore not unqualified. Kaufman, Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Preventing Uncertainty and Defusing Conflict, 32 Cal. For a discussion of the balancing decisions that various coastal states have made between their economic and preservation interests and freedom of navigation, especially for foreign military activities, see Robert, Nadelson, The Exclusive Economic Zone: State Claims and the Law of the Sea Convention, 16 Marine Pol’y 463, 483 ( 1992) Google Scholar see also George, V. Oxman, The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea, 100 AJIL 830, 835– 46 ( 2006) Google Scholar. 19 On the UNCLOS framework protecting naval freedoms in the EEZ, see Bernard, H.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |