COURSE: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

COURSE CODE: i6101

SEMESTER: WIN 2021-22

TOPIC ON
HIGH SEAS
SUBMITTED TO
PROF. SHARMILA M S
VITSOL

SUBMITTED BY
RISHIVYAS SRINIVASAN – 19BLB1020
DANIEL CYRUS – 19BLB1011
KOUSHIK PRANAV J – 19BLB1040
JOHN M LENIN – 19BLB1135
N. KARTHICK – 16BLB1019
 HIGH SEAS
THE HIGH SEAS
The iclosed iseas iconcept iproclaimed iby iSpain iand iPortugal iin ithe i15th iand i16th
icenturies, iand isupported iby ithe iPapal iBulls iof i1493 iand i1506 idividing ithe iseas iof
ithe iworld ibetween ithe itwo ipowers, iwas ireplaced iby ithe inotion iof ithe iopen iseas
iand ithe iconcomitant ifreedom iof ithe ihigh iseas iduring ithe i18th icentury.
The iessence iof ithe ihigh iseas’ ifreedom iis ithat ino istate imay iacquire isovereignty iover
iparts iof ithem.
This iis ithe igeneral irule, ibut iit iis isubject ito ithe ioperation iof ithe idoctrines iof
irecognition, iacquiescence iand iprescription, iwhere, iby ilong iusage iaccepted iby iother
inations, icertain iareas iof ithe ihigh iseas ibounding ion ithe iterritorial iwaters iof icoastal
istates imay ibe irendered isubject ito ithat istate’s isovereignty. i
This iwas iemphasised iin ithe iAnglo-Norwegian iFisheries icase.
The ihigh iseas iwere idefined iin iArticle i1 iof ithe iGeneva iConvention ion ithe iHigh
iSeas, i1958 ias iall iparts iof ithe isea ithat iwere inot iincluded iin ithe iterritorial isea ior iin
ithe iinternal iwaters iof ia istate. iThe idefinition iin iarticle i86 iof ithe i1982 iConvention
iincludes: iall iparts iof ithe isea ithat iare inot iincluded iin ithe iexclusive ieconomic izone,
iin ithe iterritorial isea ior iin ithe iinternal iwaters iof ia istate, ior iin ithe iarchipelagic
iwaters iof ian iarchipelagic istate.
Article i87 iof ithe i1982 iConvention iprovides ithat ithe ihigh iseas iare iopen ito iall istates
iand ithat ithe ifreedom iof ithe ihigh iseas iis iexercised iunder ithe iconditions ilaid idown
iin ithe iConvention iand iby iother irules iof iinternational ilaw.
It iincludes, iinter ialia, ithe ifreedoms iof inavigation, ioverflight, ithe ilaying iof isubmarine
icables iand ipipelines, ithe iconstruction iof iartificial iislands iand iother iinstallations
ipermitted iunder iinternational ilaw, ifishing, iand ithe iconduct iof iscientific iresearch.
Australia iand iNew iZealand ialleged ibefore ithe iICJ, iin ithe iNuclear iTests icase, ithat
iFrench inuclear itesting iin ithe iPacific iinfringed ithe iprinciple iof ithe ifreedom iof ithe
iseas, ibut ithis ipoint iwas inot idecided iby ithe iCourt. iThe i1963 iNuclear iTest iBan
iTreaty iprohibited ithe itesting iof inuclear iweapons ion ithe ihigh iseas ias iwell ias ion
iland, ibut iFrance iwas inot ia iparty ito ithe itreaty, iand iit iappears inot ito iconstitute ia
icustomary irule ibinding iall istates, iirrespective iof ithe itreaty.
The ifreedom iof inavigation iis ia itraditional iand iwell-recognised ifacet iof ithe idoctrine
iof ithe ihigh iseas, ias iis ithe ifreedom iof ifishing. iThis iwas ireinforced iby ithe
ideclaration iby ithe iCourt iin ithe iFisheries iJurisdiction icase ithat iIceland’s iunilateral
iextension iof iits ifishing izones ifrom i12 ito i50 imiles iconstituted ia iviolation iof iarticle
i2 iof ithe iHigh iSeas iConvention, iwhich iis, ias ithe ipreamble istates, i‘generally
ideclaratory iof iestablished iprinciples iof iinternational ilaw’.
The ihigh iseas’ ifreedom idoesn’t ionly iapply ito ithe icoastal istates ibut ialso ito istates
ithat iare ilandlocked1.

JURISDICTION
The ifoundation iof ithe imaintenance iof iorder ion ithe ihigh iseas ihas irested iupon ithe
iconcept iof ithe inationality iof ithe iship, iand ithe iconsequent ijurisdiction iof ithe iflag
istate iover ithe iship. iIt iis, ibasically, ithe iflag istate ithat iwill ienforce ithe irules iand
iregulations inot ionly iof iits iown imunicipal ilaw ibut iof iinternational ilaw ias iwell. iA
iship iwithout ia iflag iwill ibe ideprived iof imany iof ithe ibenefits iand irights iavailable
iunder ithe ilegal iregime iof ithe ihigh iseas.
Each istate iis irequired ito ielaborate ithe iconditions inecessary ifor ithe igrant iof iits
inationality ito iships, ifor ithe iregistration iof iships iin iits iterritory iand ifor ithe iright ito
ifly iits iflag.
The inationality iof ithe iship iwill idepend iupon ithe iflag iit iflies, ibut iarticle i91 iof ithe
i1982 iConvention ialso istipulates ithat ithere imust ibe ia i‘genuine ilink’ ibetween ithe
istate iand ithe iship.
Some icountries, ifor iexample ithe iUnited iStates, imaintain ithat ithe irequirement iof ia
i‘genuine ilink’ ireally ionly iamounts ito ia iduty ito iexercise ijurisdiction iover ithe
ship iin ian iefficacious imanner, iand iis inot ia ipre-condition ifor ithe igrant, ior ithe
iacceptance iby iother istates iof ithe igrant, iof inationality.
An iopportunity idid iarise iin i1960 ito idiscuss ithe imeaning iof ithe iprovision iin ithe
iIMCO2 icase i-
It iwas iheld ithat ithe iterm ireferred ionly ito iregistered itonnage iso ias ito ienable iLiberia
iand iPanama ito ibe ielected ito ithe icommittee. iUnfortunately, ithe iopportunity iwas inot
itaken iof iconsidering ithe iproblems iof iflags iof iconvenience ior ithe imeaning iof ithe
i‘genuine ilink’ iin ithe ilight iof ithe itrue iownership iof ithe iships iinvolved, iand iso ithe
idoubts iand iambiguities iremain.
Ships iare irequired ito isail iunder ithe iflag iof ione istate ionly iand iare isubject ito iits
iexclusive ijurisdiction. iWhere ia iship idoes isail iunder ithe iflags iof imore ithan ione
istate, iaccording ito iconvenience, iit imay ibe itreated ias ia iship iwithout inationality iand
iwill inot ibe iable ito iclaim iany iof ithe inationalities iconcerned. iA iship ithat iis istateless,
iand idoes inot ifly ia iflag, imay ibe iboarded iand iseized ion ithe ihigh iseas3.

1
iA ilandlocked istate iis ia istate iwithout idirect iaccess ito ian iocean, igulf, ior ibay.
2
iInter-Governmental iMaritime iConsultative iOrganisation.
3
iNaim iMolvan ivs iAttorney iGeneral ifor iPalestine.