Part A

Question 1

i. Whether the domestic requirement imposed by the Kingdom over the ships sailing in
Northern Sea Route is legal.
Article 55 of the UNCLOS provides that the exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and
adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established , under which
the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States
are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention. Meanwhile, Article 57 stated
that the exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. So, basically the
exclusive economic zone refers to the ocean area beyond the territorial sea and out to 200
nautical miles. It is not a zone ab initio, the coastal states need to claim for the exclusive
economic zone. Also, the coastal states may exercise the right to prescribe law and enforce
laws which is limited to ‘economic rights’ provided under Article 56 of the Convention.
Applying to the situation, the exclusive economic zone of the Oykot Kingdom is out to 200
nautical miles and shall not extend beyond it from the baselines from which the breadth of
the territorial sea is measured based on Article 57. As Oykot Kingdom has declared their
exclusive economic zone is to 200 nautical miles, it has the right to prescribe law and
enforce laws according to Article 56. Thus, the domestic requirement imposed by the Oykot
Kingdom over the ships sailing in Northern Sea Route is legal as the Kingdom has the right to
prescribe and enforce law in their exclusive economic zone.
In conclusion, the domestic requirement imposed by the Kingdom is legal.
ii. Whether the jurisdiction of Oykot Kingdom applicable over Vira during the arrest.
According to Article 57 of the UNCLOS, it mentions that the exclusive economic zone shall
not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured. Meanwhile, Article 73(1) of the Convention provides the coastal
states the power of enforcement jurisdiction over foreign ships where it may take measures
including boarding, inspection, arrest and bring them to judicial proceedings, as may be
necessary to ensure the compliance with the laws and regulations.
Applying to the situation, the exclusive economic zone of the Oykot Kingdom is only up to
200 nautical miles. Also, the Kingdom has the power of enforcement jurisdiction in the
exclusive economic zone over foreign ships where it may take measures including boarding,
inspection, arrest and bring them to judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure the
compliance with the laws and regulations. However, the jurisdiction of Oykot Kingdom is not
applicable to Vira which is the State’s ship because Vira was around at 205 nautical miles
from the coastline of the Kingdom and the Kingdom does not have jurisdiction beyond the
200 nautical miles of the exclusive economic zone.
In conclusion, the jurisdiction of Oykot Kingdom is not applicable over Vira during the arrest.
iii. Whether the arrest of Vira made by Oykot Kingdom is illegal.
According to Article 73(1) of the Convention, it provides the coastal states the power of
enforcement jurisdiction over foreign ships where it may take measures including boarding,
inspection, arrest and bring them to judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure the
compliance with the laws and regulations.

Next, Article 73(2) provided that it requires the coastal states to promptly release the
arrested person upon the posting of reasonable bond or other security. In the case of Saint
Vincent and The Grenadines v Guinea, there were orders for Guinea that it shall promptly
release the M/V Saiga and its crew from detention. It was decided that the release shall be
upon the posting of a reasonable bond or security in which the security shall consist of the
amount of gasoil discharged from the M/V Saiga and the amount of 400,000 United States
dollars, to be posted in the form of a letter of credit or bank guarantee or, if agreed by the
parties, in any other form. Also, Article 73(3) provides that the penalties for the breach of
coastal states fisheries law and regulation shall not include imprisonment or other form of
corporal punishment.

Applying to the situation, Oykot Kingdom does not have the power of enforcement
jurisdictions over Vira as their exclusive economic zone is only up to 200 nautical miles and
Vira was at 205 nautical miles. Oykot Kingdom shall release Vira in accordance with Article
73(2). However, the Kingdom is not entitled to any posting of reasonable bond or security as
the arrest was beyond their jurisdiction. Furthermore, Oykot Kingdom is not able to impose
penalties provided in Article 73(3) on Vira as Vira did not breach any law of Oykot Kingdom.

