International Maritime Law on Hot Pursuit - Coursework Example

International Maritime Law on Hot Pursuit UNCLOS with Regard to the Actions of Pluto The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an international agreement that defines rights and responsibilities of countries regarding their use of world oceans, establishing business guidelines, the environment and how marine natural resources should be managed. According to Nordquist(1985), role of implementation of the UNCLOS is played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Whaling Commission (IWC), and the International Seabed Authority that was established by the UN (1985). Further, the agreement established maritime zones between the coastal nations. In this case, the IMO develops and maintains a comprehensive regulatory framework for shipping and it also has as its mandate the duty to ensure safety, environmental concerns, maritime security and the efficiency of shipping. The IWC provides proper conservation of the stocks of whale in order to make it possible for the development of the whaling industry. On the other hand, ISA organizes and controls all the mineral-related activities in the international seabed that are beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Generally, Maritime zones are recognized under the international law and the zones include all internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone, the high seas and the area. Specifically, each of these zones is officially depicted on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nautical charts and normally the limits indicated by the most recent chart edition are effective(US Department of Commerce, 2015). The UNCLOS identifies the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) to extend 200 nautical miles out of the territorial sea from the baseline (Un.org, 2015). Within this zone, the coastal nation is the only one that can exploit and has rights over all the natural resources. Casually, the term Economic zones, in this case, includes both the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. In this zone, foreign countries can navigate and over-fly limited by the regulations of the coastal states. The territorial sea refers to the area of the sea that is extending 12 nuatical miles from the baseline seawards and the coastal country has sovereign rights over it. According to the Australian government, the territorial sea belt of water does not exceed is a width not exceeding 12M from its territorial sea baseline and it exercises sovereignty over this sea as it is part of its exclusive economic zone (2015). It excises this sovereignty subject to the international law as reflected in the UNCLOS limited by the innocent and transit passage provisions (Ga.gov.au, 2015). Consequently, the state having evidence that a vessel violates the EEZ provisions can forward the matter to the authorities of the flag state who must take legal action against the specific vessel (Ga.gov.au, 2015). The Australian government has taken various measures to protect its fishes from illegal fishing. The first step is that Australia is a member of the UNCLOS and hence can enforce laws in its EEZ waters. Secondly, Australia forces keep constant surveillance of their seas to protect ensure that ships sailing through their sea waters do so under innocent passage nd not fishing illegally. Thirdly, Australia has entered in Bilateral agreements with neighbouring coastal countries, France and New Zealand to aid in the surveillance of their coastal waters. Under this treaties, each State is authorised to continue hot pursuit in to the territorial waters of the other state provided the other party is informed. Asaresult,fromtheabove-established grounds the Pluto had a right to arrest the Vulcan. Forone, the Vulcan is inthe territorial waters of Australia. The Pluto, therefore, has the right to seek evidence of whether the Vulcan is violating its EEZ sea provisions. There are only two grounds upon which the Vulcan can be allowed to use the EEZ waters of Australia, that is, under the innocent passage and the transit passage. Upon spotting the vessel, judging from its movement the captain suspects that the vessel is not ‘innocently passing and approaches it to establish the grounds for their suspicions. Once the Pluto is close enough it realizes that the Vulcan has no flag, therefore this violates EEZ waters provisions that require foreignships to fly their state flags and, therefore, has two reasons for seeking to arrest the Pluto. Furthermore, the action of the Pluto to capsize the boat send by Pluto threatens the security of the Australia coast hence this is the third reason for seeking to arrest the Vulcan. In this regard, the Pluto’s actions of seeking to arrest the Vulcan are permissible by the international law. In conclusion, Article 74 of the conventions which specifies the grounds for law enforcement and regulations of the coastal state confirms the permission of the Pluto to seek an arrest of the Vulcan. In this article, clause one state show a coastal state may in the exercise of its sovereign rights, exploit and manage the living resources in the exclusive zone. In response or suspicion of violations it may take measures such as boarding for inspection, arresting and conducting judicial proceedings, as may be indispensable to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this convention.