You are on page 1of 3


The Exclusive Economic

Arts. 55-58, 70-73, UNCLOS
P4.1 Spain v. Canada (facts only), ICJ Reports, 1966

FACTS: On 28 March 1995 Spain filed an application instituting proceedings against Canada with respect to a dispute
relating to the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (as amended on 12 May 1994), to the implementing
regulations of that Act and to certain measures taken on the basis of that legislation. The dispute deals in particular
with the boarding on the high seas, on 9 March 1995, of a fishing boat, the Estai, flying the Spanish flag and with a
Spanish crew, by a Canadian patrol boat, the Cape Roger.

Spain alleged that the boarding of the Estai by the Cape Roger occurred "after successive attempts at boarding by
gunboats manned by individuals armed with automatic weapons". It added that "the boat and its crew were forcibly
escorted away and held incommunicado in the Canadian port of St. John's, Newfoundland, where the captain of the
boat was imprisoned and subjected to criminal proceedings for having fished on the high seas". In its Application,
Spain indicated that by this action Canada had violated the principles of general international law which proclaim
freedom of navigation and freedom of fishing on the high seas.

ISSUE: Whether Canada violated the international law of fishing on the high seas.

HELD: The Court addressed what it saw as Spain's four main arguments in favor of jurisdiction: (1) the dispute
brought by Spain falls outside the terms of the Canadian reservation by reason of its subject-matter; (2) the Canadian
legislation cannot, in international law, constitute "conservation and management measures;" (3) the reservation
covers only "vessels" that are stateless or flying a flag of convenience; and (4) the pursuit, boarding and seizure of the
Spanish ship cannot be regarded in international law as the enforcement of conservation and management measures.
Court concluded that the dispute submitted to it by Spain constitutes a dispute "arising out of" and "concerning"
"conservation and management measures taken by Canada with respect to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory
Area" and "the enforcement of such measures."

P4.1 M/V Saiga (St. Vincent & Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS Judgment, July 1, 1999

FACTS: The Saiga is Cypriot oil tanker that was arrested and boarded by Guinean authorities when it was sailing
south of the southern limit of the exclusive economic zone of Guinea. The applicants are challenging the validity of
the arrest and are claiming damages. Guinea, on the other hand, is insisting that they had jurisdiction to arrest and
invoke hot pursuit.

ISSUE: Whether Guinea has jurisdiction to arrest and invoke hot pursuit in their exclusive economic zone.

RULING: No. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state has jurisdiction to apply customs laws and regulations
in respect of artificial islands, installations and structures. The Convention does not empower a coastal state to apply
its customs laws in respect of any other parts of the exclusive economic zone not mentioned above.

Guinea could not also invoke hot pursuit because the requirements of a valid hot pursuit were not cumulatively
complied with. There were no visual or auditory signals to stop given to Saiga. Also, the alleged pursuit was
interrupted when the patrol boats were recalled before they resumed the chase.

P4.1 Camouco Case (Panama v. France), Judgment, 7 Feb 2000,

Facts: The Camouco was a fishing vessel flying the flag of Panama. The Camouco was boarded by a French
surveillance frigate in the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands. The procès-verbal of violation stated that
the master of the Camouco was involved in unlawful fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands
under French jurisdiction and failure to declare entry into the exclusive economic zone of the Crozet Islands, while
having six tonnes of frozen Patagonian toothfish on board the vessel.
In its order, the court of first instance at Saint-Paul, confirmed the arrest of the Camouco and ordered that the release
of the arrested vessel would be subject to the payment of a bond in the amounf of 20 million FF. While the Master
was charged and placed under court supervision by the examining magistrate of the tribunal de grande instance at

The Applicant requested the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to find that the French Republic had failed
to observe the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning prompt
release of the Master of the vessel Camouco as well as the vessel itself. And demanded that the French Republic
promptly release the vessel Camouco and its Master, against payment of a reasonable bond.

Issue: whether the bond imposed by the French court of 20 million FF was “reasonable” pursuant to article 73,
paragraph 2, of the Convention

Ruling: The Tribunal considered that a number of factors were relevant in an assessment of the reasonableness of
bonds. They included the gravity of the alleged offences, the penalties imposed or imposable under the laws of the
detaining State, the value of the detained vessel and of the cargo seized, the amount of the bond imposed by the
detaining State and its form.

