PIL 101 JPCatholic Law Of The

PIL CASE # 2 – Law of the Sea

Case description:

Coast Guard of the State of Amalia discovered that a vessel of the State of Rantania (merchant vessel that was flying its flag), while traversing Amalia’s territorial sea within the right of innocent passage, stopped and anchored at 4,5 nautical miles from Amalia’s coast. After controlling the vessel, Amalia’s Coast Guard discovered that the vessel was carrying out a research activity by analyzing the hydrology of the seabed beneath the Amalia’s territorial sea – the vessel was equipped with special technological devices. The crew of the vessel reported that they noticed on the computer an engine problem and they stopped in order to check that out. One day after this incident the President of Amalia stated: “Rantania was using the right of innocent passage to spy on us” and ordered its Coast Guard Authority to suspend the right of innocent passage through Amalia’s territorial sea till Amalia’s national security is not threatened anymore. Since then no foreign vessel could enter Amalia’s territorial sea. Suspension of the right of innocent passage took effect on the whole of Amalia’s territorial sea. National and international media started to publish articles with the headlines: “Amalia is closing its territorial sea”. However, other states, especially those neighboring with Amalia, were not officially informed about that suspension. As a result, since suspension of innocent passage through Amalia’s territorial sea, all the maritime shipment had to take other maritime route, what caused important financial losses.

Questions:

1. Explain, in your own words, how do you understand the following terms:

1. Innocent passage

1. Territorial sea

1. Criteria of suspending by the coastal state the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea

1. Flying the flag

(4 points)

1. In the abovementioned case:

1. Did Rantanian vessel have a right to stop and anchor while sailing within the right of innocent passage through Amalia’s territorial sea?

1. Did Rantanian vessel violate the character of innocent passage?

Explain your answers.

(3 points)

1. In the abovementioned case:

1. Was Amalia eligible to suspend the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea based on security/protection reasons?

1. According to art. 25 of UNCLOS, was the suspension carried out in a proper manner?

(3 points)

Instructions how to answer the questions in written:

• Look through UNCLOS, especially art. 17-19 and 25;
• You have to explain and provide justification for all of your answers, otherwise you will receive less points;
• Question #1 – it is important that you try to explain in your own words how do you understand those terms;
• Please, send me your written response via e-mail
• There is no word limit of your written response, you just have to explain and justify your answers;

• If it is possible, please refer to particular articles of UNCLOS.