Law of the Sea and Maritime Disputes in the Indo-Pacific. V.M. Syam Kumar, Advocate, Kochi

Law of the Sea and Maritime Disputes in the Indo-Pacific V.M. Syam Kumar, Advocate, Kochi

Law of the Sea What constitutes law of the sea? Normative evolution in Law of the Sea Law of the Sea is not just the UNCLOS Convention of 1982. Law of the Sea is part of International Law: So Vanishing point of Jurisprudence? Enforceability of International law: Will of the Hegemon? Rule of law to be respected- Do States practice what they preach?

Disputes in the Indo-pacific Threats to Coastal Security. Freedom of Navigation Traditional Fishing rights Piracy Maritime Terrorism. Conservation of Living Resources Exploitation of non living resources Marine Pollution. Maritime delimitation

Threats to Coastal Security. Two recent incidents that happened along the Indian coast involving the vessels Enrica Lexie and Seaman Guard Ohio have renewed questions concerning coastal security. Freedom of navigation is the first in the bouquet of freedoms that together constitute the freedoms of the sea. UNCLOS III has effectively tried to reconcile the conflicting interests of the coastal state s security concerns in its adjacent waters and the concept of freedom of navigation, by evolving the concept of innocent passage.

The fact that UNCLOS does not specifically talk about terrorism or about non-state actors threatening coastal state security may not hinder the coastal state from evolving norms by drawing force from its provisions. A conjoint reading of UNCLOS III and the Indian statutes in force reveal that though there is no specific mention of the terms terrorists or non-state actors in their provisions, the statutes are wide enough and do empower the coastal state to enact laws to ensure the security of its shores.

The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 is the Indian legislation governing maritime zones. Though enacted prior to UNCLOS III, it reflects the principal norms laid down in UNCLOS III. A notable variation of much relevance to coastal state security is that Sec 5 (4) provides that the central government may exercise such powers and take such measures in or in relation to the contiguous zone as it may consider necessary with respect to (a) security of India and (b) immigration, sanitation, customs and other fiscal matters. The inclusion of security is in addition to the powers available within the contiguous zone under UNCLOS III.

The Enrica Lexie and legal issues Does the arm of the Indian law stop short at 12 nautical miles from the Indian coast or is it capable of being stretched to further extents of its maritime zones to deal with perpetrators of crime within those zones? This is one of many pivotal questions thrown up by the recent incident involving the Italian vessel Enrica Lexie.

The Italian marines are undoubtedly entitled to a fair trial and hearing and should never be condemned unheard. Their legal and factual contentions must be considered on merit and they should be presumed innocent until found otherwise by a competent court. If they argue that they are not governed by Indian law, that contention deserves to be considered and if it is found that Indian law is not applicable they ought to be handed over to be tried under Italian law.

The question whether the Indian courts have jurisdiction to try the two Italian marines involved in the shooting was specifically addressed before the court by the relatives of the dead fishermen. They pointed to Sec.3 of the Indian Penal Code and to two specific statutes in force in India: the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 and the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002 (the SUA Act, 2002).

The Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 is a statute which envisages extra-territorial operation and specifically deals with and empowers authorities to take legal action with respect to admiralty offences or offences committed upon the sea i.e., beyond the territorial waters of India. The said Act is protected vide Art. 372 of the Constitution of India and continues to have extra-territorial effect pursuant to Explanation II to Art. 372.

Alondra Rainbow In February 2003, fifteen Indonesian pirates who had boarded a Japanese ship named Alondra Rainbow were successfully prosecuted and convicted in Mumbai, India invoking inter alia the provisions of the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849. All pirates were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3000 for each crew member, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The Captain of the Enrica Lexie and the two Italian marines could also be liable to be prosecuted under the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002 (the SUA Act, 2002). This Act, vide S.1(2) extends to the Territorial Waters, the Continental Shelf, the Exclusive Economic Zone and any other Maritime Zone of India within the meaning of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. Thus the jurisdiction of the Indian authorities stand extended beyond the territorial waters of India up to the edge of the exclusive economic zone which is 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Offences within the said zone are thereby punishable under the SUA Act.

The SUA Act defines the term Ship in S.2(h) as to include any floating craft. Thus both Enrica Lexie and the fishing boat St.Antony are ships/floating crafts and are thereby amenable to the SUA Act. Chapter II of the SUA Act lists the various offences under it. It lays down the punishment for such offences as well. Thereby it can be seen that it is a complete code in itself. Section 3 (1) (a), (b), (c), Section 3 (1) (g) (i) (iv) and (v) and Sec. 3 (7) and (8) (c) of Chapter II of the SUA Act, 2002 are specifically relevant.

Somali Piracy, the PMSC boom & the Seaman Guard Ohio The threat of piracy from the Somali coast has led to the creation of private maritime security companies (PMSCs) They provide security to the merchant marines in pirate-infested waters. The recent detention by the Indian Coast Guard of an American Vessel Seaman Guard Ohio has brought to fore a number of issues concerning the status and legitimacy of private maritime security companies (PMSCs).

Seaman Guard Ohio The vessel, registered in Sierra Leone and owned by a US PMSC was detained in the Indian Port of Tuticorin. According to the Indian Coast Guard, the said vessel was found within Indian maritime zones with a cache of arms and ammunition which she could not properly account for. The Master, officers and crew of the vessel (including Indians) were arrested and lodged in an Indian prison in the state of Tamil Nadu. They have been charged with violating various Indian statutes including the Arms Act.

The incidents involving the Enrica Lexie and the Seaman Guard Ohio reveal that all is not well with the Indian coastal security scenario despite the steps taken in the aftermath of the Bombay attacks. Both incidents reveal that pending issues cannot be solved by enacting norms in India alone, as they have international ramifications and need to be tackled at a macro level.

India, which is hoping to play a larger role in the Indian Ocean region, ought to evolve steps to control floating armouries such as the Seaman Guard Ohio which violate coastal state laws with impunity. Strict implementation of PMSC norms ought to be undertaken to avoid incidents such as the Enrica Lexie. The SUA Act, 2002 and other enactments of the Indian Parliament cannot be left redundant and must be invoked against those found liable under its provisions.

Traditional Fishing rights There has been a tremendous increase in the number of collision incidents along India s West and Southern Coast involving Merchant vessels and fishing boats. This has lead to considerable loss and issues for fishing population along the coast. States as a Federal unit finds itself handicapped in these issues.

Maritime delimitation Disputes in East China Sea & South China Sea Maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India Maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar

1. A delimitation of maritime boundary has to be fair and equitable. 2. It should also be durable and should take note of the special circumstances of the relevant area were delimitation is attempted to be effected. 3. UNCLOS 1982 only states the goal to achieve maritime delimitation. It does not elaborate on the principles and methods for the achievement of equitable result. Art. 15, 74, 83 while speaking of delimitation stresses on agreement between states.

Principles and Methods influencing Delimitation of maritime boundaries. 1. Equidistance Method 2. Equity and equitable principle method 3. Proportionality 4. Single Maritime Boundary 5. Relevant circumstances 6. Other methods

Relevance circumstances in delimitation of maritime boundaries 1. Geographical circumstances a. Configuration of coasts b. Presence of Islands 2. Non Geographical circumstances a. Geology and geo morphology b. Socio economic circumstances c. Conduct of States d. Interests of third states and security and political considerations e. Historic title

North Sea Continental Shelf cases

maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India

Dispute in the South China Sea