MODULE-III - Law of the Sea-Historical background Maritime Belt-

Territorial Sea-The Contiguous Zone -Exclusive Economic Zone -

Continental shelf-The High Seas -International Sen Bed Area-Law of the
Sea Conventions-Piracy-Antartica- Artie Council Act-Air and Space Law

According to Me Dargel and Burke. "The historic

function of the law of the sea' has long been recognized as that of
protecting and balancing the common interests, inclusive and exclusive of
all peoples in the use and enjoyment of the oceans, while rejecting all
egocentric assertions of special interests in contravention of general
community interest."
History of the law of the sea narrates the struggles
for and against the doctrine of free seas. Initially, navigation on the high
seas was open to everybody as were also fisheries, but in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries - the periods of great maritime discovery by European
navigators-claims were laid by the powerful maritime states to the
exercise of sovereignty from ownership over specific portions of the open
sea. For example, Portugal claimed maritime sovereignty over the whole
of the Indian Ocean and a very great portion of the Atlantic, Spain
claimed rights to herself over the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico,and
Great Britain laid claim to the Narrow Seas and the North Sea
From
Maritime sovereignty to Freedom of the Sea

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)- Grotius, the Dutch lawyer who is considered

to be the father of international law, is regarded as the father of the law of
the sea as well. Grotius was one of the first to attack claims to
sovereignty over high seas. In his seminal work on the subject, Mare
Liberum (The Freedom of the Seas), published in 1609, Grotius
articulated the principle of the freedom of the seas, meaning that the
sea should be free and open to use by all countries.
His is argument was based on two grounds: •(1) No sea or ocean can
be the property of a nation because it is impossible for any nation
effectively to take it into possession by occupation. •(2) Nature does not
give a right to anybody to appropriate things that may be used by
everybody and are exhaustible.

The laws of the Sea were evolved during the time of Grotious and were
observed by the States as customary rules of International law. The entire
Sea was divided into three parts viz. Territorial sea (formerly called as
territorial waters), Contiguous zone and the High Seas. Laws relating to
law of the sea were settled up to nineteenth century. However, certain
developments (changes) took place in the 20th century. In 1909, Russia
claimed territorial zone up to twelve miles and few other countries four
miles. In 1930, the Hague Codification Conference made an attempt to
codify some aspects of the law of the sea. But its attempt was not
fructified/materialised After Second World War, things began to change
very rapidly. The U.S.A. President Trueman's proclamation/declaration
regarding the jurisdiction over the continental shelf was historic.

In 1967 Maltese Ambassador, Arvid Prdo conducted the survey of the

mineral resources of the seabed and presented/revealed the results of the
survey report before the First Committee of the [Link] Assembly.
The report revealed that the seabed contains oil, gas, minerals,
Manganese nodules etc. worth millions and billions of U.S. Dollars,
which will cater the needs of future generations. Later, many other States,
for economic and military interests claimed the breadth of the
territorial sea up to 200 miles. Such claims led to serious conflicts. The
three [Link] on the Law of the Sea viz. The First
[Link] on Law of the Sea, 1958. The Second
[Link] on Law of the Sea, 1960 and the Third
[Link] on Law of the Sea, 1982 considerably changed the
situation.

UNCLOS-1

To solve the conflicts between the wide claims of coastal states seeking to
protect their economic interests over large parts of the sea and attempts
by major maritime powers to maintain the status quo on the other, the
UN held the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
(The UNCLOS-I) in Geneva from 24 February 1958 to 27 April 1958.
In this conference four treaties were concluded, namely

1) Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into

force 10 September 1964
2) Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force from 10 June
1964 3) Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September
1962
3) Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of
the High Seas, entry into force: 20 March 1966

Although UNCLOS - I was considered a success, it left open the

important issues of breadth of territorial waters, and fishery limits.

UNCLOS-II
After the conclusion of the UNCLOS-1, 1958, the General Assembly of
the UN by resolution adopted on 10 December 1958, asked Secretary-
General of the UN to convene UNCLOS - II to consider unsettled
questions. It was held in Geneva from 16 March 1960 to 26 April 1960
with inconclusive results as to the two questions (breadth of territorial
waters and fishery limits),although the conference did approve a
resolution expressing the need for technical assistance to fishing.
UNCLOS-III
The First and Second United Nations Conference on the Law of Sea left
unsettled numerous matters, including in particular:
1) the precise breadth of the territorial sea,
ii)the question of innocent passage for warships at all times through
straits constituting an international maritime highway, and consisting
wholly of territorial waters;
iii) the right of passage through, and over flight in relation to the waters
of archipelagos; and
v) the problem of protection and conservation of marine resources beyond
the territorial sea.

It was only in 1989, with the Vienna Convention, the law of the sea had
been evolved into a hard law from soft law. The United Nations Law of
the Sea Convention was signed by 117 states on December 10, 1982 in
Montego Bay, Jamaica. • The Convention
entered into force in on November 16, 1994 after being ratified by 60
states. • The Convention consists of 17 parts with 320 articles and 9
annexes • The Convention is a comprehensive code of rules of
international law on the sea. The UNCLOS-III had consolidated past
treaties codified customary law and put in place new law for new issues.
It was a global agreement as for the first time even land locked states ere
addressed in maritime affairs.

COMMON TERMS OF THE LAW OF THE SEA

MARITIME BELT/ TERRITORIAL SEA

A Territorial Sea is defined by the 1982 UNCLOS III is a belt of coastal

waters extending at most 12 nautical miles from the baseline of a coastal
state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state,
although foreign ships are allowed to through at innocent passage this
sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.

The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to

describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including
internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and
potentially the continental shelf.

The baseline- is a legal construct: an artificial boundary line that

determines where a State's maritime sovereignty and jurisdiction begins
and ends. In fact, baselines determine all areas of maritime jurisdiction.
They create a demarcation between areas where a State has no rights and
those where a State does enjoy rights.

According to Art.3 of the convention - Breadth of the territorial sea

means - 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
In Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries' Case (1951, ICJ Reports 18):
International Court of Justice observed that the States are not completely
free in respect of delimitation of territorial waters with regard to other
States. The International Court of Justice observed.
The delimitation of the sea areas has always an international aspect, It
cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal State as
expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of
delimitation is necessarily an unilateral act because only the Coastal State
is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to
other States depends upon international law."
.
Article 4
Outer limit of the territorial sea

The outer limit of the territorial sea is the line every point of which is at a
distance from the nearest point of the baseline equal to the breadth of the
territorial sea.
or
The territorial sea is that area of water adjacent to the coast which the
coastal state is permitted by international law to exercise sovereign
competency for purpose of 3 things:-
1. Jurisdiction
2. Control
3. Exploitation
Innocent Passage (Art. 19)

Right of a foreign ship to pass through the territorial waters of a coastal

state so long as the passage does not interfere with or prejudices the
state's good order, peace, and security.
In Corfu Channel Case (I.C.J. Rep. (1949) p.4): The International Court
of Justice ruled that during peace time the warships of the other States
may pass through the territorial waters of a State. In this case, the Court
ruled that Albania was guilty of causing loss to the British ships by firing
at them or otherwise by laying mines in that part of the sea and it was,
therefore, a clear violation of international law and the Court gave its
verdict that Albania should pay appropriate compensation to Britain for
this violation. Thus it is a well-recognised principle of customary
International Law that foreign merchant vessels have a right of 'innocent
passage' through the territorial waters.

