TheI mpactont heFr eedom ofNavi gat i onbyI nt er nat i onal Regul at i onf ort hePur pos eofFi s her yRes our ces Cons er vat i onandMar i neEnvi r onment alPr ot ect i on
AtsukoKanehara
1.Introduction
2.TheFreedom ofNavigation
3.ThePrincipleoftheFreedom ofNavigationandItsFundamentalStruc tureinLOSC
-
4.FeaturesofRecentInternationalandNationalPracticesofRegulationfor FRC
5.FeaturesofRecentInternationalandNationalPracticesofRegulationfor MEP
6.Conclusion
1.Introduction
Theobjectofthispaperistoexaminetheimpactonthetraditionalstructureof thelaw oftheseaformaintainingthefreedom ofnavigationbytherecenttendency foundininternationalandnationalpracticesofregulationforthepurposeoffishery resourcesconservation（FRC）andmarineenvironmentalprotection（
1)
MEP). Thefreedom ofnavigationisthemosttraditionaloneamongthefreedomsofuses ofthesea. Asfirmlyestablishedpositivelaw Article2oftheConventiononthe HighSeas（CHS）andArticle87（1）oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLaw oftheSea（LOSC）prescribethefreedom ofnavigationaswellasthefreedomsof otherusesofthesea. Atthesametimenostatemayvalidlypurporttosubjectany partofthehighseastoitssovereignty（Article2ofCHSandArticle89ofLOSC） andaflagStateholdsexclusivejurisdictionoverashipflyingitsflagonthehigh seas（Article6（1）ofCHSandArticle92（1）ofLOSC). Thesetwoaspectsofthe freedom ofthehighseasarerelatedtoeachotherinthatthefreedom ofnavigation isensuredwithprohibitionofanyinterferencebyforeignStatesuponshipsonthe highseaswithoutspeciallegal
2)
grounds.
Aninfringementofthefreedom ofnavigationisclaimedinreflectingsuchtwo
aspectsofthefreedom ofthehighseas:first,aninfringementoftheflagStateʼsright duetointerferencewithitsshiponthehighseasbyaforeignStatewithoutlegal justification,andsecond,anobstructionofnavigation,forinstance,bythefactthat sealanesareclosedbysettingasecurityorsafetyzoneontheoccasionofaweapon testonthehigh
3)
seas. Incomparisonwiththem,inordertofindpossiblecoordina- tionbetweenthefreedom ofnavigationandeffectiveregulationforthepurposeof FRCorMEPdifferentconsiderationisneeded.
Untilrecentlytherehasnotbeenkeenmotivationforexaminingthefollowing issues:HowandtowhatextentmaynavigationberestrictedforthepurposeofFRC orMEPinmaintainingthefreedom ofnavigationasaprinciple?;Morefundamen- tallywhatisnavigationoritscoreelementtobemaintainedasbeingfreeaccording totheprincipleofthefreedom ofnavigation?Thesearequestionssimilarorrelated tothesecondtypeofinfringementofthefreedom ofnavigationabove. However, thedevelopmentofthelaw oftheseainthe20 centurydemandsanswersbeing pertinenttothose
4)
questions.
First,especiallysincethelatterhalfofthe20 centurythelaw oftheseahas tremendouslyprogressedintermsofinternationalregulationforthepurposeofFRC andMEP. Theregulationreachesasfarasamodeofnavigationornavigation itselfoffishingvesselsandshipsthatarecarryingsubstancesharmfultothemarine environment. Second,particularly in theexclusiveeconomiczone(EZ),LOSC distributesrightsamongStatesbasedupon“matters”suchasnavigation,FRC,MEP, scientificresearchandsoon. Itisessentialandcriticaltodefinethe“mattersor eachtypeofuseofthesea（navigation,fishing,pollution)”andestablishdemarca- tionamongthem inorderforundisputabledistributionofrightsamongStates.
