(..9..)
MARITIME LAW
QUESTION BANK.
1. Explain maritime Law. Discuss various areas or zones of seas classified under International Law.
2. Write a full note on the basic principles of Air law.
3. Explain the concept of Outer Space. What are the basic principles of Outer Space Law?
4. Write basic principles of ‘Air law’ and ‘Outer Space Law’.
5. Explain the concept of “Air law’. What are the basic principles of Air law?
Short Notes
1. Five freedoms of air.
4. The basic principles of air law.
5. Basic principles of outer space law.
SYNOPSIS
I. Introduction
1. First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I), 1958
2. Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II), 1960
II. The Turning Point: The Arvid Pardo Declaration and UNCLOS III
III. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982
IV. Comprehensive Analysis of Maritime Zones
1. The Territorial Sea
a) Breadth and Baselines
b) Delimitation Between Opposite or Adjacent Coasts
c) The Archipelagic Regime
d) Rights and Legislative Authority of the Coastal State
e) Rights of Other States: The Doctrine of Innocent Passage
Meaning of Innocence
The Position of Warships
f) The Indian Statutory Framework
2. The Contiguous Zone
a) Breadth and Enforceability
b) Nature of Coastal State Jurisdiction
3. The Continental Shelf
a) Legal Evolution
b) Legal Definition under UNCLOS 1982
i. Distance-Based Shelf:
ii. Geological Extension:
Maximum Boundaries
c) Rights of the Coastal State
Nature of Resources
Financial Contributions
d) Rights of Other States
e) The Indian Position
4. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
a) Breadth of the EEZ
b) Rights and Jurisdiction of the Coastal State
i. Sovereign Rights
ii. Jurisdiction:
c) Rights and Freedoms of Other States
5. Comparative Jurisprudence: Continental Shelf versus Exclusive Economic Zone
6. The High Seas
A. The Principle of Non-Appropriation
B. Freedoms of the High Seas
1. Freedom of Navigation
2. Freedom of Overflight
3. Freedom to Lay Submarine Cables and Pipelines
4. Freedom to Construct Artificial Islands
5. Freedom of Fishing
6. Freedom of Scientific Research
C. Jurisdictional Immunities of Warships
D. Exceptions and Limitations on High Seas Freedoms
1. Piracy Jure Gentium
2. Unauthorised Broadcasting and the Slave Trade
3. The Doctrine of Hot Pursuit
4. Interdiction of Narcotic Trafficking
5. Enforcement of Environmental Violations
V. Landmark Judicial Decisions on the Law of the Sea
VI. Conclusion
*****
I. Introduction
Like territorial landmasses, the world's oceans and seas carry strategic value for sovereign states. They serve as primary conduits for international navigation, commercial shipping, fishing, marine scientific research, national defense operations, and the extraction of non-living mineral resources.
Historically, maritime jurisdictional claims were governed by a fragmented web of state practices and customary rules. However, as rapid advancements in science and marine engineering emerged, the capacity of states to exploit deep-sea resources grew. This technological evolution led to a rise in conflicting maritime claims, generating friction over territorial boundaries and resource security.
To prevent these disputes and establish a uniform framework, the General Assembly of the United Nations initiated a series of diplomatic conferences to codify the legal regime of the oceans.
1. First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I), 1958
Convened by the United Nations General Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, this conference was attended by eighty-two states. It resulted in the adoption of four separate treaties:
a. The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone
b. The Convention on the High Seas
c. The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas
d. The Convention on the Continental Shelf
While UNCLOS I successfully codified significant portions of customary maritime rules, it failed to reach a consensus regarding a uniform breadth for the territorial sea.
2. Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II), 1960
Convened in Geneva to resolve the disagreements surrounding the breadth of the territorial sea and fishing zones, UNCLOS II failed to achieve a structural breakthrough. The conference ended without a binding agreement, highlighting that the 1958 frameworks were becoming inadequate to address the geopolitical realities of expanding coastal claims.
II. The Turning Point: The Arvid Pardo Declaration and UNCLOS III
During the late 1960s, the landscape of maritime diplomacy was altered by a report presented to the United Nations by Dr. Arvid Pardo, the permanent representative of Malta. Dr. Pardo revealed that the deep ocean floor contained vast deposits of polymetallic nodules rich in manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt. He warned that without an international regulatory framework, technologically advanced nations would race to colonize the seabed, escalating geopolitical conflict and leaving developing nations marginalized.
