The United Nations Convention On The Law Of the Seas (UNCLOS)

Introduction

The declining health of the world's ocean has been a global concern. A priori, the environment, aquatic
and terrestrial, was fashioned to ensure not only the state of health of just the immediate inhabitants,
but also that of the outside world. This is because there are really no boundaries when it comes to
aquatic environment-strings of free-lows linking one body of water to another. Through that link, the
world's oceans and other bodies of water cover seventy percent of the earth surface. Unfortunately,
ugly trends in development and industrialization emerged and continued, distorting ocean and marine
life. Consequently, the United Nations Convention on Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) came setting out rules
for the use of the ocean. UNCLOS concerned itself with procedures, laws and justifying methodologies
to curb, and possibly, eradicate international water challenges including the issue of pollution of the
world's ocean. The UNCLOS also focuses at dispute resolution mechanisms, the laws of the sea and the
international economic order for a healthy marine life.

Historical Background

Over the years, marine law and laws of the seas was founded on freedom of the seas for all. The idea
and practice of control of international waters and oceans was limited to very lean bands contiguous to
national coasts. The control hinged more on customary international law. The involvement of public
international treaties and bilateral agreements involved small number of states and restricted to a
particular geographical region. However, by mid-20thy century when states engaged in wide-scale
fishing and commercial use of international waters, concerns arose on issues bothering on pollution
and exhaustibility of marine resources.

Similarly, the concept of freedom of the sea also gradually shrank when many nations started laying
claim of sovereignty over marine resources in their territorial sea and continental shelf. It thus became
expedient to develop treaty-based regime for ocean governance. Consequently, series of international
conferences on laws of the sea under the aegis of the United Nations were convened. Thus, the United
Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS) emerged as a major UN instrument for sea
governance. UNCLOS, similarly referred to as the 'law of the sea treaty' is a multinational agreement
which emerged from the third UN conference on the law of the seas, otherwise called "UNCLOS III" that
held in series from 1973 through 1982. This international agreement streamlines the rights and
responsibilities of nations in the use of international waters and ocean (pacific, Atlantic, indian, arctic,
southern ocean). It established general guidelines for conducting business in the seas and the
management of marine living and other natural resources. UNCLOS III which was concluded in 1982
replaced previous four treaties of 1958, when it came into force in 1994.

As is customary with most international treaties, the United Nations Secretary General is the recipient
and custodian of such global instruments, including its ratification and accession, however, the UN has
no direct responsibility in its implementation, but can provide needed support for state parties to the
convention for meetings and evolving implementation strategies. Similarly, its agencies such as
International Seabed Authority established by the UN and the International Maritime Organization,
inter alia, could play very significant roles in implementing the provisions and decisions of UNCLOS.

The above background reveals that from the 17th century, the concepts of freedom of the seas was the
applicable law without limits. Under this legal order, right of nations over the seas was limited to
specified water belt water extending from a nations coast lines, which was commonly three nautical
miles determined by canon shots. The "canon shot" rule was developed by a Dutch Jurist known as
Corneluis Van Bynkershak. As at then every sea or body of water cutting across national boundaries
were considered international waters free to be used by all nations as terra milieus but belonging to
no one. This practice belonged to the mare liberum principle as promulgated by Hugo Grostius.

The early 20th century marked a hallmark of more maritime claims in international waters. Some
nations expressly desired to extend national claims to include offshore mineral resources, claims over
the protection of fishes and curtailing marine pollution to the exclusion of others. Consequently, in
1930, the League of Nations organized a to determined seaward limits, among other related issues, but
no agreement was reached. However, relying on the traditional rule of customary international law
bestowing rights to nations over her natural resources, in 1945 President Truman of the US extended US
control to all the natural and living resources of its continental shelf. Many nations followed suit.
Between 1946 and 1950, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador and Peru extended their rights to 200 nautical miles.
Other nations, especially in Europe and America extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles.

The later process of evolving a worldwide realistic legal covenant on laws of the seas under the aegis of
the United Nations General Assembly commenced in 1967, as fallout of the popular speech of
Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta. The speech centered mainly on the mineral resources of the seabed
beyond the limits of national jurisdictions. This culminated in the setting up of the United Nation Seabed
Committee, in 1967 up to 1973 under different names. All these got synthesized in the UN General
Assembly Resolution 2749 (XXV) of December 17, 1979. This Resolution classified the seabed and ocean
floor, and the subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the area), as well as its resources
as the common heritage of mankind; and thus, no state can exercise sole sovereignty over them, but
there for all mankind.

In 1976, independent States had doubled, engendering a sense of mistrust for the then extant rules of
international law. This was confirmed by entering into force of Geneva Conventions on the law of the
sea in 1958, adopted less than ten years earlier, but did not attract the ratification of most of the newly
independent states. This was principally because the priorities of the new states over the use of the seas
were different from that of the maritime powers that had dominated the scene over the years.