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases [ICJ Reports 1969 P3]

There were two agreements: i) one agreement dated 1-12-1964 between

Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Netherlands; ii)
Second agreement dated 9-6-1965 between Federal Republic of Germany
and the Kingdom of Denmark in respect of delimitation of the continental
shelf areas lying beyond and to seaward of those affected by the partial
boundaries established.

The waters of the North Sea are shallow. The continental shelf was
having less than 200 metres. But the Norwegian belt was having a depth
ranging from 200 to 650 metres deep. A right-angled bend was situate in
mid-course of North Sea coast. There arose difference of opinion and the
parties submitted their dispute to the international court of justice.

The two cases namely, Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark and

Federal Republic of Germany v The Netherlands were joined by the
International Court of Justice.

Denmark and Netherlands contended that the delimitation should be done

according to the principle of 'Equi-distance special circumstance."
Germany contended the principle of 'just and equitable

The International Court of Justice gave its judgment in favour of

Denmark and Netherlands relying on the principle of equi-distance
special circumstances.

As regards the principle of equidistance the court held that "the notion of
equidistance as being logically necessary, in the sense of being an
inescapable a priori accompaniment of basic continental shelf doctrine, is
incorrect."
Court heid-If no other method of delimitation equidistance method of
delimitation is mandatory otherwise not
The principles applicable to delimitation are
1 delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with
equitable principles, and taking into account of all the relevant
circumstance such as(the geographical situation of the parties and natural
configuration of the coast; proportionality i.e., the extent of the
continental shelf areas appertaining to coastal state and the length of the
coast measured in the general direction of the coastline; and the concept
of natural prolongation)without encroachment on the natural prolongation
of the land territory of the other;
2 the delimitation leaves to the parties areas that overlap, these are to be
divided between them in agreed proportions

Continental Shelf case: Libya v Tunisia [1982 ICJ Report 18]

This was the first case decided by the court after signing of the 1982
convention. Libya and Tunisia are situated on the Mediterranean coast of
North Africa, Libya got independence from Italy in 1952 and Tunisia got
independence from the French in 1956. Both the States have coastal area,
situated side by side. Tunisia wanted to explore fishery and petroleum
products by drilling in the continental shelf, which crossed into Libya
which objected to it, and sought the decision of International Court of
Justice. Tunisia, in the course of developing its continental shelf argued
that it had historic rights to the exploitation of fiat sponges in the waters
of its beyond its territorial sea but Libya objected to it.
In deciding the dispute, the court placed great reliance on the
"equidistance principle But to achieve an equitable result, it will be
necessary to first draw line, every point of which should be equidistant
from the coast of the two opposite states concerned and then to make
adjustments in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

The Continental Shelf case: Libya v Malta [(1985) ICJ Rep P 13]

In this case, the court was requested to decide the question as to what
principles and rules of international law are applicable in the delimitation
of the areas of the continental shelf which appertains to Malta and Libiya

In this dispute the court observed that-

The judicial practice has predominantly established that equidistance is

not an applicable rule in all cases of delimitation between adjacent states.
The natural prolongation criterion has similarly given way to distance
criterion(ie 200 NM from the coast). The emphasis on equitable solution
in the 1982 Convention, however, is without any accompanying
procedure to be followed to achieve it.

The case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the

Gulf of Marine Area: Canada v US [ICJ of October, 1984]

In this case, Canada and the US requested the International Court of

Justice to constitute a Chamber of the Court consisting of five judges to
delimit the areas of continental shelf between the two countries by a
single maritime boundary. The Chamber observed:
No maritime delimitation between states with opposite or adjacent coasts
may be effected unilaterally by one of those states such delimitation must
be sought and effected by means of an agreement,and if such agreement
cannot be achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third
party possessing the necessary competence.
In either case, delimitation is to be effected by the application of
equitable criteria

Applying the governing principles and rules of law and equitable criteria
and appropriate methods, the Chamber indicated the case of single
maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and the exclusive
fisheries zones of Canada and the USA.

ARCHIPELAGO

The 'archipelag is "a group of islands, including parts of islands,

interconnecting waters, and other natural features which are so closely
interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features from an
intrinsic geographical, economic and politica entity, or which historically
have been regarded as such." In their case, the method of straight baseline
is adopted to measure the territorial sea. These lines would be drawn by
joining the outer, most points of the outer, most islands and drying reefs
of the archipelagos and may "not exceed 100 nautical miles except up to
3 per cent of the total number of baseline enclosing any archipelage may
exceed that length, upto a maximum of 125 nautical miles."

In 'archipelagic waters' the archipelagic state has sovereign rights (Art.

49) with the right of innocent passage (Art. 52), the right of sea-lanes
passage and air-routes above these lanes for other states (Art. 53). The
archipelagic state is under an obligation to respect the existing
agreements, "recognize traditional fishing rights" and "respect existing
submarine cables" (Art 51 (1) and (2).
Maritime Zones Schematic

CONTIGUOUS ZONE
The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of
the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the
baseline.
According to Article 33 of the [Link] on the Law of. the Sea,
1982: "in a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, the coastal State may
exercise the control necessary to (a) prevent infringement of its customs,
fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial
sea; (b) punish infringement of the above regulations committed within
its territory or territorial Sea." Thus the e zone imposes certain
restrictions son the freedom the high seas. Further contiguous one may
not extend beyond 24 nautical miles baseline from which the breadth of
the territorial sea is measured.

Indian Position: India has claimed contiguous zone to the extent of

twenty four nautical miles by enacting the Maritime Zones Act of 1976.
Section 5 of the Act envisages that the contiguous zone of India is 'an
area beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters and that the zone
extends to a line which is twenty four nautical miles of the coast.

Exclusive economic zone

 An area of coastal water and seabed within a certain distance of a
country's coastline, to which the country claims exclusive rights for
fishing, drilling, and other economic activities.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends not more than 200 nautical
miles from the territorial sea baseline and is adjacent to the 12 nautical
mile territorial sea.