Underthesecircumstances,inEZ,theissueofcoordinationbetweenthefreedom ofnavigationandregulationinorderforrealizingFRCandMEP,ontheonehand, andtheissueofdistributionofrightsandjurisdictionbetweencoastalStatesandflag States,ontheotherhand,substantiallycoincide. Inthisparticularsense,thetwo aspectsofaninfringementofthefreedom ofnavigationabovemergetogetherand form onecriticalissueofdemarcationamongtheusesofthesea,namely,navigation, fishingandpollution. Forthisreason,thepresentpapermainlyfocusesuponthe issuesinrelationtoEZ,although,bothonthehighseasandinEZthesamekindof questionshouldbeconsidered,sinceonthehighseas,too,internationalregulation forthepurposeofFRCandMEPhas
5)
developed.
LOSC,inseekingasubtlebalanceamongvariousinterests,constructsafundamen- talstructureforcoordinationbetweenthefreedom ofnavigationofaflagStateand
effectiveregulationbyacoastalStateforthepurposeofFRC andMEP. Recent internationaland nationalpracticesare notonly incompatible with individual provisionsofLOSCbutalsomayencroachuponitsfundamentalstructureforthe coordinationthatLOSCintendstoachieve. Inaddition,atendencyhasemergedin therecentpracticestochallengethedistributionofrightsbasedupon“matters” underLOSC. Intheargumentsforthepreventionofmarineenvironmentaldamage thatcouldbecausedbyanaccidentoraterroristattack againstshipscarrying plutonium,thesafetyofnavigation,preventionofcrimesonthesea,maintainingof thegoodorderontheseaandnationalorinternationalmaritimesecuritywouldmix inthelegalintereststobeprotectedaswellasthatof
6)
MEP. Suchan“inall” approach would neglectthedistribution ofrightsaccording to “matters”under LOSCandproceedtowardrestrictionofthefreedom of
7)
navigation.
Ifthenew directionfoundintheinternationalandnationalpracticesismotivated byactualandpracticalnecessityforachievingeffectiveinternationalregulationfor thepurposeofFRCandMEP,itshouldnotbedeniedorcannotbeobstructed. It wouldevenrequireamendmentsandchangesofLOSC. Themostimportantthing istorecognizethetrueimpactofthenew trenduponthetraditionalstructureofthe law oftheseabeforemovingintothenew eraofit. Thisisbecausethefreedom of navigationhasalongtraditioninboththeoryandpractice,andthelaw ofthesea hasbuiltandmaintainedthepertinentstructuretoguaranteeit. Ifaradicalchange isintroducedinthisstructurebythenew trend,itshouldbeexplicitlyacknowledged assuchandthoroughlyanalyzed.
Basedupontheseconsiderations,parttwoofthispaperwillbeginwithananalysis onnavigationandthefreedom ofnavigationunderCHSandLOSC. Partthreewill depictthefundamentalstructureofLOSC in orderto maintain thefreedom of navigationinrelationtoeffectiveregulationbyacoastalStateofEZforthepurpose ofFRCandMEP. Partfourandfivewillexaminetheinternationalandnational practicesinthefieldofFRCandMEPandassestheircompatibilitywithLOSC. As aconclusion,someremarkswillbegivenconcerningthecoordinationbetweenthe freedom ofnavigationandeffectiveregulationforthepurposeofFRCandMEP.
2.TheFreedom ofNavigation
⑴ MeaningofNavigationandSignificanceoftheFreedom ofNavigation
① NeitherCHSnorLOSC givesadefinitionof
8)
navigation. Traditionallythe freedom ofnavigationwascloselyconnectedtotradeand
9)
communication. Thisis typicalinthatGrotiusdevelopedhisdoctrineonthefreedom oftheseabasedonthe
necessityofensuringtransportationforthepurposeofmaintainingDutchtradewith theDutchEastIndia
10)
Company. HisdoctrinepurportedtorefutethePortuguese hindrancetothenavigationofvesselsbelongingtootherStatesbyclaimingtheold doctrineofdominium
11)
maris.EvenantagoniststoGrotiusrecognizedthenecessity ofthefreedom ofnavigationatleasttoacertain
12)
degree. Onthebroaderbasisof a rightofcommunication,juscommunicationis humankind enjoysa rightto communicateandexchangewithpeopleinotherregionsintheworld marine trafficandnavigationwererequiredtobe
13)
free. Ashistoryreveals,theMercantil- ism stronglysupportedthisideaofthefreedom of
14)
navigation.