As at 1967, only 25 nations held on to the "three-mile" limit known by customary international law.
while 66 nations had set a 12-mile territorial limit and 8 nations set a 200-mile limit in line with situation
is south America. Strangely, as at 2008, only a few countries like Jordan, Palau, some Australian islands,
Belize, some Japanese straits, Papua New Guinea and some British extended territories like Anguilla still
used three nautical mileages to determine their maritime limits. Thus, the United Nations Convention on
the Laws of the Sea came to replace the older, conflicting and weaker freedom of the seas concept of
17th century history. In 1956, the first UN conference on the law of the sea later known as "UNCLOS I"
was held at Geneva, Switzerland. The fallout of the conference gave rise to four treaties concluded in
1958 and later in 1960. The second UN conference come up six weeks later in Geneva; and
subsequently, UNCLOS III in 1973 through 1982 in New York, which came into effect much later on
November 16th 1994. As at June 2016, 168 nations inclusive of the European Union had ratified the
Convention. Thus, the journey of the Laws of the Seas which commenced in 1956 was concluded in 1982
replacing the 1058 and earlier treaties.

Signature and Ratification

At the conclusion of UNCLOS III on December, 10th 1982, the UN opened the Convention for signature
at Montego Bay, Jamaica. The Convention, as was explained earlier entered into force on November 16,
1994 upon deposition of the 60th instrument of ratification. The document is presently binding for 168
counties as at July 2017, including the European Community. UNCLOS is presently considered as the
"Constitution of the seas and oceans". The Convention symbolizes an unprecedented, and never
replicated effort at codification and progressive development of international law in advancement of
law of the seas. The Convention is made up of over 400 Articles and 9 annexes that are an integral part
of it are the most extensive and detailed product of codification activity, states have ever attempted and
successfully concluded in history under the aegis of the United Nations.5

The factors that led to the codification of the laws of the seas was eventful and complex. It consisted of
a process at the floor of General Assembly of the UN relating to specific aspects of the law of the sea,
and also changes in the structure of international legal order in the use of the seas. The two phenomena
converged at the decision taken by the UN General Assembly in 1970, that is, Resolution 2750 (XXV) of
December 17, 1970. This Convention enabled the convening of the UNCLOS III.6

Procedure and Effect of the Ratification

At the conclusion of the international legal instrument, the Government of State parties and intending
nations were required to sign the instrument of ratification through her Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
instrument was deposited with and under the custody of Secretary General of the United Nations. Just
like any other international law, by ratifying UNCLOS, the State simply affirms its strict adherence to and
firm belief in the application new legal order and rule of law as touching the use of the oceans and high
seas. For example, the ratification of UNCLOS by Canada provided her a strong foundation to continue
its collaborative approach to ocean related issues. Similarly, ratification of the convention allows the
country maximally savour the huge the benefits of the Convention, including, but not limited, to
acquisition of the right to delimit the outer edge of its continental shelf and also have a voice in UNCLOS
institutions.7 It also gives the country the opportunity to speak on oceans and maritime issues on an
equal footing with other state parties to the Convention, and also participate in decision making
regarding issues of the seas. Additionally, UNCLOS ratification enhances international cooperation in the
sustainable development of natural resources, balancing economic development with core
environmental goals. Finally, ratification opens the door for international recognition and acquisition of
rights over the vast continental shelf, being one of the world's richest vistas in seabed and other marine
resources.

Overview of the Various UNCLOS Regimes

UNCLOS I

From the above discourse, UNCLOS I, that is the 1956 United Nations conference held in Geneva
resulted in four treaties, concluded in 1958 and they are:

i. Convention on the territorial sea and contiguous zone.

ii. Convention on the continental shelf

iii. Convention on the high seas

iv. Convention on fishing and conservation of living resources of the high seas.

Nevertheless, that the convention has been superseded by UNCLOS III. UNCLOS I left open the
important issue of breadth of territory waters.
UNCLOS II

The second UN conference on the Laws of the Seas held in Geneva in 1960. It lasted for six weeks. It was
more of Western affair. African and Asian countries who participated in the conference had no voice as
they were more of American, European and Soviet Union rubber stamps.

UNCLOS III

The third UN conference on Laws of the Seas held in New York in 1973. However, in 1967 the issue of
varying and conflicting claims of territorial waters were raised in the U.N. like can be seen above, the
conference lasted up to 1982 and became effective in 1994. In a bid to reduce avoid group domination
over others during the negotiations, the conference deployed consensus process instead of majority
vote. More than 160 states participated in the conference.

UNCLOS III of 1982 brought to bear very comprehensive legal regime governing the rights of nations
over the seas and oceans. It addresses various issues such as exclusive economic zone of the sea, the
continental shelf, rights over the deep seabed, navigational rights, territorial rights over the seas,
management and conservation of the living resources of the sea, protection and preservation of the
marine environment. It also addresses matters on scientific maritime research, settlement of disputes,
continental shelf jurisdiction etc. UNCLOS III comprises of 18 Parts, 320 Articles and 9 Annexes.
Furthermore, there are two other agreements adopted to supplement UNCLOS. They include: (1) the
agreement relating to the implementation of part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea made on December 10, 1982 and (2) the United Nations agreement for the implementation of the
provisions of the UNCLOS relating to the management and conservation of straddling fish stock and
migratory fish stocks. UNCLOS set a uniform seaward limit of various areas measured in nautical mileage
from defined baseline. Usually, the sea baseline follows the low - water lines but when the coast line is
deeply indented or highly unstable, straight baseline would be used.

