University Law of the Sea Assignment: UNCLOS and International Law

This assignment delves into the intricacies of the Law of the Sea, focusing on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to various maritime disputes. The assignment presents three distinct scenarios. The first scenario examines the legal basis for a nation to challenge another nation's actions within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), considering issues such as fishing rights and scientific research, referencing articles 279, 280, 238, and 239 of UNCLOS and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement. The second scenario, from the perspective of a legal advisor, analyzes the legality of actions taken by a nation regarding a humanitarian organization's vessel, considering flag state responsibilities (Article 94), and the principles of peaceful dispute resolution (Articles 279 and 280). The final scenario, from the perspective of a legal officer on a naval vessel, provides advice on the legal basis for arresting an individual and detaining a submarine involved in drug trafficking, considering Article 17 of the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Article 111 of UNCLOS (hot pursuit).

Running head: LAW OF THE SEA
LAW OF THE SEA
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF THE SEA
Question 1
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is that what may be the legal bases on which the
nation of Evanescence may challenge the actions of the nation of Aguilera as per the provisions
of UNCLOS.
Rule
Article 279 as provided in Part XV of the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention for the
Law of the Sea) states that the ‘States Parties’ are obliged to resolve any kind of disagreements
in relation to the particular ‘States Parties’ by interpreting and applying the provisions of the
abovementioned Convention. The disagreements between the nations or states shall be resolved
through peaceful and diplomatic means as per the provisions relating to paragraph 3 of Article 2,
as provided in the Charter enforced by the United Nations. Solutions in this regard may be
implemented as indicated in paragraph 1 of Article 33, as provided in the aforementioned
Charter1.
Article 280 as provided in Part XV of the UNCLOS states that the ‘States
Parties’ shall have the right to agree, at any point of time, to resolve a disagreement between the
concerned ‘States parties’ by interpreting or applying the provisions of the aforementioned
Convention, by peaceful and diplomatic means that may be chosen by the involved ‘States
Parties’2.
The ‘Fish Stocks Agreement’ of the year 1995 expounds and particularizes on the central
principle or standard that is recognized in the aforementioned Convention. The principle
1 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982
2 Ibid

2LAW OF THE SEA
forwards that the involved States must cooperate and collaborate in order to guarantee
preservation and encourage and endorse the objective regarding the ideal utilization and
application of resources in relation to fisheries, either within the EEZ (Exclusive Economic
Zone) or beyond the EEZ3.
Article 238 as provided in Part XIII of the UNCLOS, provides that all the States,
regardless of the physical, geographical and topographical position of the States, and the
proficient international and global establishments shall have the right to perform scientific
research in relation to the marine life and nature. This right shall be not be in contrary to the
obligations and the rights of the other States, which have been mentioned in the Convention.
Article 239 as provided in Part XIII of the UNCLOS states that the States and the
proficient international and global establishments shall endorse and enable the advancement and
performance of scientific research regarding the marine life and nature, as per the provisions of
the aforementioned Convention.
Application
In the given scenario, it has been a concern of the nation of Aguilera that Lopez, a vessel
of the nation of Evanescence, has been excessively fishing a fish known as the ‘rainbow-snouted
tuna’. It has been a regular monthly routine of Lopez to go to the EEZ of the nation of Aguilera
and then again returning to the high seas and then to the port of the nation of Evanescence. In the
month of July, when Lopez visited the EEZ of Aguilera, the nation confiscated the vessel,
arrested the crew members, and then destroyed the vessel, as per the laws of Aguilera.
Evanescence contested the actions of Aguilera and stated that Lopez was visiting the EEZ of
3 Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995

3LAW OF THE SEA
Aguilera for scientific research purposes regarding the aforementioned tuna fish. Evanescence
specified that there were scientists present in the crew. However, Aguilera disagrees.
Applying Articles 279 and 280 as provided in Part XV of UNCLOS it may be stated that
the disagreement between the nations of Aguilera and Evanescence must be resolved with the
help of appropriate provisions of the Convention in a peaceful and diplomatic manner4.
Applying the principle of ‘Fish Stocks Agreement’ of 1995 it may be stated that both the
nations of Aguilera and Evanescence should promote the preservation and adequate application
of the resources in relation to fisheries.
Applying Articles 238 and 239 as provided in Part XIII of the Convention it may be
stated that both the nations of Aguilera and Evanescence must promote and perform scientific
research of the marine life and nature as per the provisions of the Convention5.
Conclusion
In conclusion it may be said that Evanescence may apply the aforementioned articles of
the UNCLOS in order to challenge against the actions of Aguilera.
Question 2
Issue
The primary issue in this regard is that under the presumption of being a legal advisor to
President of the nation of Stefani, what advice may be forwarded in relation to the legality
regarding the actions of the nation of Fleetwood as per the international law relating to sea.
4 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982
5 Ibid

