The navigational freedoms are unavoidably curtailed to some degree in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as compared with the traditional high seas freedoms. One of the main reasons for this compromise was to accommodate coastal States’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the newly established maritime zone. Nevertheless, the limitation of the navigational freedoms by the coastal State can only be justified if they are made in accordance with the formula of the attribution of rights and freedoms in the EEZ and must be exercised in good faith and by giving due regard to the exercise of these freedoms and rights. It is noteworthy that coastal States have been able to utilise mechanisms developed by competent international organisations to adopt and implement some of these limitations through the rules of reference, particularly regarding the protection and preservation of the marine environment from international shipping. This chapter first identifies the scope of the preserved freedoms of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, then examines how they may have been affected by the exercise of a coastal State’s rights and jurisdiction, before discusses the remedies to address these impacts.

Military security interests, despite their omission from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, exist in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and have been claimed and protected by both the coastal State and other States from different perspectives. All States may conduct military activities in the EEZ for peaceful purposes, including a foreign State, provided that the operating State has due regard to the rights and duties of other States. The coastal State may only challenge the exercise of a military activity by a foreign State if the activity impedes the exercise of its sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This chapter sets out the general rules for conducting peacetime military activities at sea under international law before discussing military security interests in the EEZ. Four types of specific military activities conducted in the EEZ are examined by applying the doctrines for attributing and exercising rights and freedoms between the coastal State and other States. The chapter concludes with a discussion of bilateral and regional practice relating to the conduct of military activities in the EEZ and the potential of these mechanisms to mitigate the controversial interpretation and practice between coastal States and other States.

This chapter traces the historical roots of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which lie in the earliest claims of national jurisdiction over marine resources of various types. The Truman Proclamations made in 1945 by the United States marked the beginning of contemporary national practices, which were closely followed by the resource-oriented extension of the maritime claims made by the Latin American States and the African States, before spreading to other parts of the world. This process was reflected in different ways in the three United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea – first as successful Western opposition, then as stalemate, then as widespread and eventually universal acceptance of a compromised solution. This historical process has demonstrated that the essential aim of the national claims beyond the territorial sea was for economic benefits without the intention to unduly interrupting navigation and communication.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) laid down a general obligation for all States to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea, including in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and to cooperate for this purpose, leaving States to determine the means of implementation. This chapter analyses and discusses the jurisdiction over activities that are pertinent to the archaeological and historical objects found in the EEZ. The development of the legal framework to protect these objects under UNCLOS and the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CPUCH) is reviewed, together with an interpretation of how these objects are defined under each treaty. The jurisdictional arrangements over activities that may affect the protection of these objects found in the EEZ are then analysed. Special attention is given to the relevant provisions of the CPUCH, which somewhat clarifies the role of the coastal State in protecting underwater cultural heritage in the EEZ. This is followed by a discussion of the legal procedures that could be invoked to settle disputes relating to these objects.

Submarine cables and pipelines laid on the seabed remain the foundation of the global communications network and the offshore energy transportation system that facilitates the increasing globalisation and interconnectedness of the world. The laying of submarine cables and pipelines has been preserved as a freedom to all States in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This chapter examines the increasing challenges faced by States when exercising this freedom and discusses means to prevent and resolve conflicts. First, a number of coastal States have made excessive claims based on a liberal interpretation of relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, such as the requirement of preauthorization of the survey, laying and repair of submarine cables. Secondly, submarine cables and pipelines are subjected to undue interference and damages, both intentional and incidental by other competing uses of ocean space. The coastal State has an important role to play in maintaining and protecting the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines.

This chapter analyses the major negotiation points and deadlock that were overcome, inter alia, regarding the legal status of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The battle between the territorialist and preferentialist was settled in the middle ground of a sui generis maritime zone. The successful outcome of the negotiations is reflected in the package deal set out in Part V and related provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The jurisdictional framework of the EEZ is sustained by two legal doctrines that formulate the body of flexible prescriptions to guide the attribution and exercise of rights and duties by different States. The integrity and stability of the EEZ are further protected by the compulsory third-party dispute settlement mechanism in Part XV that acknowledges the special characteristics of the sui generis legal regime, and through the progressive development of customary law status of the EEZ concept on the basis of State practice.