Internal and Territorial Waters

The principal two areas stratified by the UNCLOS are the internal waters and the territorial waters. They
are explained below.

1) Internal waters:
According to the convention, internal waters covers all internal waters and water ways inside the
baseline. Here, all coastal states are allowed make laws, regulations for use and exploit any marine
resources contained therein. However, unlike the situation in the high seas, foreign vessels have no right
of free passage within internal waters, save when expressly permitted by the concerned state.

2) Territorial waters:

The second major stratification made by the convention is the Territorial Waters or Territorial Sca.
UNCLOS allocates uniform 12 nautical miles as measurement of territorial waters from the baseline.
Here adjoining the coastal states have right to make laws that regulates the use and exploitation of
natural marine or other resources within limit. Here vessels from all States are allowed right of innocent
passage through the territorial waters, 10 This includes, subject to right of sovereignty and self-defence
and provisions of the convention, allowing the passage of military craft and naval vessels on transit
passage in strategic straights.

In Guyana v. Suriname which was an international arbitration that arose under the 1982 law of the sea
convention. In 2007, precisely September 17, in an international arbitral proceeding, an award was
made in the dispute between Guyana and Suriname arising from UNCLOS 1982. The matter centred on
the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guyana and Suriname and the lawfulness of various
acts committed by these states in the disputed maritime area. Guyana initiated the action in February
2004 under a five-member tribunal established under Annex vii of the 1982 UNCLOS. Suriname initially
objected on the ground of jurisdiction, arguing that the application hinged upon a disputed land
boundary terminus, and therefore the tribunal was not competent to decide such territorial issues. The
tribunal however went ahead to determine basing on Article 17, 74 and 83 of the laws of the sea
convention.

Article 15 governs the territorial sea boundary delimitation and so in applying this, the tribunal held that
it was necessary to adjust the equidistance line in order to take into account special circumstances. It
held that special circumstances that may affect a delimitation are to be assessed on a case by case basis
with reference to international jurisprudence and state practice. As the parties disagreed on what
constitutes special circumstances, the tribunal investigated the drafting history of the provision as well
as its predecessor in the 1958 territorial sea convention. The tribunal referring to the commentary of the
1958 Convention and comment made at the first United Nations conference on the law of the sea, the
tribunal held that special circumstances of navigation may justify deviation from the median line. Given
that the parties were in agreement that all the Courantyne River was subject to the sovereignty of
Suriname, the tribunal was of the opinion that the maritime boundaries should provide appropriate
access to the western channel of the river from Suriname territorial sea. The tribunal delimited a line to
this effect based on the previous practice of the parties. However, the practice of the parties only
supported the use of this line to a three-mile limit. The tribunal decided that beyond three miles, the
line should change direction making a gradual transition towards a point of equidistance at the 12
nautical miles' limit in line with UNCLOS delineation. 12

The scope of innocent passage in the territorial waters

The term "innocent passage" was defined by the UNCLOS as "passing through waters in an expedition
and continuous manner, which is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security of the coastal
state. "13 Such passage shall take place in conformity with the convention on law of the sea and with
other rules of international law. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the
peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the
following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the
coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the
Charter of the United Nations;

b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal
State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(c) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to the convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations
of the coastal State; (1) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage. 14

Thus, fishing, polluting, weapon practice, spying or any criminal act or any other action that impugns on
the territorial integrity of the coastal State are not "innocent". Similarly, submarines and other
underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag within the territorial
sea areas. 15 As a safeguard, States can temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their
territorial waters, if doing so is essential for the protection of its national security and integrity. Thus,
Article 25 requires any coastal State to take necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage
which is not innocent.

1. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside internal waters, the
coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to
which admission of those ships to internal waters or such a call is subject.

2) . The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend
temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such
suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension
shall take effect only after having been duly published.

Similarly, the coastal State may, where necessary having regard to the safety of navigation, require
foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through its territorial sea to use such sea lanes and
traffic separation schemes as it may designate or prescribe for the regulation of the passage of ships. In
particular, tankers, nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or
noxious substances or materials may be required to confine their passage to such sea lanes. 16
In the designation of sea lanes and the prescription of traffic separation schemes under this Article, the
coastal State shall take into account:

(a) the recommendations of the competent international organization;

(b) any channels customarily used for international navigation;

(c) the special characteristics of particular ships and channels; and

(d) the density of traffic.

The coastal State shall clearly indicate such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes on charts to which
due publicity shall be given. 17

The convention defines the scope of Passage to mean navigation through the territorial sea for the
purpose of:18

(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside
internal waters; or

(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such road stead or port facility.

The passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring,
but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force
majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or
distress. 19

In line with the provisions of Article 21 relating to regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent
passage, coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of the
convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea,
in respect

of all or any of the following: (a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic;

(b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations;

(c) the protection of cables and pipelines;

(d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea;

(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of
pollution thereof;

(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys;

(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of
the coastal State.

Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign
ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards. The coastal
State is required to give due publicity to all such laws and regulations. To conform with then
international agreement, foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial
sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations
relating to the prevention of collisions at sea.

Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious
substances shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry
documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international
agreements. 20 When such due diligence is exercised by any foreign vessel, the coastal State have a duty
not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with
the convention. In particular, in the application of UNCLOS or of any laws or regulations adopted in
conformity with UNCLOS, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the
right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from
or on behalf of any State.

The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge,
within its territorial sea. 21

It is important to note that no charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage
through the territorial sea. However, charges may be levied upon a foreign ship passing through the
territorial sea as payment only for specific services rendered to the ship. These charges shall be levied
without discrimination."

The United Nations International Court of Justice's decision on delimitation of black sea shelf in Ukraine
v. Romania is instructive. This matter involved the two nations Ukraine and Romania, over delimitation
of the Black Sea shelf. On 16/09/2004, Romanian brought a case against Ukraine to ICJ in a dispute
concerning the maritime boundary between the two states in the black sea, claiming that the island has
no socio-economic significance. The public hearing was concluded on 19/9/2008. The judgment
delivered on July 3, 2009, the judgment divided the sea area of the black sea along a line which was
between the claims of each country. On the side of the Romanian, the court found that the landward
end of the Sulina Dyke, not the man-made, should be used as a base point for the establishment of the
provisional equidistance line. The court noted that the function of the dyke is different from those of a
port, and only harbour works are regarded as forming of the coast. On the side of Ukrainian, the court
found that Snake Islands cannot be taken to farm part of Ukraine coastal configuration, the court
explained that "to count serpent island as a relevant part of the coast would amount to grafting an
extraneous element onto Ukraine coastlines, the consequence would be a judicial refashioning of
geography". The court concluded that Snake Island should have no effect on the delimitation in this case
other than that stemming from the role of the nautical mile of its territorial sea. While the judgment
draws an equitable line between both parties, Romania received almost 80% of the disputed area, thus
allowing it to exploit a significant yet undetermined portion of an estimated 100 billion cubic meters of
deposits and 15 million tons of petrol located underneath the sea bed.

The background of the matter was that in 1997, Romania and Ukraine signed treaty in which both states
re-affirm that the existing border between them is inviolable and therefore, they shall refrain now and in
future from any attempt against the border, as well as from any demand or act of seizure and
usurpation of part or all the territory of the contracting party. However, both sides have agreed that if
no resolution on maritime borders can be reached within two years, then either side can go to the I.C.J.
to seek a final ruling.

Archipelagic States and Archipelagic Waters

Many legal practitioners find this jaw breaking. Simply put, "archipelagic State" means a State
constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands. For the purpose of
clarification, "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters
and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural
features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been
regarded as such An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost
points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago. However, the length of such
baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of
baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical
miles. According to Article 46, if a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between
two parts of an immediately adjacent neighbouring State, existing rights and all other legitimate
interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by
agreement between those States shall continue and be respected. The breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from
archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with Article 47.

The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines
drawn in accordance with Article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or
distance from the coast. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well
as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. "Article 50 empowers archipelagic
states to, within its archipelagic waters, draw closing lines for the delimitation of internal waters, in
accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Without prejudice to Article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect existing agreements with other States
and shall recognize traditional fishing rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent
neighbouring States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters. The terms and conditions for the
exercise of such rights and activities, including the nature, the extent and the areas to which they apply,
shall, at the request of any of the States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between
them. Such rights shall not be transferred to or shared with third States or their nationals. In the same
vein, every archipelagic State is enjoined to respect existing submarine cables laid by other States and
passing through its waters without making a landfall; and thus, permit other States to have the right to
the maintenance and replacement of such cables upon receiving due notice of their location and the
intention to repair or replace them.

In line with customary international law and public international law, especially the UNCLOS, ships of all
States have the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, Section
3, subject to Article 53 and without prejudice to Article 50 of the convention. When such "innocent"
passage becomes inimical to national security, the archipelagic State may, without discrimination in
form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the
innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such
suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published. 26 The archipelagic State may
designate sea lanes and air routes there above, suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of
foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea; and all
ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes.27
However, If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of archipelagic sea
lanes passage may be exercised through the routes normally used for international navigation.

Sequel to Article 54, relating to duties of ships and aircraft during their passage, research and survey
activities, duties of the archipelagic State and laws and regulations of the archipelagic State relating to
archipelagic sea lanes passage, the provisions of Articles 39, 40, 42 and 44 apply mutatis mutandis to
archipelagic sea lanes passage.