Beyond its territorial waters, every coastal country may establish an

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles (370km)
from shore (baseline). Within the EEZ the coastal state has the right to
exploit and regulate fisheries, construct artificial islands and installations,
use the zone for other purposes (e.g., the generation of energy from
waves), and regulate scientific research by foreign vessels. Otherwise,
foreign vessels (and aircraft) are entitled to move freely through (and
over) the zone.

Continental shelf (article 76)

The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed 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 from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where
the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that
distance
.
Points of distinction between EEZ and Continental Shelf.

Continental Shelf Exclusive Economic Zone

1. It relates to depth of water [Link] refers/relates to distance of water.
2 It relates only to continental shelf 2. It relates to both continental shelf and
exclusive fisheries zone
3 It extends to both living and 3. It mostly extends to living
resources
non- living resources in the sea

Article 77
Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf
1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights
for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that if

the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its
natural resources, no one may undertake these activities without the
express consent of the coastal State.

3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend
on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation.

Article 79

Submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf

1. All States are entitled to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the
continental shelf, in accordance with the provisions of this article.
2. Subject to its right to take reasonable measures for the exploration of
the continental shelf, the exploitation of its natural resources and the
prevention, reduction and control of pollution from pipelines, the coastal
State may not impede the laying or maintenance of such cables or
pipelines..

land-locked State as 'a State which has no sea-coast'. Putting it simply,

land- locked state means a state which has no sea-coast:

The High Sea

Definition -The concept of freedom of open sea or high seas is very old.
In the modern times it has assumed and added significance. In 1958 a
convention was adopted the high seas which is known as the Geneva
Convention on the High Seas, 1958 Article 1 of the said Convention
provided: “The term ‘high seas’ means the parts of the sea that are not
included in the territorial sea or in the internal water of the state. Article
86 of the U. N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, provides that the
provisions of this Part (i.e., Part VII) apply to all parts of the sea that are
not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the
internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic
State. Accordance with Article 58. This provision instead of defining high
seas describes it and its area.
Maritime Sovereignty and the freedom of high seas.
In the ancient period, it was generally believed that high seas are a
common heritage of mankind and are not within the property of any
State. All the States were free to uses of it . During the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, States started occupying different parts of the high
seas. In the modern period, the reply of Queen Elizabeth of England to
the Spanish Ambassador in 1580 is an important event in regard to the
freedom of the high seas. In her reply she had made it clear that seas and
air are the property of all mankind and no State can claim occupation
over them. In 1609, Grotius also expressed the same view in regard to the
freedom of open sea. At present freedom of the high seas is a universally
recognized principle and all the States subscribe to this view. The
Convention on the high seas was adopted in 1958. As is clear from the
preamble of the Convention, the provisions relating to high seas were
declaratory of customary law. In the course of time, uses of oceans
multiplied and the coastal States claimed wider parts of the sea. Many of
the provisions of the Convention were criticized and even challenged.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, seeks to reconcile
these claims and counter-claims of major maritime powers. Article 87 of
the Convention provided that high seas are open for all the States,
whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of high seas is exercised under
the conditions laid down by this convention and by other rules of
International Law.

The 1982 Convention further provides that the high seas shall be reserved
for peaceful purposes. No state may validly purport to subject any part of
the high seas to its sovereignty. Every state, whether coastal or land-
locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas. Every
State effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative,
technical and social matters over ships flying its flag. The 1982
Convention also imposes certain duties upon every State to take measures
for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea. Warships
on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any
State other than the flag State. Ships owned or operated by a State and
used only on governmental non-commercial service shall, on the high
seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other
than the flag State, The 1982 Convention prohibits on port of slaves and
imposes duty upon traffic all States to cooperate the repression of piracy.
Piracy. So is also the case of illicit in narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances. All States are entitled to lay submarine cables and pipelines
on the bed of the high seas beyond the continental shelf. The convention
also makes provision for the conservation and management of the living
resources of the high sea.

Freedoms of the High Seas.

Article 2 of the 1958, Geneva Convention on the high seas provides that
the Freedom of the high seas comprises inter alia, both for coastal and
non-coastal States: (1) Freedom of Navigation, (2) Freedom of fishing,
(3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, and (4) Freedom
to fly over the high seas. These freedoms, and others which are
recognized by the general principles of International law, shall be
exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other
States. That is to say, the freedoms enumerated are not exhaustive. They
are in addition to those recognized by the general principle of
international law. There is, however, no express provision of the freedom
of scientific research and the freedom to construct Islands and other
installations permitted under international law. The 1982 U. N.
Convention on the Law of the Sea has included these two freedoms. The
freedoms of high seas expressly enumerated in Article 87 (1) of the
Convention are following:
(a) freedom of navigation
(b) freedom of overflight
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted
under international law
(e)freedom of fishing
(f) freedom of scientific research
It is also provided that these freedoms shall be exercised by all States,
with due consideration for the interests of other States in their exercise of
the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under
the convention with respect to activities under the area. It is further
provided that the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes. Its
Moreover, no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high
seas to its sovereignty.

Article 1 of the Convention provides that all States have the right for their
nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas, subject to (a) to their
treaty obligations
(b) to the interests and rights of Coastal States as provided for in this
convention
(c) to the provisions contained in the other articles of the convention.
Further, all States have the duty to adopt, or to co-operate with other
States in adopting such measures for their respective nationals as may be
necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the High seas.
Article 6 of the Convention provides that a Coastal State has a special
interest in the maintenance of the productivity of the living resources in
any area of the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea.
Articles 116 to 120 of the U. N. Convention on the Law of the sea
now deal with the conservation and management of the living
resources of the high seas.
It may also be noted that the freedom of the high seas “is not an absolute
principle and has never been applied in absolute terms; because it
contains an inherent danger of abuse of right it has long since been
qualified in various ways .
Jurisdiction on the High Seas
It is the duty of every State to fix the conditions for the grant of its
nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the
right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag
they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the
State and the ship Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and,
save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties
or in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, shall be subjected to
exclusive jurisdiction in high seas. Except in case of a real transfer of
ownership or change of registry, a ship cannot change its flag during a
voyage or while in a port of call. Every State shall effectively exercise its
jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters
over ships flying its flag. Warships on high seas have complete
immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than flag State.
This immunity is only for State owned or operated by State and used only
on government non-commercial service.
In case of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a
ship on the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of
the master or of any other person in the service of the ship, no penal or
disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except
before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or
of the State of which such person is a national. No arrest or detention of
the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any
authorities other than those of the State.
It Is clear from the above provision that the legal order on the high seas is
based on the rule of international law under which every ship on the high
seas is required to have the nationality of and to fly the flag of one State.
Thus international law leaves it upon municipal laws of various States to
fix conditions to be fulfilled by ships authorized to sail under its flag,
rules relating to discipline on board of the ships and regarding
punishment of ships sailing without authorization under their flags. The
rules of international law are thus supplemented by municipal laws of the
States.