In conclusion, the arrest made by Oykot Kingdom to Vira is illegal as they have no
jurisdiction on the State’s ship, Vira.
 Question 2

i. Whether the Lemon State has the right to legislate the law in its territorial waters.

According to Article 2(1) of the UNCLOS, the coastal state exercises sovereignty over
its territorial sea. However this is subject to the exception under Article 17, which stated
that the coastal state has to allow ships of all States the right to innocent passage through
its territorial sea. Based on the Article 3, it provides that Every State has the right to
establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles,
measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.

Applying to the situation, every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial
sea, then Lemon laws is included as a means to exercise their sovereignty right in the
territorial sea. With this in mind, Article 17 provides that Lemon must allow all ships from
the flag state to enter the innocent passage through its territorial sea. Moreover, based on
Article 3, Lemon only can exercise its sovereignty right of territorial sea up to to a a limit not
exceeding 12 nautical miles from the properly determined baseline.

In conclusion, Lemon has the right to legislate the law in its territorial sea waters.
ii. Whether the legislation made by the State of Lemon, according to Law of the sea
Convention 1982 is legal.

According to Article 18, passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the
purpose of just traversing that sea or proceeding to or from internal waters which shall be
continuous and expeditious. However, under Article 18(2), the passage can include stopping
and anchoring at territorial waters only insofar as the same are incidental to ordinary
navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of
rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress. While according to
Article 19, passage is innocent as it does not affect the peace, good order, or security of the
coastal State and the passage must take place in conformity with UNCLOS and with other
rules of international law.

By applying the law, as mentioned in Article 2, Lemon has the right to legislate in own law.
However, according to UNCLOS, TSNA on Section 2, 4, and 15 are very contradictory to the
articles provided in the Convention as it prevents the right of all states of ship to pass
through innocent passage as mentioned in Article 17 of UNCLOS.

In conclusion, the legislation made by the State of Lemon is illegal towards all ships state as
they have the right to pass through innocent passage.
iii. Whether the State of Lemon has the legal right to arrest or to take any legal action against
Yuzu.

In accordance of Article 28 of UNCLOS, the coastal state should not stop or divert a foreign
passing through its territorial waters to exercise civil jurisdiction over a person on board the
foreign ship. Then, Article 28(2) specifically mentioned that no execution or arrest of ship
except for obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by ship while in passage. In addition,
Article 28(3) provides the coastal state may levy execution or arrest ships after internal
water.

By applying the law, the TSNA was in contradiction with UNCLOS and thus illegal. Based on
Article 28, Lemon has no right to stop a foreign ship from passing through its territorial
waters. Even, the shareholders were citizens of Orange Union, Lemon had no rights to stop
and limit their exercising jurisdiction.

However, if Lemon adopted exclusive economic zone, they can arrest Yuzu as it occured in
their exclusive economic zone as it is up to 200 nautical miles. Yet, by applying Article 73(3),
Lemon must make a prior notice to Yuzu before the action is taken and any penalties
imposed.

In conclusion, the arrest of Yuzu imposed by Lemon is illegal and contradicts UNCLOS.
 Part B