Contiguous Zone

In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may
exercise the control necessary to:

(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, environmental, pollution or sanitary laws
and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
(b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial
sea.

The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured. 28 At this zone, pirates and other unwanted persons, agents
and maritime offenders can be waded off or pursued. This makes the contiguous zone an area of hot
pursuit under international law. In M/V "SAIGA" No 2 (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), it
was held by the International Tribunal on The Law of the Sea (ITLOS) that the conditions for hot pursuit
must have been triggered and persisting before it could be permitted by international law of the seas.

Exclusive Economic Zone

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the
specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State
and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of the convention.
The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles³¹ from the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. 32 The EEZ was introduced to check the
increasingly incessant clashes by States over fishing right and offshore oil belt ownership. While coastal
States enjoined exclusive economic rights in the zone, other non-coastal States were still entitled by
international law to freedom of navigation and flight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states.

In "Monte Confurco" (Seychelles v. France)", on 27 November 2000, an Application under article 292 of
the Convention was filed on behalf of Seychelles against France in respect of a dispute concerning the
release of the Monte Confurco and its Master. The "Monte Confurco is a fishing vessel flying the flag of
Seychelles". On 8 November 2000, the Monte Confurco was boarded by a French frigate in the exclusive
economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, allegedly for
unlawful fishing and failure to notify presence in the exclusive economic zone of the Kerguelen Islands.
Subsequently, the Monte Confurco was escorted to Réunion. French authorities seized the vessel, its
equipment and documents, the fish on board (158 tonnes) the vessel and the fishing gear. The Master
was charged and placed under court supervision. A French court declared that the release of the
arrested vessel would be subject to the payment of a bond in the amount of 56,400,000 FF in cash,
certified cheque or banker's draft, to be paid into the Deposits and Consignments Office.35

Rights, Jurisdiction and Duties of States in the Exclusive Economic Zone

(a) sovereign rights to explore and exploit, conserve and manage the natural resources, whether living
or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard
to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of
energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of the UNCLOS with regard to:

(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;

(ii) marine scientific research;

(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

(c) other rights and duties provided for in the laws of the seas.

However, in exercising its rights and performing its duties under laws of the seas, the exclusive
economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall
act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the convention." Just as coastal states have their
rights defined under the laws of the sea, UNCLOS similarly assigned some rights to other non-coastal
states under Article 58. Here are the rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone.
For example, where a State has granted another State licence to carry out an activity or sail within its
exclusive economic zone or contiguous zone, it shall be estopped from acting otherwise.

In the case of "Hoshinmaru" (Japan v Russian Federation)," The Hoshinmaru is a fishing vessel flying the
flag of Japan. On 14 May 2007, the Russian Federation provided the Hoshinmaru with a licence for
fishing trout and salmon, including a certain amount of sockeye salmon and chum salmon, in three
different areas of the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation, from 15 May until 31 July
2007. On 1 June 2007, the Hoshinmaru was fishing in one of those areas when it was boarded by a
Russian inspection team, allegedly for illegal catch in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian
Federation. The vessel was then escorted to the port of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii. The Master was
charged with the inaccurate reporting of the species caught. The Tribunal noted that the present case
was different from cases it has previously dealt with, since the case did not entail fishing without a
licence. The Tribunal held that The Hoshinmaru had a valid and subsisting fishing licence and was
authorized to be present and to fish in the Russian exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal further noted
that Russia and Japan cooperate closely in respect of fishing activities in the area in question.
Unanimously, the Tribunal ordered that the Russian Federation should promptly release the
Hoshinmaru, including its catch on board, upon the posting of a bond or other security as determined by
the Tribunal, and that the Master and the crew shall be free to leave without any conditions.

In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant
provisions of the convention, the freedoms referred to in Article 87 of navigation and overflight and of
the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to
these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and
pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of the convention. Articles 88 to 115 and other
pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not
incompatible with this Article. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under the
convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the
coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance
with the provisions of the convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not
incompatible with this Article"

In cases where the convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other
States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal
State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light
of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved
to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole. 40

Continental Shelf

The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that
extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer
edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not
extend up to that distance. The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land
mass of the coastal State, and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. It
does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof.
Rights Obligations of the States Over the Continental Shelf

Coastal States exercise over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and
exploiting its natural resources. These rights are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not
explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities
without the express consent of the coastal State.

The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or
notional, or on any express proclamation. The natural resources referred to consists of the mineral and
other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to
sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or
under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the
subsoil.

Because the continental shelf consists mainly of the subsoil horizon of the sea, the rights of the coastal
State over the continental shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters or of the air
space above those waters. The exercise of the rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf must
not infringe or result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of
other States as provided for in laws of the seas convention including right of free passage and
navigation.