Right of Visit
The general rule is that the State whose flag ship is flying (and of course
is entitled to fly) has complete jurisdiction over the ship and its crew. But
this exclusive jurisdiction is subject to some exception. One such
exception is right of visit. The general rule is that a war ship which
encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to
complete immunity, is not justified in boarding it. But the war ship may
board such a ship if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) The ship is engaged in piracy:

(b) The ship is engaged in slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State
of the war ship has jurisdiction under Article 109 of 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
 (d) The ship is without nationality.
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship
is, in reality, of the same nationality as the war ship.
If any of the above grounds exist, the war ship may proceed to verify the
ship’s right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the
command of officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the
documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination
on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible
consideration. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that
the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be
compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained,

Right of hot pursuit.

Yet another exception to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State over a
vessel in the high seas is the right of hot pursuit. Article 111 of the U.
N Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 provides that the hot
pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent
authorities of the State have good reason to believe that the ship has
violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be
commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the
internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the
contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued
outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has
not been interrupted. The right of the hot pursuit shall apply mutatis
mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the
continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf
installations,of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in
accordance with the convention to the exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf, including such safety zones.
The right of the hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters
territorial sea of its own State, or of a third State. Hot pursuit is not
deemed to have begun unless the pursuing ship has satisfied itself by such
practicable means as may be available that the ship pursued or one of the
boats or other craft working as a team and using the ship pursued as a
mother ship is within the limits of territorial sea, or, as the case may be,
without the contiguous zone or the exclusive Economic Zone or above
the continental shelf. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual
or auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which enables it to
be seen or heard by the foreign ship.
The above provisions also apply to ”a hot pursuit effected by an aircraft.
It is, however, necessary to note that the right of hot pursuit can be
exercised only by war ships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft
clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and
authorized to that effect.
Finally, there is a provision for payment of compensation for any loss or
damage caused where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the
territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the
right of hot pursuit.

International seabed area

UNCLOS defines the international seabed area—the part under ISA

jurisdiction—as “the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof,
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”[27] UNCLOS outlines the
areas of national jurisdiction as a “12 nautical-mile territorial sea; an
exclusive economic zone of up to 200 nautical miles and a continental
shelf”,[28] unless a nation can demonstrate that its continental shelf is
naturally prolonged beyond that limit, in which case it may claim up to
350 nautical miles (650 km).[29] ISA has no role in determining this
boundary. Rather, this task is left to another body established by
UNCLOS, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which
examines scientific data submitted by coastal states that claim a broader
reach.
The International Seabed Authority (ISA)
The International Seabed Authority (ISA) was formed on 16 th November
1994 as an intergovernmental body under the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The International Seabed Authority
(ISA) was formed as an initiative for organising, regulating and
controlling all the mineral-related activities in the international seabed
area that are beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
The ISA held its first inaugural meeting in its host country, Jamaica, on
16 November 1994, the day the Convention came into force. The articles
governing the Authority have been made “noting the political and
economic changes, including market-oriented approaches, affecting the
implementation” of the Convention. The Authority obtained its observer
status to the United Nations in October 1996.
Who are the governing bodies of ISA?
Headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica, the International Seabed Authority
(ISA) has 167 members and the European Union, composed of all parties
to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The
International Seabed Authority (ISA) is controlled and governed by the
following bodies:
 Assembly of International Seabed Authority: The supreme
authority of ISA is the assembly consisting of all ISA members.
This assembly is responsible for establishing general policies and
budgets.
  Executive Authority: ISA also elects the executive authority of ISA
which is a 36-member council and is responsible for approving
contracts with private corporations and government entities. These
contracts deal with the exploration and mining in the specified
areas of the international seabed.
 Secretary-General: The secretary-general of the ISA is nominated
by the council and is elected by the assembly to a four-year term.
Michael W. Lodge is the current secretary-general of International
Seabed Authority (ISA).
 The Finance Committee deals with budget-related matters. There is
also a Legal and Technical Commission consisting of 30 members
who control the Council and Finance Committee. All members are
experts nominated by governments and elected to serve in their
individual capacity.
International Seabed Authority (ISA) Functions
ISA focuses mainly on organizing, regulating and controlling all the
mineral-related activities in the international seabed area that are beyond
the limits of national jurisdiction. Some of the major functions of the
International Seabed Authority of India (ISA) are mentioned below:
 Regulation of deep seabed mining.
 Protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects of
mining, exploration and exploitation.
 The authority also promotes marine scientific research and
conducts training programmes, seminars, conferences and
workshops on the scientific and technical aspects.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
Article 287 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that
when signing, ratifying or acceding to the convention or at any time
thereafter a state shall be free to choose by means of a written declaration,
one or more of these for the settlement of disputes concerning the
interpretation or application of following Convention:
(a) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in
accordance with Annex VI.
(b) The International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex
VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.

It is further provided that a declaration made under paragraph 1 of Article

287 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a state party to
accept the jurisdiction of the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber of the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the
manner provided for in Part XI of the Convention, (section 5). Further, a
State Party, which is a party to the dispute not covered by a declaration in
force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with
Annex VII.
The United Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 having come Into
force on November 16, 1994 vigorous efforts were made to establish the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The seat of the Tribunal is
in the Free and Hanseatic city of Hamburg in the Federal Republic of
Germany. The Tribunal may, however, sit and exercise its functions
elsewhere whenever it considers this desirable. In August, 1996, 21
Judges of the Tribunal were elected. In accordance with the Law of the
Sea convention, they were elected on the basis of ‘equitable geographical
distribution’. Dr. P.C. Rao of India was also elected as one of the Judges
of the Tribunal. After all formality were completed, the Tribunal was
finally established on 21 October 1996.
Composition.
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea comprises of a body of
21 members, elected from among persons enjoying the highest reputation
of fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the
law of the sea. In the Tribunal as a whole the representation of the
principal legal system of the world and equitable geographical
distribution’ shall be assured.
No two members of the Tribunals may be the nationals of the same State.
There shall be no fewer than three members from each geographical
group as established by the General Assembly of the United Nations. On
August 1996, twenty one members of the Tribunal were elected on the
basis of ‘equitable geographical distribution’ out of these 21 members, 5
are from Asia, 5 from Africa, 4 from Western Europe 4 from Latin
America and, Caribbean States and 3 from Eastern Europe.
The members of the Tribunal are elected for nine years and may be re-
elected; provided however, that the members elected at the first election,
the terms of seven members shall expire at the end of three years and the
terms of seven more shall expire at the end of six years. The members of
the Tribunal whose terms are to expire at the above- mentioned initial
period of three and six years shall be chosen by lot to be drawn by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations immediately after the first
election,

Members of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

The Tribunal is composed of 21 independent members elected by secret

ballot by the States Parties to the Convention.
 ITLOS Members are elected for a period of 9 years and may be re-
elected.
  Every 3 years, the term of one-third of the members expires.