Dr. Pardo advanced the revolutionary principle that the seabed, ocean floor, and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, constitute the "Common Heritage of Mankind." He argued they should be managed collectively for the benefit of humanity, with a focus on the developmental needs of poorer states. This philosophy laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) in 1973.
III. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982
UNCLOS III met across multiple sessions over a decade, culminating in the adoption of the comprehensive United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on December 10, 1982, in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Containing 320 Articles and 9 Annexes, this framework serves as the "Constitution for the Oceans." It superseded the 1958 conventions and established a structured maritime order.
Under its entry-into-force provisions, the Convention required the deposition of 60 formal instruments of ratification before taking effect. On November 16, 1993, Guyana became the 60th state to ratify the treaty, and the Convention entered into force on November 16, 1994.
UNCLOS divided the world's oceans into distinct, measured legal zones, balancing the territorial sovereignty of coastal states with the traditional freedoms of the international community.
IV. Comprehensive Analysis of Maritime Zones
1. The Territorial Sea
The Territorial Sea, historically referred to as the ‘marine belt,’ is the maritime zone immediately adjacent to a State’s land territory and internal waters. Under modern international law, a coastal State’s sovereignty extends beyond its land territory to this adjacent belt of water. This absolute sovereign authority extends to the airspace superjacent to the territorial sea, as well as to its underlying seabed and subsoil.
a) Breadth and Baselines
Historically, the breadth of the territorial sea was governed by the customary "cannon-shot rule," which allowed states to claim jurisdiction as far as a shore-based cannon could fire—conventionally calculated as three nautical miles.
Article 3 of the 1982 Convention modernized this rule by establishing that every State has the right to determine the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with the Convention.
The standard baseline utilized is the normal baseline, defined under Article 5 as the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State. Where the coastline is deeply indented or cut into, or where there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity, Article 7 permits the use of straight baselines joining appropriate points.
b) Delimitation Between Opposite or Adjacent Coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither State is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line or line of equidistance. Under Article 15, every point on this line is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured, except where historic title or other special circumstances necessitate a different boundary.
c) The Archipelagic Regime
UNCLOS introduced a dedicated legal regime for Archipelagic States—nations constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos. Article 46 defines an archipelago as a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters, and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that they form an intrinsic geographical, economic, and political entity.
Under Article 47, an archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of its outermost islands, provided that within such baselines the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land is between 1:1 and 9:1. The length of such baselines must not exceed 100 nautical miles, though up to 3 percent of the total number of baselines can extend up to 125 nautical miles.
The waters enclosed within these baselines are designated as Archipelagic Waters, over which the State exercises sovereignty, subject to specific navigation rights for foreign vessels.
d) Rights and Legislative Authority of the Coastal State
The coastal State exercises comprehensive jurisdiction within its 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. It holds exclusive rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage all natural resources, including living fisheries and non-living minerals found within the water, seabed, and subsoil.
The coastal State possesses the authority to enact domestic laws and regulations governing transit through its territorial sea. Under Article 21, these laws can regulate:
i. The safety of maritime navigation and the regulation of marine traffic through designated sea lanes.
ii. The protection of navigational aids, facilities, and subsea cables or pipelines.
iii. The conservation of the living resources of the sea and the prevention of infringement of its fisheries laws.
iv. The preservation of the marine environment and the control or reduction of pollution.
v. Customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary regulations.
e) Rights of Other States: The Doctrine of Innocent Passage
The primary limit on a coastal State's absolute sovereignty within the territorial sea is the mandatory right of Innocent Passage granted to foreign vessels. Under Article 17, ships of all States, whether coastal or landlocked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
Article 18 defines passage as navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:
i. Traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or
ii. Proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.
The passage must be continuous and expeditious. Stopping and anchoring are permitted only insofar as they are incidental to ordinary navigation or rendered necessary by force majeure, distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger.
Meaning of Innocence
Under Article 19, passage is considered innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal State. Article 19(2) provides an exhaustive list of activities that render a foreign vessel's passage non-innocent, including:
a. Any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of the coastal State.
b. Any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind.
c. Any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal State.
d. Any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal State.
e. The launching, landing, or taking on board of any aircraft or military device.
f. The loading or unloading of any commodity, currency, or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws of the coastal State.
g. Any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to the Convention.
h. Any fishing activities or the carrying out of research or survey activities.
i. Any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State.