In addition, all States are entitled to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 79. Again, subject to its right to take reasonable measures for
the exploration of the continental shelf, the exploitation of its natural resources and the prevention,
reduction and control of pollution from pipelines, the coastal State may not impede the laying or
maintenance of such cables or pipelines. However, the delineation of the course for the laying of such
pipelines on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State. Thus, the coastal states
have the right under UNCLOS to give conditions for cables or pipelines entering its territory or territorial
sea, or its jurisdiction over cables and pipelines constructed or used in connection with the exploration
of its continental shelf or exploitation of its resources or the operations of artificial islands, installations
and structures under its jurisdiction. It is worthy of note that States, when laying submarine cables or
pipelines, shall have due regard to cables or pipelines already in position. In particular, possibilities of
repairing existing cables or pipelines shall not be prejudiced. 43
Article 60 of UNCLOS applies mutatis mutandis to artificial islands, installations and structures on the
continental shelf. The coastal State shall have the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the
continental shelf for all purposes.

Extension of Continental Shelf

From the provisions of UNCLOS Article 76, they might be circumstance where a coastal State may lay
claim over more than 200 nautical miles. This extension can be dictated by exigency on merit by merit
case, or by application of interest States, subject to conditions stipulated under Article 82 of the
convention. In such situation, information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical
miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured shall be submitted by
the coastal State to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf set up under Annex II on the
basis of equitable geographical representation. The Commission shall make recommendations to coastal
States on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf. The limits of
the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these recommendations shall be final and
binding. 45

The coastal State shall deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations charts and relevant
information, including geodetic data, permanently describing the outer limits of its continental shelf.
The Secretary-General shall give due publicity thereto. The provisions of enabling Article 76 are without
prejudice to the questioned delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts.

Howbeit, the continental shelf of a coastal State shall not extend beyond the limits provided for in
paragraphs 4 to 6. Paragraph 4-6 is reproduced below:

"4 (a) For the purposes of this Convention, the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the
continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by either:

(i) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to the outermost fixed points at each
of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1 per cent of the shortest distance from such
point to the foot of the continental slope; or
(ii) a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to fixed points not more than 60
nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope.

(b) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the foot of the continental slope shall be determined as
the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

5. The fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn
in accordance with paragraph 4 (a)(i) and (ii), either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical
miles from the 2,500 metres isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 5, on submarine ridges, the outer limit of the continental
shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured. This paragraph does not apply to submarine elevations that are natural components of the
continental margin, such as its plateaux, rises, caps, banks and spurs."

The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be
effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution. If no agreement is reached
within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in
Part XV of UNCLOS. Pending the said agreement, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and
cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and,
during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such
arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation. Where there is an agreement in force
between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf shall be
determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

The outer limit lines of the continental shelf and the lines of delimitation drawn in accordance with
Article 83 shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position. Where
appropriate, lists of geographical coordinates of points, specifying the geodetic datum, may be
substituted for such outer limit lines or lines of delimitation. The coastal State shall give due publicity to
such charts or lists of geographical coordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with
the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, in the case of those showing the outer limit lines of the
continental shelf, with the Secretary-General of the Authority." Rights and duties ascribed under Part VI
of the convention does not prejudice the right of the coastal State to exploit the subsoil by means of
tunnelling, irrespective of the depth of water above the subsoil.47

Payments with Respect to the Extra Continental Shelf Nautical Miles

The coastal State shall make payments or contributions in kind in respect of the exploitation of the non-
living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured. The payments and contributions shall be made annually with
respect to all production at a site after the first five years of production at that site. For the sixth year,
the rate of payment or contribution shall be 1 per cent of the value or volume of production at the site.
The rate shall increase by 1 per cent for each subsequent year until the twelfth year and shall remain at
7 per cent thereafter.

Production does not include resources used in connection with exploitation. The payments or
contributions shall be made through the Authority, which shall distribute them to States Parties to the
convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of
developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them." However, there is
an exception to payment of contribution for extra nautical mileage. A developing State which is a net
importer of a mineral resource produced from its continental shelf is exempt from making such
payments or contributions in respect of that mineral resource. 50

Baseline of the Sea

The outer limit of the territorial sea is the line every point of which is at a distance from the nearest
point of the baseline equal to the breadth of the territorial sea. Except where otherwise provided in the
convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line
along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State. But in case of
islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth of
the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on
charts officially recognized by the coastal State. 51

In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the
coast in its immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be
employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Where
because of the presence of a delta and other natural conditions the coastline is highly unstable, the
appropriate points may be selected along the furthest seaward extent of the low-water line and,
notwithstanding subsequent regression of the low-water line, the straight baselines shall remain
effective until changed by the coastal State in accordance with the convention on laws of the sea.