 Also, there shall be more than 3 members from each geographical

group as established by the United Nations General Assembly.
 No two members may be nationals of the same State and in the
Tribunal as a whole, it is necessary to assure the representation of
the principal legal systems of the world and equitable geographical
distribution.
Access to the Tribunal.
All the State Parties to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea have
access to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall be open to entities other than
State Parties in any case expressly provided in Part XI of the Convention
or in any submitted persuant to any other agreement conferring
jurisdiction on the Tribunal which is accepted by all the parties to that
case.
Applicable Law.
The Tribunal shall decide all disputes and applications in accordance with
Article 293 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. According to
Article 293, the Tribunal shall apply the Convention and other rules of
international law not incompatible with the Convention. However, this
will not prejudice the power of the Tribunal to decide a case ex acquo et
bono, if the parties so [Link] decision rendered by the Tribunal shall
be final and binding and shall be complied with by all parties to the
dispute. But any such decision shall have no binding force except
between the parties and in respect of that particular dispute.

Jurisprudence.
According to Article 288 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982,
the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the
interpretation or application of the Convention which is submitted to it in
accordance with Part XV of the Convention. The Tribunal shall also have
jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application
of an international agreement related to the Purposes to the Convention,
which is submitted to it in accordance with the agreement. In the event of
a dispute as to whether the tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be
settled by decision of the Tribunal.

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Functions

The Convention establishes a comprehensive legal framework to regulate
all ocean space, its uses and resources.
 It works to safeguard the various marine resources and protect the
different species.
 It also has provisions related to territorial occupancies of seas,
continental shelf, exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
 It also helps to promote and leverage scientific research for the
development and transfer of marine technology.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) & India
India played a constructive role in deliberations leading to UNCLOS’s
adoption in 1982 and has been a party to the convention since 1995.
Ms. Neeru Chadha, an eminent lawyer and the first Indian woman to
become the chief legal adviser in the Ministry of External Affairs, won
the election to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
for a nine-year term from 2017 to 2026.
Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber
Composition.-Article 186 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea
provides that the establishment of the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber and the
manner in which it shall exercise its jurisdiction shall be governed by the
provisions of section 5 of Part XI, Par XV and Annex VI of the
Convention. Article 14 of the Statute (Annex VI) provides that a Sea-Bed
Disputes Chamber shall be established in accordance with the provisions
of section 4 of Annex VI containing Articles 35 to 40. Article 35, of the
Statute, which deals with the composition of Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber,
provides that the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber shall be composed of 11
members, selected by a majority of the elected members of the
Tribunal from among them. In the selection of the members of the
Chamber, the representation of the principal legal systems of the
world and equitable geographical distribution shall be assured.

The members of the Chamber shall be selected every three years and may
be selected for a second terms. The Chamber shall elect its President from
among its Members, who shall serve for the terms for which the Chamber
has been selected. The Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber may form ad hoc
chamber, composed of three of its members, for dealing with a particular
dispute submitted to it in accordance with Article 188.
Special Chambers.
The Tribunal may form such chambers, composed of three or more of its
elected members, as it consider necessary for dealing with particular
categories of disputes.(Art. 15) Thus the Tribunal at a meeting on 14
February 1997 formed Special Chamber for Fisheries Disputes to deal
with disputes which the parties agree to submit to it concerning the
interpretation or application of any provision of:
(a) UNCLOS concerning the conservation and management of marine
living resources; and
(b) Any other agreement relating to the conservation and management
of marine living resources which confers jurisdiction on the
Tribunal.
On the same date i.e. on 14 February 1997, the Tribunal formed a seven
members standing special chamber for Marine Environment Disputes on
20 February 1997.
Advisory opinions.
According to Article 191 of the U.N. Convention on the Sea, the Sea-Bed
Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the
Assembly or the Council of the International Sea-Bed Authority on legal
questions arising within the scope of their activities. Such opinions shall
be given as a matter of urgency
Finality and Binding Force of Decisions.
The decision of the Tribunal is finaland shall have no binding force
except between the parties and in respect of that particular dispute.
Cases Decided by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Following are the cases which have been decided by the Tribunal :-
(1) The M/V. “Saiga” case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines V.
Guinea) 14
(2) The M/V. “Saiga” case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.
Gunia) 15-Request for Provisional measures.
So far twenty one cases have been decided by the Tribunal. Following are
the last three cases decided by the Tribunal:
(19) M.V. ‘Virginia’ G case (Panama-Guinea Bissau, 2011).
(20) ARA Liberated (Q2) (Argentina-Ghana, 2012).
(21) Green peace Arctic Sunrise Ship case (Netherland-Russia, 2013).