Submarines and other underwater vehicles are required under Article 20 to navigate on the surface and show their flag while transiting the territorial sea.
The Position of Warships
The application of innocent passage to warships remains a debated issue within state practice. While UNCLOS textually includes warships within the general right of innocent passage, several developing coastal nations maintain domestic legislation requiring prior notification or authorization before a foreign warship can enter their territorial sea.
f) The Indian Statutory Framework
India's domestic legal position is governed by The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (Maritime Zones Act, 1976). Enacted prior to the final signing of the 1982 Convention, India's statutory limits align with the UNCLOS framework.
Section 3 of the Act establishes India's territorial sea limit at 12 nautical miles from the baseline, and Section 4 confirms India's complete sovereignty over this zone, its bed, subsoil, and superjacent airspace.
2. The Contiguous Zone
The Contiguous Zone is an intermediate maritime belt extending beyond the territorial sea, designed to provide coastal states with enforcement powers to prevent violations within their territory.
a) Breadth and Enforceability
Under the 1958 Geneva Convention, the combined limit of the territorial sea and the contiguous zone was capped at 12 nautical miles from the baseline. This model became obsolete as states expanded their territorial claims.
Article 33 of the 1982 Convention extended the limit of the contiguous zone up to 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
b) Nature of Coastal State Jurisdiction
Unlike the territorial sea, the contiguous zone is not an area of absolute sovereignty; rather, it is a zone of specialized administrative and protective jurisdiction. Under Article 33(1), the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
i. Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
ii. Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.
While the emergence of the broad Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has absorbed many of the resource-management functions of the contiguous zone, this 24-mile belt remains an active tool for coastal border enforcement, security operations, and immigration control.
3. The Continental Shelf
The Continental Shelf is a geological and legal concept describing the natural prolongation of a state’s land territory beneath the ocean surface before dropping off into the deep ocean floor.
a) Legal Evolution
The modern doctrine of the continental shelf was initiated by US President Harry Truman via the Truman Proclamation of 1945, in which the United States declared that the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to its coasts were subject to its jurisdiction and control. This unilateral claim became part of customary law and was formalized in the 1958 Geneva Convention before being modified by the 1982 Convention.
b) Legal Definition under UNCLOS 1982
Article 76(1) of the 1982 Convention defines the Continental Shelf of a coastal State as comprising 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.
This dual-criteria definition addresses two distinct geographical scenarios:
i. Distance-Based Shelf: For states whose geological continental margin drops off abruptly near the coast, international law guarantees a minimum legal shelf extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, aligning with the boundaries of the EEZ.
ii. Geological Extension: For states with an extended geological prolongation (such as India, Argentina, or Canada), the legal continental shelf can extend beyond 200 nautical miles to the physical edge of the continental margin.
Maximum Boundaries
To prevent excessive claims, Article 76(5) mandates that where the continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles, its outer limits must not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baseline, or 100 nautical miles from the 2,500-meter isobath (a line connecting points of 2,500 meters depth). Coastal states must submit technical data regarding extended shelf claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for review.
c) Rights of the Coastal State
Under Article 77, the coastal State exercises sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. These rights are exclusive; if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without its express consent. Furthermore, these rights do not depend on occupation, effective control, or any express proclamation.
Nature of Resources
The scope of these rights is limited to the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil, defined as mineral and other non-living resources, together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species—organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immovable on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or subsoil (such as tertentu mollusks and crustaceans).
Unlike the EEZ, the continental shelf framework does not grant the coastal state exclusive rights over the free-swimming finfish within the superjacent water column.
Financial Contributions
Under Article 82, states that exploit the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles must make annual payments or in-kind contributions to the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which distributes these assets to developing nations on an equitable basis.
d) Rights of Other States
Under Article 79, all states retain the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf of a coastal state. While the delineation of the course for such pipelines is subject to the consent of the coastal State, the latter cannot entirely impede the laying or maintenance of these links.
e) The Indian Position
Section 6 of the Indian Maritime Zones Act, 1976, outlines India's sovereign rights over its continental shelf, matching the resource management standards later formalized in the 1982 Convention.
4. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) represents a milestone in the development of modern public international law, balancing the resource interests of developing coastal states with the traditional navigational freedoms of the international community. The concept was first introduced into international diplomacy by Kenya at the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee in 1972 before being integrated into Part V of the 1982 Convention.
a) Breadth of the EEZ
Under Article 57, the Exclusive Economic Zone must not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Because the territorial sea occupies the first 12 nautical miles, the actual width of the EEZ independent of territorial waters is 188 nautical miles.
b) Rights and Jurisdiction of the Coastal State
Under Article 56, the coastal State holds specific rights and jurisdiction within its EEZ:
i. Sovereign Rights: Granted for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing 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.
ii. Jurisdiction: Granted regarding the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures; marine scientific research; and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
The coastal state has the authority to regulate fishing catch limits, manage environmental compliance, and control the installation of offshore structures. No foreign entity can harvest living resources or build installations within this zone without an express license or bilateral agreement from the coastal state.
c) Rights and Freedoms of Other States
Under Article 58, all States—whether coastal or landlocked—enjoy the traditional freedoms of the high seas within the EEZ, including:
i. The freedom of navigation.
ii. The freedom of overflight.
iii. The freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines.
Foreign vessels and aircraft are required to exercise these rights with "due regard" to the laws and regulations enacted by the coastal State in accordance with the Convention.
5. Comparative Jurisprudence: Continental Shelf versus Exclusive Economic Zone
While the Continental Shelf and the EEZ cover overlapping geographical areas (up to the 200-nautical-mile mark), they are distinct legal regimes:
Analytical Basis | The Continental Shelf Regime | The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) |
Legal Basis of Claim | Inherent right based on the natural prolongation of land territory; requires no formal proclamation (Article 77). | Must be explicitly proclaimed by the coastal state via domestic instruments; does not exist automatically (Article 55). |
Spatial Breadth | Can extend past 200 nautical miles up to 350 nautical miles under geological criteria (Article 76). | Strictly capped at a maximum of 200 nautical miles from the baseline (Article 57). |
Physical Scope | Restricted to the subsoil and seabed of the submarine areas (Article 77). | Encompasses the entire superjacent water column, the seabed, and the subsoil (Article 56). |
Resource Jurisdiction | Covers non-living minerals and living sedentary species; excludes free-swimming fish (Article 77). | Covers all living and non-living resources, including free-swimming finfish and wind/water energy (Article 56). |
Core Measurement | Measures the depth and physical prolongation of the continental margin (Article 76). | Measures the distance from the baseline, independent of geological formation (Article 57). |
6. The High Seas
The High Seas encompass all parts of the ocean that fall outside the national jurisdiction of sovereign states. Under Article 86 of the 1982 Convention, the provisions of the High Seas regime apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the Exclusive Economic Zone, the territorial sea, the internal waters of a State, or the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State.
A. The Principle of Non-Appropriation
The high seas are governed by the principle of mare liberum (free seas), advanced by Hugo Grotius, who argued that the oceans cannot be captured or treated as private merchandise. This principle is codified in Article 89, which mandates that no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty. Article 88 adds that the high seas must be reserved for peaceful purposes.
B. Freedoms of the High Seas
Under Article 87, the high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or landlocked. The freedoms of the high seas include:
1. Freedom of Navigation
Every State has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas. Under Article 92, ships must sail under the flag of one State only and are subject to its exclusive jurisdiction while on the high seas (flag state principle).
2. Freedom of Overflight
All states possess the right to operate civil and military aircraft through the international airspace above the high seas. Foreign states can only interfere with an aircraft in flight under narrow exceptions—such as where the flight compromises national security, violates international air safety regulations, or is linked to an incident involving its own nationals.
3. Freedom to Lay Submarine Cables and Pipelines
All states can install telecom cables and pipelines across the deep ocean floor, subject to Part VI of the Convention.
4. Freedom to Construct Artificial Islands
States may construct offshore installations and research platforms on the seabed, subject to safety regulations and environmental protections.
5. Freedom of Fishing
All states have the right for their nationals to fish on the high seas, subject to treaty obligations and the duty to cooperate in conserving marine living resources (Articles 116–119).
6. Freedom of Scientific Research
Nations can conduct open ocean scientific investigations for peaceful purposes.
C. Jurisdictional Immunities of Warships
Under Article 95, warships on the high seas enjoy complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State. Article 96 extends this complete immunity to ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service.