Question 3

A. The continental shelf is the natural extension of the continent as it descends to the deep
oceanic floor. Article 76(1) of the UNCLOS stated that the continental shelf of the coastal
state comprises the sea-bed 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 which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin
does not extend up to that distance. Meanwhile, exclusive economic zone is the ocean area
beyond the territorial sea and out to 200 nautical miles. According to Article 55 of the
UNCLOS provide that the exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the
territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the
rights and jurisdiction of the coastal state and the rights and freedoms of other states are
governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention. The differences between
continental shelf and exclusive economic zone are the shelf may extend beyond 200 nautical
miles while the exclusive economic zone has a fixed limit. Next, the right to the continental
shelf is natural while right to the exclusive economic zone is optional and must be claimed
by the coastal state. Furthermore, the waters above the continental shelf where it extended
beyond 200 nautical miles remain as high sea whereas the waters of the exclusive economic
zone are sui juris which has its own legal rights. Moreover, the continental shelf covers only
on the non-living resources and sedentary species, while the exclusive economic zone
covers all the resources. The next difference is that in exclusive economic zone, there is an
obligation to conserve living resources and to share with other states while there is no such
obligations in continental shelf. Instead, the coastal states need to contribute a percentage
of its revenue to the International Sea Bed Authority for anything that its get from the
continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles limit.
B. Firstly, the coastal states has the sovereign rights to the resources of the exclusive economic
zones which includes both living and non-living resources in the water column, seabed and
subsoil. It may also exercise the right to control the following resources or activities which
are other economic resources, artificial islands, installations and structure, marine scientific
research and can prescribe law and enforce laws which is limited to ‘economic rights’. The
coastal states has the exclusive right to undertake activities for the economic exploration
and exploitation of the exclusive economic zone such as production of the energy from
water, currents and winds. In Article 73(1) of the UNCLOS, it give the Coastal states the
power of enforcement jurisdiction over foreign ships where it may take measures including
boarding, inspection, arrest and bring them to judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to
ensure the compliance with the laws and regulations. In exclusive economic zone, the coatal
states has an obligation to conserve living resources and to share with other states.
Next, the basic principle is that the coastal states has the right within the 200 miles zone
which are limited to the exploration of the shelf and exploitation of its natural resources.
Article 77(4) of the UNCLOS mentions that the coastal states has sovereign rights covering
all the natural resources of the shelf that is the mineral and other non-living resources of
the seabed and subsoil together with living organism to sedentary species, that is to say,
organism which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the sea bed or
are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil. It
also include the oil and gas and sedentary species such as oysters, claims and abalone. The
obligation of the coastal states on continental shelf is that the coastal states need to
contribute a percentage of its revenue to the International Sea Bed Authority for anything
that its get from the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles limit.
Question 4
Landlocked states must pass through one or more States called transit states in order to
gain access to the sea. According to United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of
landlocked States, it defines transit state as any contracting state with or without a
seacoast, situated between a landlocked state and the sea, through whose territory traffic in
transit passes. The sea has been determined res communis which give all states, whether
coastal or not, the right to transit freely to and from it and navigate freely upon it. Article
125 of the UNCLOS provides that landlocked states shall enjoy freedom of transit through
the territory of transit States by all means of transport. Also, Article 127 also provides that
traffic in transit shall not be subject to any customs duties, taxes or other charges except
charges levied for specific services rendered in connection with such traffic. There are three
rights of the landlocked states which are the access of landlocked states to the sea, the right
of landlocked states’ ship to navigate on the sea; and the access of landlocked states to
marine resources.

At UNCLOS III landlocked states had pressed for the Law of the Sea Convention to contain a
guaranteed right of transit. It was deemed to be satisfied with Article 125(1). However, it
was not an absolute right of transit as Article 125(2) provides that the terms and modalities
for exercising the above right must be agreed between landlocked states and the transit
states. This means in order for a landlocked state to enjoy the freedom of transit, it must ask
permission from the transit states. Furthermore, Article 125(3) provides that the transit
states have the right to take any measures necessary rights and facilities provided for shall
in no way infringe their legitimate interests. So, the exercise of the right of transit will
therefore much depend on the terms and modalities agreed between transit passage and
landlocked states and on the measure taken by transit states.

In the case of Portugal v India, The case was concerned on the right of passage over Indian
territory. The government of Portugal stated that its territory in the Indian Peninsula
included two districts surrounded by the Territory of India, Dadra and Nagar. It was in
respect of the communications between those districts and the coastal district of Daman,
and between each other, that the question arose of a right of passage in favor of Portugal
through Indian Territory. They prevented Portugal from exercising the right of passage and
that, Portugal was placed in a position in which it becomes impossible for it to exercise its
rights of sovereignty over the districts.