PIRACY
Definition. According to traditional international law, navigation in the
high seas with the object of committing violent acts against other persons
and property for private (or their own) interests and without being
authorized or permitted by any State, is called piracy .According to
Story. J., in United States v. Smith, “Whatever may be the diversity of
definitions in other respects, all writers concur in holding that robbery or
forcible depredations upon the sea amino fundi, is piracy” In an American
case, the Federal Court expressed the view that the armed ship in the sea
should be under the authority of some State and if such a ship is not under
the authority of any State, it would be treated in the category of pirate
ships, irrespective of the fact whether it has committed piracy or not. The
law relating to piracy was codified in the Geneva Convention on High
Seas, 1958. Article 15 of the Convention defines ‘piracy’ in the following
words: Piracy consists of any of the following acts
(1) Any illegal act of violence, detention or any act of depredation
committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a
private ship or a private aircraft, and directed (a) on the high seas,
against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on
board such ship or aircraft; (b) against a ship, aircraft, persons or
property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State.
(2) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of
an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or
aircraft.
(3) Any act of inciting or of internationally facilitating an act described
in sub- paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) of this article.
Essential elements of ‘piracy. Following are the essential elements
of Piracy
(1) Violence or robbery at high seas must be for private ends. Such
acts committed by warships, Government ships or aircraft
cannot be called piracy. For example, in the Second World War
German U-Boats sank enemy ships in the area of long-distance
blockade in the high seas without any prior intimation. This act
cannot be called ‘piracy’ because it was committed under the
 authority of the State of Germany. In fact, this act is violation of
the laws and custom of war and is a war crime.
(2) Illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation
committed for private ends must be against the crew or passengers
of a private ship or private aircraft. The only exception of this is
recognised in Article 16 which provides that the acts of piracy
committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft
whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft
are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship.
(3) Illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation may be
either on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any
State.
(4) Such acts must be directed against a ship, aircraft, persons or
property.
(5) Violence, detention or any act of depredation may constitute piracy
provided that above elements are satisfied.
(6) Committing of actual robbery is not essential for piracy. Even an
unsuccessful attempt to commit robbery at high seas will
constitute piracy. This was held in Re Piracy Jure Gentium. The
facts of this case are as follows:
In 1931, some Chinese citizens were arrested on the charge of piracy.
They were tried in Hong Kong and held guilty. In this case accused
had made an unsuccessful or abortive attempt to commit robbery at
high seas. The Court was confronted with the question as to whether
actual robbery was essential for piracy. The Hong Kong Court referred
this question to the Privy Council for its opinion. The Privy Council
held that for an act to constitute piracy, actual robbery is not
essential. Even if an accused is guilty of making an unsuccessful
 attempt to commit robbery, he will be guilty of having committed
piracy and will be punished.
(7) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or an
aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft
will also constitute piracy.
(8) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating any illegal act
described above will also constitute piracy.
Concept of universal jurisdiction in respect of the crime of piracy.
By universal jurisdiction in respect of a crime, it is generally meant that
all States exercise jurisdiction in respect of that crime. When a crime is
against the interests of intonations community (Delict Jure Gentium)
then all the States are entitled to apprehend and punish persons accused of
such crimes. The principle of universal jurisdiction applies in respect of
the crime of piracy, war crimes, to and to some extent the crime of
aircraft hijacking. Persons accused of committing crime of piracy may be
apprehended and punished because they are regarded as enemies of the
whole mankind The concept of Universal jurisdiction has been accepted
and adopted in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas. Article 19
of the Convention provides that on the high seas, or in any other place
outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or
aircraft, or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and
arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The Courts of the
State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to
be imposed and may also determine the action to be taken with
regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third
pirates acting in good faith. (Article 105 of the 1982 U.N. Convention
on the Law of the Sea.).

Arctic Council
  The Arctic Council Is a high-level intergovernmental forum that
addresses issues faced by the Arctic governments and the
indigenous people of the Arctic.
 The first step towards the formation of the Council occurred in
1991 when the eight Arctic countries signed the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS).
 The 1996 Ottawa Declaration Established the Arctic Council as a
forum for promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction
among the Arctic states, with the involvement of the Arctic
Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on issues
such as sustainable development and environmental protection.
 The Arctic Council has conducted studies on climate change, oil
and gas, and Arctic shipping.
Arctic Council
Members, Observer & Permanent Participant
Members: The eight countries with sovereignty over the lands within the
Arctic Circle constitute the members of the council: Canada, Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.
Observer Status
Observer status in the Arctic Council is open to non-Arctic states, along
with inter-governmental, inter-parliamentary, global, regional and non-
governmental organizations that the Council determines can contribute to
its work. Arctic Council Observers primarily contribute through their
engagement in the Council at the level of Working Groups.
It consists of Permanent Participants also in addition to observers.
Organization structure of Arctic Council
Arctic Council assessments and recommendations are the result of
analysis and efforts undertaken by the Working Groups. Decisions of the
Arctic Council are taken by consensus among the eight Arctic Council
States,with full consultation and involvement of the Permanent
Participants.
The Chairmanship of the Arctic Council Rotates every two years among
the Arctic States. The first country to chair the Arctic Council was
Canada (1996-1998).
The next country to assume the Chairmanship will be Iceland (2019-
2021).

Air space
As pointed out earlier each State exercises complete sovereignty over its
territory which comprises of lands, waters, maritime belts, air space, etc.
According to the old view each State exercises sovereignty over its
complete air space. In the modern times,there are several views or
theories prevalent in this connection. According to the first view, air
space is available for each State and the air crafts of each State may
pass through it without any obstruction. This view has been
vehemently criticized because it is contrary to many international treaties.
Each State exercises control over its air space and the air crafts of another
State can enter in its air space only after seeking its prior permission. In
accordance with the second view, each State exercises control over its air
space up to unlimited height. It is entitled to exercise complete control
over it and may not permit the entry of the aircrafts of other States in this
area. This view also does not seem to be correct because in view of the
rapid scientific and technological developments aircrafts can go to a very
high attitude. It is not possible for each State to exercise control over
unlimited height. Since it is not possible to exercise control over
unlimited air space, this view has lost much of its relevance. According to
third view, a State exercises control over the lower strata of the air space
and its sovereignty is limited only to that extent. This view seems to be
better than the other two views mentioned earlier because sovereignty can
be effective only when the State can exercise control over it. However,
the greatest difficulty in the general acceptance of this theory is that no
State is prepared to accept it affirmatively. According to the fourth view,
the State concerned can make rules in regard to the outer space so as to
ensure its security. But only a few States of the world have capability to
enforce such rules. Lastly, each State has sovereignty over air space
extending to the unlimited height subject only to the providing of
innocent passage to the aircrafts of other States. Only a few States of the
world can effectively exercise such sovereignty.

Aerial Navigation
A number of international conventions have been concluded to regulate
aerial Navigation. The more important of them are given below-
(1) Paris Convention of Aerial Navigation 1919.-This convention
framed certain rules regarding aerial navigation during peace time.
According to the convention, each State exercises complete
sovereignty over its air space. Further, during peace, parties to the
convention will give innocent passage to the other State parties to the
convention. The convention did not frame rules for the period of war.
(2) Havana Convention, This convention was adopted mainly by the
States of American continent Several rules regarding aerial navigation
were adopted under the convention.
(3) Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to
Interactional Carnage by Air or Warsaw Convention, 1929-This
convention was signed at Warsaw on 12 October, 1929. According to
Article 1 of the convention, the convention applies to all international
carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for
 reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircrafts performed
by an air transport undertaking.
But these conventions lack the proper regulation of airspace after
World War II, which resulted into the formulation of Chicago
Convention which proved to be Magna Carta in the field of air law.

(4) Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944

The basis of the present air laws is the Chicago Convention of
1944. It helped in establishing certain principles for the development of
international civil aviation in an organised and safe [Link] ensures
a fair opportunity of the development of air transport at the international
level and also led to the formation of the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO).This convention states about the nationality of the
aircraft (which is decided by the State’s nationality in which it is
registered) and restriction on operating the unscheduled air service over
or in the territory of any other [Link] means,the Chicago Convention
is applicable only on civil aircraft and not on State aircraft. Hence,
without special authorization the State aircraft can neither land nor fly
over the territory of any other State.