The drawing of straight baselines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction
of the coast, and the sea areas lying within the lines must be sufficiently closely linked to the land
domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters. Straight baselines shall not be drawn to and from
low-tide elevations, unless lighthouses or similar installations which are permanently above sea level
have been built on them or except in instances where the drawing of baselines to and from such
elevations has received general international recognition. 52

Where the method of straight baselines is applicable, account may be taken, in determining particular
baselines of economic interest peculiar to the region concerned, the reality and the importance of which
are clearly evidenced by long usage. The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in
such a manner as to cut off the territorial sea of another State from the high seas or an exclusive
economic zone, 50

In the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, British fishermen was alleged to have fished off the Norwegian
coast since about 1906, and at various times, incidents led to diplomatic correspondence about
Norway's fishery limits. On September 28th, 1949, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland filed in the Registry an Application instituting proceedings before the Court
against the Kingdom of Norway, the subject of the proceedings being the validity or otherwise, under
international law, of the lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone laid down by the Royal
Decree of July 12th, 1935, as amended by a Decree of December 10th, 1937, for that part of Norway
which is situated northward of 66° 28.8' (or 66° 28'48") N. latitude. The Application refers to the
Declarations by which the United Kingdom and Norway have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. This Application asked the Court to:

"(a) declare the principles of international law to be applied in defining the base-lines, by reference to
which the Norwegian Government is entitled to delimit a fisheries zone, extending to [p119] seaward 4
sea miles from those lines and exclusively reserved for its own nationals, and to define the said base-
lines in so far as it appears necessary, in the light of the arguments of the Parties, in order to avoid
further legal differences between them;

(b) award damages to the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of all interferences by the
Norwegian authorities with British; fishing vessels outside the zone which, in accordance with the
Court's decision under (a), the Norwegian Government is entitled to reserve for its nationals."
The Norwegian limit of four miles for territorial waters had been established by royal decree in 1812 and
was not in issue in the case. However, later decrees of 1869; 1881, and 1889, and official explanations
thereof, continued the measure of 1812 in terms of a system of straight lines drawn from certain
outermost points of the 'skjaergaard' or rampart of rocks and islands which fringes much of the
Norwegian coast. By a decree of 12th July 1935, Norway applied the system in a more detailed way than
before, and the validity of the new limits was challenged by the United Kingdom. After a series of
incidents involving British vessels the United Kingdom took the case before the International Court by
unilateral application, asking for the award of damages for interferences with British fishing vessels
outside the permissible limits. The Court took the view that the system of straight baselines following
the general direction of the coast had been consistently applied by Norway and had encountered no
opposition on the part of other states. The United Kingdom had not made a formal and definite protest
on the issue of the position of baselines until 1933. The later parts of the Judgment indicate that the
validity of the decree of 1935 could have been upheld on the basis of acquiescence and indeed, Judge
Hackworth, gave as a separate reason for concurring in the Judgment of the Court, the existence of
historic title to the areas in question on the part of Norway.

However, while it is true that the Court refers to the absence of protest from other states, and also to
the consolidation of the method by a constant and sufficiently long practice, the Judgment as a whole
makes abundantly clear the fact that the Court believed that the Norwegian system of baselines was as
a matter of principle, in accordance with international law. The course of the Court's reasoning brings
this out. The Court commences with a description of the topography of the coast of the mainland. Very
broken along its whole length, it constantly opens out into indentations often penetrating for great
distances inland to the West, the land configuration stretches out into the sea, the large and small
islands, mountainous in character, the islets, rocks and reefs, some always above water, others
emerging only at low tide, are in truth but an extension of the Norwegian mainland. The coast of the
mainland does not constitute a clear dividing line between land and sea. What matters, is what really
constitutes the Norwegian coast line, the outer line of the 'skjaergaard. The Court then states that the
problem which arises, concerns the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is to be
measured and that, while the parties agree that the criterion is the low-water mark, they differ as to its
application. The Court decides that the relevant low-water mark is the outer line of the 'skjaergaard' and
states that this solution is dictated by geographical realities. The question which now presented itself
was how the baseline was to be drawn in the case of the Norwegian coast. The method of the trace
parallel, that is, drawing a line which is an exact image of the coastline, assumed by the Court to be the
normal method of applying the low- water mark rule, did not apply to the type of coast in question,
since in this case the baseline could only be determined by means of a geometric construction. In a
crucial passage, the Judgment elaborates the concepts.
The principle that the belt of territorial waters must follow the general direction of the coast, makes it
possible to fix certain criteria valid for any delimitation of the territorial sea. The Court will confine itself
at this stage to noting that, in order to apply this principle, several States have deemed it necessary to
follow the straight baselines method and that they have not encountered objections of principle by
other States. This method consists of selecting appropriate points on the low-water mark and drawing
straight lines between them. This has been done, not only in the case of well-defined bays, but also in
cases of minor curvatures of the coastline where it was solely a question of giving a simpler form to the
belt of territorial waters.

The Court proceeds to discount the British contention that straight lines could only be drawn across
bays. An argument that, in any case, the length of straight lines must not exceed ten miles was criticized
in these terms. In this connection, the practice of States, does not justify the formulation of any general
rule of law. Furthermore, apart from any question of limiting the lines to ten miles, it may be that
several lines can be envisaged. In such cases the coastal State would seem to be in the best position to
appraise the local conditions dictating the selection. Consequently, the Court is unable to share the view
of the United Kingdom Government, that Norway, in the matter of baselines, now claims recognition of
an exceptional system. All that the Court can see therein is the application of general international law
to a specific case.