The Tribunal concluded that the bond of 20 million FF imposed by the French court was not “reasonable”. It ordered
that France should promptly release the Camouco and it’s Master upon the posting of a bond of eight million French

h. Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries

P4.1 Gulf of Maine Case (Canada v. US), ICJ Reports, 1994
Arts. 86-97, 105-111, UNCLOS

FACTS: Canada and US signed a Special Agreement by which the parties decided to refer to the Court a long-standing
dispute between them concerning the maritime delimitation of the fisheries zones and continental shelf if the Gulf of
Maine. The proceedings were instituted by the filing of a Special Agreement with the International Court of Justice.
The Agreement called upon the Court to decide upon the conflicting claims in accordance with “the principles and
rules of international law applicable in the matter as between the Parties”. Pursuant to Art. 40 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, the parties requested that the Court establish a five-member chamber under Art. 26 par.
2 of the Statute. Canada contended the demarcation line in the Gulf of Maine should be drawn equidistant from
adjacent national territories. Thus creating a line farther to the west and given more of the Georges Bank to Canada.
However, US contended that the demarcation line should be based on a “frontal projection” from the coast, which
would have given more maritime area to the country with the longer coast line in the area.

RULING: Court decided in a 4-1 vote wherein America gets most of the disputed waters in Georges Bank. The court
based its decision largely on technical and geographical grounds, rejecting arguments by the US and Canada that
claimed historical ties and vital economic interests. The Court said that the demarcation line should be based on the
principle of equidistance modified by the amount of coastline held by each country, a formula giving US roughly most
of the area of the entire Gulf of Maine.

j. Conservation & Management of Living Resources of the High Seas

P4.1 Southern Blue Fin Tuna Cases (NZ & Australia v. Japan), Order on Request for Provisional Measures, ITLOS
Order, August 27, 1999

FACTS: Australia and New Zealand alleged that Japan had failed to comply with its obligation to cooperate in the
conservation of the southern blue fin tuna (SBT) stock by undertaking unilateral experimental fishing for southern
bluefin tuna in breach of its obligations under Arts 64 and 116 to 119 of UNCLOS in relation to the conservation and
management of the SBT. They are also asking for provisional remedies in the form of an order commanding Japan to
desist from such unilateral experimental fishing.

Under art 64, read together with arts 116 to 119, of the Convention, States Parties to the Convention have the duty to
cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a view to ensuring conservation and
promoting the objective of optimum utilization of highly migratory species.
In 1999 Australia and New Zealand sued Japan to International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The court finally
judged in 4th August 2000 that it has no jurisdiction over the matter, as Japan had insisted.

ISSUE: Whether the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has jurisdiction over the matter

RULING: In accordance with art 290 of the Convention, the Tribunal may prescribe provisional measures to preserve
the respective rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious harm to the marine environment. Measures
should be taken to preserve rights and avert more deterioration. Although the Tribunal cannot conclusively assess the
scientific evidence presented by the parties, it finds that measures should be taken as a matter of urgency to preserve
the rights of the parties and to avert further deterioration of the southern blue fin tuna stock.

Japan then took necessary measures. Apart from southern bluefin tuna, Japan took measures on tuna in general were
as follows:

1. In 1999 Japan scrapped its 132 tuna fishery vessels, i.e. 20% of its total, in compliance with a request by FAO.

2. It also urged trading companies not to import tunas taken by FOC (Flag Of Convenience) ships. There are many
tunas taken by FOC ships, which are not under any tuna management international organizations. For example, Taiwan
owns 569 ships of its own flag and 240 FOC ships. But since Taiwan is not admitted as a 'country', it cannot join any
international tuna fisheries organization. Therefore Japanese government held 12 times of negotiations to make
Taiwan agree to reduce its tuna fisheries ships. Japan also made effort to persuade Korea to reduce its 203 ships.

3. Japan also forbade fisheries companies to sell tuna fishery ships to foreign nations to avoid them to be used as new
FOC ships, and also strengthened the penalty for working on FOC ships.