D. Exceptions and Limitations on High Seas Freedoms
To preserve international order and prevent criminal activity, public international law recognizes specific exceptions where a warship of any nation can intercept a foreign merchant vessel on the high seas:
1. Piracy Jure Gentium
As established under Article 105, any state can seize a pirate ship or aircraft on the high seas, arrest the persons involved, and try the offenders within its municipal courts, utilizing universal jurisdiction.
2. Unauthorised Broadcasting and the Slave Trade
Under Article 110 (Right of Visit), a warship can board a foreign merchant ship if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that the vessel is engaged in the slave trade, unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas, or is flying a false flag or refusing to show its flag.
3. The Doctrine of Hot Pursuit
Under Article 111, a coastal State can pursue and apprehend a foreign ship that has violated its domestic laws within its internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, or EEZ.
The pursuit must be initiated while the foreign ship or one of its boats is within those zones and must be continuous and uninterrupted. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.
4. Interdiction of Narcotic Trafficking
Under Article 108, all states must cooperate in suppressing the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances engaged in by ships on the high seas.
5. Enforcement of Environmental Violations
A state can intervene against a foreign vessel on the high seas to mitigate or prevent grave and imminent danger to its coastline from pollution or the threat of pollution following a maritime casualty, a rule established after the Torrey Canyon disaster.
V. Landmark Judicial Decisions on the Law of the Sea
The application of UNCLOS principles has been shaped by landmark rulings from the International Court of Justice and international arbitral tribunals:
1. In the Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4,
The International Court of Justice considered the damage caused to British warships by naval mines while transiting the North Corfu Channel within Albanian territorial waters. The Court held that, in peacetime, foreign warships enjoy a right of innocent passage through straits used for international navigation without requiring prior authorization from the coastal State, provided the passage remains innocent. The ICJ further held that Albania knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of the minefield and was under a due diligence obligation to warn passing vessels of the danger. Its failure to do so constituted an internationally wrongful omission, rendering Albania internationally responsible for the resulting damage. The judgment is a leading authority on innocent passage through international straits, territorial sovereignty, due diligence, and State responsibility.
2. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3,
The parties sought a determination on how to delimit their adjacent continental shelves within the North Sea. Denmark and the Netherlands argued for the strict application of the "equidistance principle" set out in the 1958 Convention, which would have restricted Germany's allocation due to its concave coastline.
The ICJ ruled that the equidistance method was not a rule of mandatory customary international law. The Court held that delimitation must be achieved by agreement in accordance with equitable principles, taking into account all relevant circumstances (such as natural prolongation and coastal configuration) to ensure each state receives a fair share of its territorial prolongation.
3. In the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1982, p. 18,
The International Court of Justice considered the delimitation of the continental shelf between Tunisia and Libya. The Court reaffirmed that maritime delimitation must be carried out in accordance with equitable principles, taking into account all relevant circumstances, with the objective of achieving an equitable result rather than mechanically applying any particular geometric method. It observed that the concept of the natural prolongation of the land territory remains an important consideration, but it must be assessed alongside geographical and other relevant factors and is not an exclusive criterion for delimitation. The judgment further developed the equitable approach to continental shelf delimitation that has become a central feature of modern maritime boundary jurisprudence under the law of the sea.
4. The Republic of Italy v. Union of India (The Enrica Lexie Incident) [AIR 2013 SC 794].(Supreme Court of India / Permanent Court of Arbitration)
Two Italian marines on board the commercial tanker Enrica Lexie fired upon and killed two Indian fishermen on board an Indian fishing vessel within India's Contiguous Zone/EEZ off the coast of Kerala. The legal dispute centered on whether India held criminal jurisdiction over the foreign marines.
The Supreme Court of India affirmed that under the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, India holds sovereign rights and penal jurisdiction over offenses that impact its national interests and citizens within its contiguous zone and EEZ.
The case was subsequently referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under UNCLOS Annex VII. In its 2020 ruling, the PCA held that while India and Italy held concurrent jurisdiction over the incident, the marines were entitled to sovereign immunity as state officials, directing Italy to initiate criminal proceedings domestically while requiring it to pay compensation to India for the loss of life.
VI. Conclusion
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the legal architecture for the world's oceans. By dividing maritime spaces into distinct zones—ranging from the absolute sovereignty of the Territorial Sea to the shared freedoms of the High Seas—UNCLOS balances the resource security of coastal states with the navigation rights of the international community, providing a stable framework for global maritime commerce, environmental protection, and conflict resolution.
*****