② Logically,consideringthatshipsnavigatealmostalwayswithcertainpur- poses,suchastrade,communication,exchange,transport,fishing,dampingandso on,navigation may bethoughtofas“incidental”to theseactivitiesnotasan independentuseofthesea. Forinstance,itcan besaid thata fishing vessel navigatesforthepurposeofreachingafishinggroundandthatthisnavigationis onlyincidentaltoorpartoffishingnotanindependentuseofthesea. Thesame argumentmay hold trueto a ship carrying substancesharmfulto the marine environment. Takingsuchastance,navigationofthosevesselsandshipswouldbe easilysubjecttoregulationforthepurposeofFRCorMEP. Thatislikelytoopen awayfortheideathatthenavigationisrestricted,becausetheyarefishingvessels orshipscarrying harmfulsubstances,in otherwords,an idea ofregulation on navigationforthereasonoftypeofshiporcargo.
Thelaw ofthesea,however,hasnottakenthisstance. Ithasneverchosento regardnavigationasincidentaltooronlypartoftheactivitiesthatshipspurportto do and areengaged in. Irrespectiveofthehistoricalfactthatthefreedom of navigation had alwaysbeen treated in a closeconnection with needsoftrade, communicationandtransport,ithascoherentlyconsideredthefreedom ofnaviga- tionaskeepingitsownindependent
15)
significance.
Thepositivelaw ofthesea confirmsthistraditionalposition concerning the freedom ofnavigation. BothArticle2ofCHSandArticle87（1）ofLOSCprovide thefreedom ofnavigationfirstandindependently. Bothoftheseconventionsare silentconcerningwhethertheypurporttoplaceacertainweightonthefreedom of navigationsincenavigationisincidentaltoanyofactivitiesonthesea,orwhether theydosoinintendingtoemphasizetheindependentsignificanceofthefreedom of navigationinrelationtothefreedomsofotherusesofthesea. Atleast,however, itcanbederivedthattheytreatnavigationassuchandasbeingirrespectiveof activitiesthatshipsintendtodoorareengagedin,sothattheygivethefreedom of
navigationtoanyshipsirrespectiveoftheiractivities,andalsoirrespectiveofkind ofship orcargo. Fishing vessels,passengerships,cargo ships,warships,ships carrying harmfulsubstances,withoutexception,initially hold the freedom of
16)
navigation.
③ Although neitherCHS norLOSC definesnavigation,doctrinesgenerally considernavigationasmotion（movementandstandstill）andpresenceof
17)
ships.
“Navigation”alsoincludesactivitiestoenablemotionofshipsasareincidentalto it,such asbunkering,provisioning,servicing,repairing and maintaining. This seemsaphysicallynaturalconclusionconsideringthenecessityofrefuelingand othersformotionofallships.
Legallyitissaidthatthefreedom ofnavigationencompassesfreedomsofobserva- tion,exploration,maneuvers,movementofthingsofmilitarynatureandso
18)
on.