4LAW OF THE SEA
Rule
Article 91, clause (1) of the aforementioned Convention (UNCLOS) provides that any
particular ship or vessel may belong to the nationality of that particular State, whose flag the ship
or vessel is permitted to fly6.
Article 94 of the aforementioned Convention provides that the ‘Flag State’ must
meritoriously implement its authority, dominion and control in relation to any administrative,
procedural and communal or societal matters. The ‘Flag State’ must take appropriate actions that
may be mandatory to guarantee security and protection at the sea. It shall adapt to the commonly
acknowledged international and global guidelines, processes and practices. It shall inquire into
any particular marine loss or fatality or any particular event or occurrence relating to navigation
on the high seas. The ‘Flag State’ shall cooperate and collaborate in the inquiry and
investigation, which may be held by any other State in relation to any specific marine loss or
fatality or event or occurrence relating to navigation7.
Article 279 as provided in Part XV of the UNCLOS mentions that the ‘States Parties’ are
obliged to resolve any kind of disagreements in relation to the particular ‘States Parties’ by
interpreting and applying the provisions of the abovementioned Convention. The disagreements
between the nations or states shall be resolved through peaceful and diplomatic means as per the
provisions relating to paragraph 3 of Article 2, as provided in the Charter enforced by the United
Nations. Solutions in this regard may be implemented as indicated in paragraph 1 of Article 33,
as provided in the aforementioned Charter8.
6 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982.
7 Ibid
8 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982.

5LAW OF THE SEA
Article 280 as provided in Part XV of the UNCLOS states that the ‘States
Parties’ shall have the right to agree, at any point of time, to resolve a disagreement between the
concerned ‘States parties’ by interpreting or applying the provisions of the aforementioned
Convention, by peaceful and diplomatic means that may be chosen by the involved ‘States
Parties’9.
Application
In the given scenario, the Wonder Warriors is a humanitarian organization that is making
an attempt to provide aid and support to the freedom fighters of Benatar in the nation of
Fleetwood. In relation to the internal conflict between the forces of the Fleetwood and the
Benatar fighters, it has been declared by the nation of Fleetwood that no ship or vessel is
permitted to enter the territorial sea of the nation of Fleetwood, without preceding notice,
announcement, permission and approval, and any particular ship or vessel that may be travelling
within the distance of fifty miles from the coast shall be inspected and properly investigated. All
the ships and vessels of Wonder Warriors bear the flag of the nation of Stefani. Sia, a ship
belonging to the nation of Stefani, was confiscated by officials of Fleetwood and they boarded
the ship forcefully and vehemently. In the ensuing chaos, three members of the Wonder Warriors
organization were injured. Another small vessel named Titanium was confiscated by the officials
of Fleetwood when the vessel was moving towards the port that is governed by the fighters of
Benatar, without prior approval of Fleetwood.
Applying the rules as provided in Article 94 of the aforementioned Convention, it can be
stated that the nation of Stefani must act in such manner and cooperate and help in the inquiry
and investigation that may be held by the nation of Fleetwood regarding the vessel named Sia10.
9 Ibid
10 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982

6LAW OF THE SEA
Applying the rules provided in Articles 279 and 280 as provided in the Convention. It
may be stated that the nation of Fleetwood contradicted the provisions of the abovementioned
two Articles because it forcefully confiscated Sia and caused injury to three members of the
organization named Wonder Warriors. Further, Fleetwood did not make an attempt to resolve the
dispute through peaceful and diplomatic means. However, Stefani should adhere to the
provisions of Articles 279 and 280 and try to resolve the dispute through peaceful and diplomatic
means11.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that Fleetwood did not follow the provisions provided in
Articles 279 and 280 of the aforementioned Convention.
Question 3
Issue
The primary issue in this regard is that presuming the role of a legal officer boarded on
the naval vessel of the nation of Minogue, what advice may be forwarded to Minogue with the
help of which the nation may legitimately and legally ensure the arrest of Albert Zee and the
detention of the submarine in relation to the international law.
Rule
Clause (3) of Article 17 as provided in the Convention of the United Nations against the
‘Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances’ of the year 1998 states that any
particular state or party, which may suspect on practical and rational grounds that any particular
11 Ibid

