This chapter will examine rules governing the contiguous zone, the EEZ and the continental shelf. In the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. While the LOSC contains only succinct provisions respecting the contiguous zone, the legal nature of the coastal State jurisdiction over the zone deserves serious consideration. The raison dtre of the institution of the EEZ and the continental shelf involves the conservation and management of natural resources. Owing to the increasing importance of marine natural resources, these zones are particularly important for coastal States. This chapter will discuss the following issues in particular: (1) the coastal State jurisdiction over the contiguous zone, (2) the coastal State jurisdiction over the EEZ and the continental shelf, (3) the freedoms that all States can enjoy in the EEZ, (4) the criteria for determining the outer limits of the continental shelf, and (5) the due regard obligations in the EEZ and the continental shelf.

The international law of the sea is one of the oldest branches of public international law. Thus, it must be examined from the perspective of the development of international law in general. Originally, the law of the sea consisted of a body of rules of customary law. Later on, these rules were progressively codified. The Third United Nations (UN) Conference on the Law of the Sea, which successfully adopted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (the LOSC) in 1982, is of critical importance in the codification of the law. Furthermore, the international community and the situations that surround the oceans are constantly changing. Accordingly, it is also necessary to examine the evolutionary process of the law after the adoption of the LOSC. As a general introduction, this chapter will address the following issues in particular: (1) the principal functions of the law of the sea, (2) the sources of the law of the sea, (3) the principles governing the law of the sea (4) procedures of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), (5) the principal features of the LOSC, and (6) the evolutionary process of the LOSC and the law of the sea.

The international law of the sea is one of the most dynamic branches of international law. Issues in the law are diverse and the scope of those issues is ever-expanding. In this regard, what is of particular importance is to identify the direction of the future development of the law of the sea. Thus, this final chapter will consider the following issues: (1) the contemporary issues that arise under paradigms I and II, (2) three models for protecting community interests at sea, that is, the decentralised-relational model, the institutional-communitarian model, the judicial model, (3) a need for systemic outlook in the law of the sea, and (4) temporal elements in the future development of the international law of the sea.

The seaward limits of each jurisdictional zone are measured from baselines. Thus, rules concerning baselines are of particular importance in the law of the sea. In particular, rules governing straight baselines and bays merit serious consideration. Furthermore, attention must be devoted to the legal status of islands and low-tide elevations because the existence of these maritime features may affect the seaward limits of marine spaces under national jurisdiction. Against that background, this chapter will address rules concerning baselines and related issues, focusing mainly on the following questions: (1) the rules governing baselines, (2) the problems associated with rules with regard to straight baselines, (3) the rules governing juridical bays in international law, (4) historic bay, (5) the definition of an island, and (6) the differences between islands, rocks and low-tide elevations.

This chapter looks at reciprocity in the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals, and the differences in the role reciprocity plays in inter-State dispute settlement, and in dispute settlement procedures that involve non-State entities such as individuals. It looks at the well-developed role that reciprocity plays in the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, before turning to the system of compulsory dispute settlement in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The chapter then analyzes three types of instance which concern individuals: the International Criminal Court; human rights courts and complaint mechanisms; and investment tribunals, specifically the issue of the extension of jurisdiction on the basis of an MFN clause.

Given that a healthy marine environment provides a foundation for all life, marine environmental protection is an issue of considerable importance in the law of the sea. In principle, the law regulates marine pollution according to its sources, such as land-based pollution, vessel-source pollution, dumping, pollution from seabed activities under national jurisdiction, pollution from activities in the Area and pollution through the atmosphere. Accordingly, this chapter will seek to examine the rules of international law regulating marine pollution arising from these sources. Particular focus will be on the following issues: (1) the key features that characterise marine environmental protection, (2) the significance of the LOSC in marine environmental protection, (3) rules regulating land-based marine pollution, (4) the mechanisms for regulating vessel-source marine pollution, (5) compliance with relevant rules governing marine environmental protection, and (6) the problem with the fragmentation of norms concerning marine environmental protection.

This chapter outlines the framework and argumentative structure of the book. It introduces the assertion of jurisdictional authority over concession agreements, which is the key site of the analysis. While concession agreements in the 1920s were considered exclusively a matter of domestic law, in the 1950s a powerful community of scholars and practitioners argued that they should fall under an international legal order and be called ‘economic development agreements’. This internationalisation was a claim for the universality of ideas propagating private property and the sanctity of contract, as well as a rejection of the authority of socialist and anti-colonial policies to redistributive ends. Western industry, former imperial governments and liberal thinkers of law and of economics successfully claimed the international sphere for building a new legal order. The authority for such an international legal regime was based on a temporalisation of difference that relied on concepts like ‘civilisation’ and development to downgrade challenges to the rules of property protection by locating such challenges in the past. This was a process of self-authorisation through legal practice and academic writing, laying the groundwork for the later emergence of the regime of international investment law.

This chapter analyzes reciprocity in the social sciences, historical forms of law, and domestic contexts, including the law of contracts and in federal States, to shed light upon some of reciprocity’s fundamental characteristics. Reciprocity is not incompatible with the existence of a community, but necessarily requires a social relation, and one of its defining characteristics is its relationship with equality. Rather than being a negative concept, based on occasional and discontinued instances of interaction on the basis of reactions to conduct, reciprocity is a concept fundamental to the existence of social relations, and inherent to ideas of justice and fairness.

Following the finding in Chapter 3 that reciprocity encounters limitations when the subjects of a legal relationship are not equal, this chapter analyses the role of reciprocity in rules pertaining to the treatment of individuals in international law, assessing how reciprocity functions differently depending on who rights are owed to in different substantive areas of law. First looking at historical standards of treatment including those based on reciprocity and the use of the minimum standard of treatment, the chapter goes on to examine how reciprocity functions in national treatment and the most-favoured nation clause. The chapter then goes on to examine the treatment of individuals under human rights, international humanitarian law, and international investment law, analyzing the differences that arise in the role of reciprocity when the legal obligations in question are owed directly to individuals. The chapter ends with an examination of recent developments in diplomatic protection.