Five Freedoms of Air

Before and after the First World War many problems relating to
international air transport arose. In order to solve it a Conference was
held at Chicago in 1944, known as International Civil Aviation
Conference, and this Conference declared the following five freedoms
of air transport;
(1) Freedom to fly across foreign territory without landing:
(2) Freedom to land for non-traffic purposes;
 (3) Freedom to disembark in foreign territory traffic originating in the
State of the origin of the craft:
(4) Freedom to pick up in any foreign country traffic destined for the
State of origin of aircraft; and
(5) Freedom to carry traffic between two foreign countries.
In order to give concrete shape to the above five freedoms two
agreements were concluded. They are as follows:
(1) Chicago International Air Services Transit Agreement, 1944. This
agreemeni incorporated the first two freedorns.
(2) Chicago International Air Transport Agreement, 1944. This
agreement incorporated the last three freedoms. But this agreement
was signed by a very few countries.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Air law is mediated by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), a specialized agency of the United Nations. ICAO is funded and
directed by 193 member countries as signatory states to the Chicago
Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944. It’s main objective is
to “maintain an administrative and expert bureaucracy” that supports
international diplomacy in air law and to “research new air transport
policy and standardization innovations.”
Limitations of ICAO: it is not a global regulator. ICAO regulations do
not supersede legislation and regulations in any particular country and is
restricted to providing a forum for deliberation between countries on
sanctions, punitive measures, etc. on another country or countries for
violating certain rules and regulations.
Case of Banning of Pakistani Air Flights through Indian Territory
or Jurisdiction of ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan), LC.J. Reports
(1972)
In 1971. an Indian aircraft was hijacked and was taken to Pakistan.
Instead of apprehending the hijackers and punishing them or returning
them to India, the Government of Pakistan indirectly encouraged the
hijackers. Subsequently, the Indian plane was burnt at the Pakistan
airport. As a reprisal, the Government of India banned all Pakistani air-
flights through Indian territory, thereupon the Government of Pakistan
lodged a complaint in the Council of ICAO. The Government of India
challenged the jurisdiction of the Council of 1. C. A. O, to hear and
decide this complaint and filed an application in the International Court
of Justice in this connection. The International Court of Justice decided in
1972 that the Council has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the
complaint filed by Pakistan. The World Court, however, did not dwell
upon the merits of the case. Subsequently, India and Pakistan entered into
Simla Agreement wherein they decided to settle their disputes bilaterally.
Later on Pakistan withdrew its case from the LC.A.O. Council and India
allowed the overflights to be resumed.
Hijacking
Aircraft hijacking is a contemporary addition to the roster of international
and national crimes and the necessity for its control at international and
national level is wide sense hijacking is According to Article 11 only
beginning an act against the safety to be recognized by States. In its of
civil aviation and resembles piracy. Art.11 of Tokyo Convention, 1963,
when a person on board has unlawfully committed by force or threat
thereof, an act of interference, seizure or wrongful exercise of control of
an aircraft in flight or when such an act is about to be committed,
contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to restore control of
the aircraft to its lawful commander or to preserve its control of the
aircraft. Essential elements which are following:
(i) Unlawful use of force or threat thereof or any other form
of intimidation; (ii) To do above-mentioned acts with a
view to seize that aircraft or to exercise Control over it;
(ii) The said acts should have been committed on board an
aircraft in flight;
(iii) Accomplice of person who performs or attempts to
perform the above- The mentioned act is also guilty of
the offence of hijacking.
The Hague Convention, 1970
The Hague Convention is governed with the purpose of looking
after the suppression caused due to the unlawful seizure of the
[Link] convention does not apply to customs, law
enforcement or military aircraft, thus it applies exclusively to
civilian aircraft. It only addresses situations in which an aircraft
takes off or lands in a place different from its country of
registration. The convention sets out the principle of aut dedere
aut judicare—that a party to the treaty must prosecute an
aircraft hijacker if no other state requests his or
her extradition for prosecution of the same crime.
The Montreal Convention, 1971
The Montreal Convention ensures the quashing down of the
unlawful acts which are committed to harm the safety of the
civil aviation.
The Convention criminalizes the following behaviour:
Committing an act of violence against a person on board an
aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger the safety of the
aircraft;
 destroying an aircraft being serviced or damaging such an
aircraft in such a way that renders it incapable of flight or which
is likely to endanger its safety in flight;
(a) placing or causing to be placed on an aircraft a device or
substance which is likely to destroy or cause damage to an
aircraft;(b) destroying or damaging air navigation facilities or
interfering with their operation if it is likely to endanger the
safety of aircraft; (c)communicating information which is
known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft
in flight;
attempting any of 1–5; and
being an accomplice to any of 1–6.

OUTER SPACE
It has been aptly pointed out “We live on the shores of this tiny world, the
third planet of nine, circling an average star, the Sun. This star is just
among billions in a great city of stars, the Milky way, itself just one
among a billion other stellar cities stretching on perhaps forever. This
Universe is more vast than all imagining, and filled with wonders more
than we can dream, is a heritage for all mankind.”
So far as the question of air space is concerned it has been made clear
earlier that the State concerned exercise complete control over it. The
other States can get some rights over it only through some agreements or
treaties. There is no customary rule of International law in regard to
giving innocent passage through the territorial air space. As aptly pointed
out by Edward Collins, “States have complete legal control over the
airspace over their territory, other States have only rights in it as are
acquired of treaty. There is no customary right of innocent passage
through territorial airspace….”
As remarked by Greek Philosopher Socrates in the 5 th Century B.C.,
“Man must rise above the earth to the top of the atmosphere and beyond-
for only thus will he fully understand the world in which he lives.” Views
are divided about the definition and delimitation of air space and outer
space. It need not be overemphasized that there is practical and legal
necessity to define the legal boundaries between the two.

Legal Status of Outer Space

Following are some of the international treaties and conventions which
point out the legal status of outer space
(1) The Outer Space Treaty
Outer Space Treaty, 1967 is a landmark event in this connection.
Some of the important provisions of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967
are as follows

(1) Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be
free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of
any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with
international law, there shall be free access to all areas of celestial
bodies There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer
space.
(2) Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not
subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means
of use or occupation, or by any other means.
(3) (3) State parties to the treaty undertake not to place in orbit around
the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of
weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial
bodies or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
 (4) The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States
parties in the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The
establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the
testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military
manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. 20
(5) States parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of
mankind in outer space and shall render to them all possible
assistance in the event of accident, distress or emergency landing
on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. When
astronauts make such a landing they shall be safely and promptly
returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle .
(6) States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility
for national activities in outer space.
(7) Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the
launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and
other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or
facility an object is launched, is internationally fiable for damage to
another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical
persons by such object or its component parts on the earth, in air
space or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial
bodies. 23
(8) A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched
into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over
such object and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or
on a celestial body.

The agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of

Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space,
1967
Yet another landmark in the development of space law is the Agreement
on the Rescue of Astronauts, The Return of Astronauts and the Return of
Objects Launched into outer space which was commended upon by the
General Assembly on December 10, 1967. The agreement entered into
force in December, 1968. As of January 2019, 98 countries have ratified
the Agreement and 24 others have signed. The Agreement provides that
each contracting party which receives information or discovers that the
personnel of a space craft have suffered accident or are experiencing
conditions of distress or have made an emergency, or unintended landing
in territory under its jurisdiction or on the high seas or in any other place
not under the jurisdiction of any State shall immediately, (a) notify the
launching authority or, if it cannot identify and immediately communicate
with the launching authority, Immediately make a public announcement
by all appropriate means of communication at its disposal; (b) notify the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, who should disseminate the
information without delay by all appropriate means of communication at
his disposal. 32 If owing to accident, distress, emergency or unintended
landing, the personnel of a spacecraft land in territory under the
jurisdiction of a contracting party, it shall immediately take all possible
steps to rescue them and render them all necessary assistance. It shall
inform the launching authority and also the secretary general of the UN of
the steps is taking and of their progress.

(3) The Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by

Space Objects, 1971.
The third great landmark in the development of international space law is
the Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space
Objects, which was agreed on and commended by the General Assembly
on November 29, 1971 36 The Convention entered into force in
September, 1972 The convention provides that a launching State shall be
absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by the space
object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft or to aircraft in flight. In
the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the
earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons or property on
board such a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be
liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for
whom it is responsible 38 Whenever two or more States jointly launch a
space object, they shall be jointly and severally liable for any damage
caused 39 The convention provides for the establishment of a Claims
Commission in case there is no settlement between the State which
suffers damage and the launching State.
(4)The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer
Space, 1974.
The fourth landmark is Convention on Registration of Objects Launched
into Outer Space which was adopted by the U. N. General Assembly on
12 November, 1974 as an annex to Resolution 3235 (XXIX) 41 Article II
of the Convention provides that when a space object is launched into
earth orbit or beyond, the launching State shall register the space object
by means of an entry in an appropriate registry which it shall maintain.
Each launching State shall inform the Secretary-General of the U. N. of
the establishment of such a registry. Under Article IV each State or
registry is under an obligation to furnish certain information concerning
each space object. General of the U. N. The Convention on Registration
of Objects Launched into C Space entered into force on 15 th September,
1976, alter its ratification by Bulgaria, Canada, France and Sweden were
the four countries who had ratified it earlier India acceded to the
convention on 18 January, 1982. As of January 2019, countries have
ratified the convention. Besides this, two inter-governmental
organizations(European Space Agency and European Organization for
the Exploitation Meteorological Satellites) have declared their acceptance
of the rights and obligations Provided in the Registration Convention
(5) The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon
and other Celestial Bodies, 1979.
The fifth landmark is the Agreement Governing the Activities of States
on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies which was adopted by the
General Assembly on 5th December 1979 as an annex of Resolution
34/68. The Agreement entered into force on 11 July, 1994 The main
provisions of this agreement are following
1. All activities on the moon, including its exploration and use, shall
be carried out in accordance with international law in particular the
charter of the UN and taking into account the Declaration on
Principles of International iza conceming Friendly Relations and
Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October,
1970, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security
and promoting international cooperation, and mutual understanding
and with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other
States Parties
2. The moon shall be used by all States Parties exclusively for peace
full purposes.
3. The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all
mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests
of all countries irrespective of their degree of economic or
scientific development
 4. There shall be freedom of scientific investigation on the moon by
all States Parties without discrimination of any kind on the basis of
equality and Accordance with international law .
5. The moon and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.”

6. States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an

international regime, including appropriatly undertake to establish
of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is abou to
become feasible.49

7. The main purposes of the international regime to be established

shall include

(a) The orderly and sale development of the natural resources of the
moon.
(b) The rational management of those resources
(c) The expansion of opportunities in the use of those resources; (d)
An equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived
from.
(d) Those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the
developing countries as well as the efforts of those countries
which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the
exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration .
(9) States Parties shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel,
space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the
moon. The ownership of space vehicles, equipment facilities, stations and
installations shall not be affected by their presence on the moon .
(10) States Parties to this Agreement shall bear international
responsibility for national activities on the moon, whether such activities
are carried out by governmental agencies or by non-governmental
entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in
conformity with the provisions of this Agreement States Parties shall
ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall
engage in activities on the moon only under the authority and continuing
supervision of the appropriate State Party.
(6) Vienna Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space (UNISPACE-82 or UNISPACE II).

The UNISPACE-82 was held at Vienna from August 9 to August 22,

1982, with 94 States participants and 45 observers. The Conference
reviews the developments in the field of outer space taking place since
1968 The conference appealed the States not to increase arm race beyond
earth. This appeal was specially directed to States having nuclear
capability A report adopted by consensus asked the States to follow outer
space Treaty, 1967 which has prohibited the use of weapons of mass-
destruction in outer space It is unfortunate that the two great powers-
USA. And the U.S.S.R.-are lying each other in production of mosquete
only one example, U. S. President Reagan’s recent “Star War Missile
defence project is most likely to endanger peace in outer space. Besides
being violative of lence project in stic Missile Treaty (ABM), this would
as coloute the arms face and jeopardise efforts being made to ensure
peaceful uses dusuter space. The UNISPACE-82 also considered the
question of monopoly of some industrialized countries in the field of
science and technology and recommended increased cooperation between
the developed and developing countries in this respect.

(6) UNISPACE-III
As noted above, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in
its 37 Session held from 6 to 16 June, 1994 proposed the convening of the
Third UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space (UNISPACE-II) by the end of this century. The third U.N.
Conference on exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (1.8.
UNISPACE-III) was held in Vienna (Austria) from 19 to 30 July, 1999.
The key objective of the conference was to create a blueprint for the
peaceful uses of outer space in the 21st century. It considered the
following subjects:
( i )Future of Exploration of Planets,
(ii) Use of Micro-wave systems or micro-satellites in the exploration of
cuter space;
(iii) Security of future outer space programmed in respect of debris of
outer space,
(iv) Maintenance and supervision of outer space based environment; and
(v) Use of Mobile Satellite Communication.
The above-mentioned five major treaties and UNISPACE I to III
constitute the highlight of the development of space law 63 To safeguard
the common interests of mankind and to ensure the establishment and the
maintenance of a viable, co-operative public order of the outer space, the
moon and other celestial bodies, it is most important that full recognition
be given to inclusive interests of States in outer space 54 The policy of
inclusive access to and use of outer space resources means that each State
must take full advantage of opportunities in space, subject to the
limitation that activities must be peaceful and unharmful to common
interest.