We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
From 1967 onwards, the maritime powers revived their campaign against other states’ expanding claims to coastal waters, this time nudged along by a new member of the club: the USSR. Their greatest concern at this time was not the twelve-mile territorial sea limit, which they now deemed acceptable, nor fisheries, which took second place to strategic concerns, but rather the overlapping of straits by newly extended territorial seas. At the United Nations law of the sea conference of 1973–1982, they rejected the unsuspendable innocent passage regime set out in the Corfu Channel decision and the 1958 territorial sea convention, and agitated instead for ‘transit passage’ through straits. This regime, delinked from the idea of innocent passage, upheld freedom of navigation and overflight in straits used for international navigation, and confirmed that submarines were permitted to transit straits submerged. The straits states, wishing to retain some control over adjacent waters, managed to claw back one concession relating to enforcement if a vessel was ‘causing or threatening major damage to the marine environment of the straits’.