In the opinion of the Court, certain basic considerations as to the nature of the territorial sea provided
criteria by which the validity of systems of delimitation could be determined. First, because of the close
dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain, the drawing of baselines must not depart to
any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. Secondly, a close geographical
relationship between sea areas and land formations was a fundamental consideration in deciding
whether certain sea areas lying within the baselines are sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to
be subject to the regime of internal waters. The court found that the other consideration was that of
certain economic interests that are peculiar to a region, the reality and importance of which are
evidenced by long usage.

The Judgment was devoted to an examination of the consistency of the application of the Norwegian
system of baselines, and of the attitude of other states. Finally, the court was of the view that the
method of straight lines was imposed by the peculiar geography of the Norwegian coast, and had been
consolidated by a constant and sufficiently long practice. In the final analysis, the court concluded that:
Accordingly, in view of all of the foregoing considerations, I am led to the conclusion that the
delimitation of the fisheries zone fixed by the Norwegian Royal Decree of July 12th, 1935, is not in
conformity with the rules and principles of international law.

Internal Waters, Bays. Mouth of Rivers and Ports

Internal waters, bays. river mouths and ports form significant titles of water law. Understanding the
place of each of them becomes imperative in appreciating the baselines of territorial sea and other key
components of international maritime law.

The landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State.
Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in Article 7 has
the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a
right of innocent passage as provided under UNCLOS shall exist in those waters, subject to State right of
sovereignty. If a river flows directly into the sea, the baseline shall be a straight line across the mouth of
the river between points on the low-water line of its banks.5" For the purpose of delimiting the
territorial sea, the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour
system are regarded as forming part of the coast. Off-shore installations and artificial islands shall not be
considered as permanent harbour works. 58

Article 10 of laws of the seas dealt extensively with bays and seaward limits belong to a single party
State. According to the convention, a bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such
proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere
curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large
as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that
indentation.

For the purpose of measurement, the area of an indentation is that lying between the low-water mark
around the shore of the indentation and a line joining the low-water mark of its natural entrance points.
Where, because of the presence of islands, an indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle
shall be drawn on a line as long as the sum total of the lengths of the lines across the different mouths.
Islands within an indentation shall be included as if they were part of the water area of the indentation.

If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed 24
nautical miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and the waters
enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters. Where the distance between the low-water
marks of the natural entrance points of a bay exceeds 24 nautical miles, a straight baseline of 24 nautical
miles shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is
possible with a line of that length. The foregoing provisions do not apply to so-called "historic" bays, or
in any case where the system of straight baselines provided for in Article 7 is applied.

Regional Sea Programme me

Aside the specific provisions of law of the seas, the United Nations Environment Programme, has
developed different the regional seas programmes that covers 18 regions of the world. The aim of the
programmes is the protection of both marine and coastal environments. Most of these programmes are
implemented through action plans adopted by the member states and governments in other to establish
frameworks for the protection of the environment and promotion of sustainable development. As at
2014, fourteen of such regional seas programmes have adopted legally binding conventions. 59

Specialized Bodies Established by UNCLOS

1. International Seabed Authority:

The International Seabed Authority is an autonomous international organization established under 1982
UNCLOS as an agreement relating to the implementation of Part VI to UNCLOS and to administer the
resources of the Area. It was established on 16th November 1994 to admin-ister the mineral resources
of the Area; to adopt rules, regulations and procedures for the conduct of activities in the Area; to
promote and encourage marine scientific research in the Area; and to protect and conserve the natural
resources of the Area and prevent damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environment.

2. Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf:

The Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf was established to facilitate the implementation of
UNCLOS in respect of the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical
miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. The responsibilities
of the commission are set forth in Annex II of UNCLOS. The Commission is composed of 21 members
who are experts in geology, geophysics, or hydrography. States Parties to the Convention elect them
from among their nationals having due regard to equitable geographical representation. The members
of the Commission serve in their personal capacity. The principal function of the Commission is to
consider data and other material sub-mitted, in accordance with article 76 of the Convention.60

3. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, based in Hamburg, Germany, was established
following the entry into force of the Convention in 1994 and became fully operational in 1996. The
Tribunal has jurisdiction on maritime and international water conflicts arising from UNCLOS amongst
member states, or other states and organisations that submits to its jurisdiction. In addition, ITLOS can
assume jurisdiction in several ways. First, the Tribunal may have jurisdiction to adju-dicate disputes
arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention when all parties to such a dispute
have selected the Tribunal as a first choice among the dispute settlement options provided by the
Convention. The Tribunal may obtain jurisdiction when it has been selected for this purpose by the
parties to the dispute through a special agreement. In addition, the Tribunal may issue advisory opinions
in certain instances. A couple of very contentious and less contentious many cases have been submitted
to the Tribunal since its inception, covering issues such as prompt release, provisional measures, and
maritime boundary delimitation. The Tribunal has adjudicated 24 of these cases as at 24 August 2015.61