7LAW OF THE SEA
ship or vessel that is enjoying the freedom and liberty in relation to navigation as per the
international law and bearing the flag of or is registered in the name of any other state or party, is
involved in illicit trafficking, then the state or party shall alert and inform the flag state, call for a
validation and endorsement of registry, and when validated, ask for the consent or permission of
the flag state in order to take suitable actions in relation to that particular ship or vessel. Either as
per the provisions of the aforementioned clause, or any particular treaty or agreement, the flag
state may provide the permission to the requesting state to board the ship or the vessel, then
conduct a proper search of the ship or the vessel, and then if any adequate evidence is discovered
in relation to illicit trafficking, the requesting state may give effect to suitable action regarding
the ship or vessel, including the individuals and cargo in relation to the ship12.
Article 111 as provided in the UNCLOS permits a coastal state in relation to the right and
authority to follow, chase and arrest or detain any particular ship or vessel, which may be fleeing
to the international waters. However, such ‘hot pursuit’ is subject to certain conditions. Firstly,
the pursuers must be proficient authorities regarding the state. Secondly, such authorities must
have a decent and viable reason to rely on the fact that the vessel that is being chased, caused a
violation of the guidelines and the laws of the state13.
Application
The Rowland Strait is considered to be a significant channel for the purposes of shipping
that is extending from EEZ of Franklin on the eastern side along the territorial waters of the
nations of Marshall and Minogue. Albert Zee, belonging to the nation of Alikeyes established a
supply chain in relation to drugs and narcotics and causes the delivery with the help of a
submarine. During one such delivery voyages, the submarine is detected by the coastal
12 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1998
13 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982

8LAW OF THE SEA
authorities of Marshall. They informed a naval vessel belonging to Minogue. When the
submarine fled, the naval vessel pursued the submarine. However, when the naval vessel caught
and confiscated the submarine, it was discovered that the submarine was raised within the
territorial waters of the nation of Marshall in Rowland Strait.
Applying the rule as provided in Article 17 of Convention of the United Nations against
the ‘Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances’ of the year 1998, it may be
stated that the nations of Marshall and Minogue shall ask the permission and approval of the
nation of Alikeyes to confiscate, board and search the submarine because the submarine is
registered in the nation of Alikeyes14.
Applying the rule as provided in Article 111 of UNCLOS, it may be said that the naval
vessel of Minogue has the right and authority to chase the submarine, because it fled from the
territorial waters of Minogue and it is believed that the submarine is involved in illegal activities
and caused violation relating to international conventions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be said that the nation of Minogue should follow the
aforementioned provisions in order to legally ensure the arrest of Albert Zee and the detention of
the submarine.
14 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1998

9LAW OF THE SEA
Question 4
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is that what advice may be provided in relation to
the legality of the steps taken by Vostok.
Rule
The Proliferation Security Initiative [PSI] is considered to be in a parallel position as the
Convention mentioned earlier (UNCLOS). The chief objective of the aforementioned initiative is
to interdict precursor materials, weapons and delivery systems at any particular given point in the
system regarding transportation. A major number of signatories in relation to the Convention
have also adopted the aforementioned initiative (PSI). After the events of 9/11, the proliferation
of weapons in relation to mass destruction became a major concern for all the governments all
over the world15.
The International Tribunal in relation to the ‘Law of the Sea’ shall have the jurisdiction to
adjudicate any kind of dispute, which may arise from interpreting and applying the provisions of
the Convention. The parties to the dispute may select the aforementioned Tribunal in order to
resolve the disagreements between the parties.
Application
The government of the nation of Vostok is concerned regarding the upsurge in weapons
and arms, which is entering the territory of Vostok unlawfully by a particular boat. The main
concern is that these weapons and arms are being utilized to strengthen the military capability of
a separatist group within the nation of Vostok. It has been noticed by the government officials of
15 Proliferation Security Initiative (announced in 2003)

10LAW OF THE SEA
Vostok that the vessels of bear the flag of the nation of Avarua. The government of Vostok is
keen on implementing a policy known as the ‘zero tolerance policy’. The vessels of Avarua shall
not be allowed to enter the territories of Vostok.
The rules mentioned above shall be followed by the nation of Vostok as per the
provisions of UNCLOS, in order to conform to the lawfulness of its actions against Avarua.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it may be stated that the nation of Vostok should adhere to the rules
mentioned above in order to conform to the legality and the legitimacy of its actions against the
nation of Avarua.
Question 5
While devising a map in relation to maritime boundary, the following factors should be
comprehended by State A:-
Firstly, in case of a situation when the coasts in relation to two states are in an opposite
position or in an adjacent position to each other, then in such a situation, if there is no existence
of any particular agreement between the states in this regard, the involved states are not entitled
to prolong their territorial waters further from the middle or median line. Every point on this line
shall be equidistant as calculated from the closest point in relation to the baselines, from which
the range and coverage of the territorial waters of the involved states are calculated and
measured. This is known as the ‘Equidistance Rule’16.
16 Convention on the Continental Shelf (1958)

11LAW OF THE SEA
Secondly, it must be mentioned that the abovementioned provisions will not be
applicable, in a situation, where it may be mandatory because of any particular historic title or
any other specific or special instances, to demarcate the territorial waters in relation to the
involved states in a manner which shall be at variance. This rule is called the ‘Special
Circumstances Rule’17.
Hence, to conclude it may be said that State A should consider the abovementioned
factors regarding the planning and formulation of a maritime boundary in relation to State B.
17 Ibid

12LAW OF THE SEA
Bibliography
Convention on the Continental Shelf (1958).
Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995.
Proliferation Security Initiative (announced in 2003).
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, 1998.
United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, 1982.