Thisall-inclusiveconceptofthefreedom ofnavigationmaytakeitsjustificationin theinconclusivenessofthelegalnatureofthehigh
19)
seas. Inthehistoryofthelaw oftheseaseveralideas,suchasrescommunis,resnullius,respublicumhavebeen almostinterchangeablyusedtodefineandexplainitslegal
20)
nature. AttheFirst UnitedNationsConferenceontheLaw oftheSeatheydidnotrecognizemuch significanceinargumentsconcerningthisissueinusingthoseconcepts,andArticle 2ofCHSsolelyconfirmsthatthehighseasarefreefrom thesovereigntyofany Statesandfreeforanyofitsuses,whichisnomorethan“thelogicalconclusion”
ascribedtothelegalnatureofthehighseasasfreeorsimply a viciouscircle argument. Article87（1）andArticle89ofLOSChavesucceededtothisstanceof
21)
CHS. However,thefollowingquestionsstillremaintobeasked:Whyshouldthe highseasbefree?Throughwhatjustificationsmaythisfreedom berestricted?Does thefreedom submitabinitiotosomelimitationforthecommoninterestsofthe world?Thelaw oftheseahasnotyetestablishedlogicallydeterminedanswersfor thesefundamentalquestions. Asaresult,whenonthehighseasanew typeof activityistechnicallyrealized,thelawoftheseadoesnotprovideanyreasontodeny thefreedom ofthatactivitybeyondtherequirementofthedueconsiderationofother rightsofusesoftheseathatisprescribedunderArticle2ofCHSandArticle87（2） of
22)
LOSC. In thesesituations,ithasnotbeen necessary to seriously limitthe contentsorelementsofthefreedom of
23)
navigation.
ThispointrelatestoaninterpretationofArticle58（1）ofLOSCthatprovidesfor thefreedomsoftheuseofthesea“relatedto”thefreedomscontainedinArticle87
（1）andselectedbyArticle58（1). From astandpointthatthefreedomsoftheuses relatedtonavigationhavebeenalreadyrecognizedbyacustomaryinternational
ruleasbeingincludedinthefreedom ofnavigation,itiscriticizedthatthisreference byArticle58（1）tothefreedom oftheuses“relatedto”navigationcouldraise certaindoubtabouttheestablishedstatusofthiscustomary
24)
rule. Ifthereference toArticle87byArticle58（1）purportstoconfirm applicationofthefreedom of navigationonthehighseasassuchinEZ,too,thiscriticism hasareason. However Article58（1）meanstodecideinEZwhichfreedomsunderArticle87（1）maybe enjoyedandtowhatextenttheyareapplied,andinthiscontextitprescribesthe freedom oftheusesrelatedtonavigation. Accordingtothesameunderstanding, especiallyLatinAmericanStatesarguedforthelimitationofmilitaryoperations andmaneuversbyforeignStatesinEZ,althoughtraditionallytheseactivitieshave beenincludedinthefreedom ofnavigationonthehigh
25)
seas.
④ Itcanbesummarizedthatastothefreedom ofnavigationCHSandLOSC acceptthefreedom ofmotion（movementandstandstill）andpresenceofshipsand thefreedomsofusesrelatedtonavigation. Notonlytheformerbutalsothelatter areconfirmedinEZ,too. Motionandpresenceofshipshavenorelationtoactiv- itiesthatshipspurporttodoorareengagedin:andmoreover,thefreedom of navigationisenjoyedbyanyshipsirrespectiveoftheiractivitiesand also irre- spectiveofkindofshiporcargo.
ThereareinternationalandnationalpracticesinthefiledofFRCandMEPinEZ thatcontainregulativemeasures,suchaspriornotificationofentryintoEZ,various meansforavesselmonitoringsystem,restrictionofnavigationonfishingvesselsor shipscarryingsubstancesharmfultotheenvironmentandrestrictionofrefueling andtransshipmentoffishingvessels. Theseregulativemeasuresmotivateashift from theinclusiveconceptofthefreedom ofnavigationtoregulationofnavigation accordingtotypeofshipandcargo. Theycouldevenproceedtoregulationof refuelingandprovisioningasiftheywererelatedtofishing,whiletheyhavebeen regardedasincidentaltoorphysicallynecessaryfornavigation. Suchtendencywill beexaminedin-depthinpartsfourandfivebelow.
3.ThePrincipleoftheFreedom ofNavigationand ItsFundamentalStructureinLOSC
⑴ CoordinationamongUsesoftheSea
① Ifacleardemarcationlineisdrawnamongusesofthesea,suchasnavigation, overflight,layingsubmarinecablesandpipelines,andotherinternationallylawful usesofthesearelatingtothem,ontheonehand,andfishing,theestablishmentand useofartificialislands,installationsandstructures,marinescientificresearchand