(Un.org,2015) The Doctrine of Hot Pursuit with Regard to the Jupiter Typically, hot pursuit refers to the urgent direct pursuit of a suspected criminal lby enforcement officers of the law or under the rules of engagement as applied in military forces.The situation of hot pursuit gives the law enforcement officers powers they conventionally would not have. In specific, when applied to the international law the doctrine of hot pursuit is conceived as independent of the common law, even though, their principle is much analogous. As it regards the high seas, the UNCLOS article 111 gives the coastal state the right to pursue and arrest any ships that escape into international waters (Un.org, 2015). According to the article 111 of the UNCLOS, the coastal nation has the right for hot pursuit on grounds that they have a god reason that the pursued ship has violated the laws of the state, the pursuit is conducted by the legal competent authorities, at the beginning of the pursuit the pursuit ship was in the internal or territorial waters of the pursuing state. Moreover, it specifies that the pursuit can only continue if the foreign ship is within the EEZ. Basically, a pursuit may only be conducted if it is regarding the violation of the customs, fiscal, sanitary and immigration laws of the coastal state and how the law is applicable to the relative regime (Un.org, 2015). This right is considered applicable to fisheries management, maritime pollution and illegal drug trade occurring in the seas. The right of hot pursuit ceases once the immediately after a ship enters the territorial waters of a foreign state. Applying these provisions of hot pursuit to the case of Jupiter pursuing the Vulcan ,it seems that it had no right hot in pursuit.This is because, at first, the Vulcan having been chased by the Pluto for six hours at first implies that by the time the Jupiter launched its pursuit the Vulcan was not in the EEZ waters of the Australian authorities. Moreover, Australia has no substantial evidence to validate the claims of violation of its territorial waters rights. On the other hand, the Pluto too cannot establish that the pursuing ship had changed in the course of the pursuit and hence for Australia it’s legal. Again, the Vulcan was in high seas as per the facts established after its arrest and therefore against the international law requirement that any hot pursuit should not be undertaken outside the country’s economic zone. Article 87 of the convention gives freedom of navigation and fishing among other uses to all high seas by all countries including coastal and land-locked states. However, interpretation of the hot pursuit doctrine by the Allen (1989) asserts that the doctrine recognizes the right of a coastal state to pursue a foreign vessel that has violated its laws onto the high seas. In addition, Allen finds that some conventional standards are unnecessary and restrict the use of innovative technologies in carrying a hot pursuit. Claims by Panama The claims by the Vulcan that Jupiter should have stopped its pursuit are based on article 87 of the convention which gives it the right to navigate in high sea waters. The convention on hot pursuit limits the pursuit to when the ship has entered the territorial waters of another one. As per the facts established, the Vulcan was still on the high seas and therefore depending on the interpretation of the law by Australia the Jupiter had the right to chase the Vulcan hence this claims are not valid. Also, the Vulcan resisted a warning to stop by the Pluto had the claims against hot pursuit are invalid. About the claim that New Zealand had no legal justification for the pursuit, they can only be true if the interpretation of the crime was based on the hot pursuit doctrine alone. In this regard, New Zealand had no reason whatsoever to pursue the Vulcan. This is because, the Vulcan was never in the territorial or EEZ waters of New Zealand, it had not violated any of its regulations and neither had New Zealand warned the Vulcan to stop. However, the international law gives neighbouring states freedom to form agreements that are consistent with international law for enforcing UNCLOS (Imli.org, 2015). In this consideration, New Zealand is seen as an arm of Australia in the pursuit and hence it was Australia that had arrested the Vulcan through New Zealand Navy. Concerning the fact that the Vulcan was on the high seas during the arrest, there are grounds for arresting it even on high seas because it had not flown any flag in the pursuit. Further, it had violated the regulations of Australia where the pursuit had begun. Therefore, it seems the legality of this arrest depends on the Australia authorities ability to provide evidence for its pursuit of the Vulcan that it had indeed violated its regulations and was in its EEZ. In contrast, the claims that Panama was under the jurisdiction of the Vulcan in high seas are invalid since it is established it had flown any flag during the pursuit. Detention of the Vulcan and Crew by New Zealand Apparently, even though the Vulcan might have been fishing, there is no evidence against it and therefore it may decide to place a security or bond to be released or argue against Australia under international laws. However, if after placing a security or a bond the state of New Zealand refuses to release the ship, Panama, which is the flag state may apply for a release to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. A prompt release will only apply if the detention will have lasted more than ten dayus however. After fifteen days the tribunal normally decides on the case.Examples of historical cases may aid Panama, New Zealand and Australia in guessing the outcome of the case. Evidently, reviewing various fisheries cases already decided by different courts offers some indication on any issues that may arise. In a fishing scenerio, the federated states of Micronesia versus Kotobuki No 23 (1993) FMSC 31, the court declared that the accusing government had failed o provide enough prove using a preponderance evidence that the various acts could have constituted searching or the attempt to catch fish. According to the prosecution of the case, the accused vessels were seen sailing in a zig-zagging course and also used sonar and yellow light. Nowever, the court found that thyis evidence was not sufficient and was also inclosusive(Paclii.org, 2015) In conclusion, the hot pursuit doctrine is a critical element of maritime law enforcement. However, this doctrine is limited by the fact that it does not allow the use of technology so as to validate claims. The enforcement mechanism should make use of new observation and tracking technologies to improve its effectiveness. In this regard, the procedures governing hot pursuit should be designed so as to protect common interests in policy, and further enable coastal states to incorporate new technologies that will ensure arrest of violators who escape to high seas without jeopardizing high sea freedoms. Reference List Allen, C. H. (1989). Doctrine of hot pursuit: A functional interpretation adaptable to emerging maritime law enforcement technologies and practices. Ocean Development & International Law, 20(4), 309-341. Ga.gov.au, (2015).Maritime Boundary Definitions - Geoscience Australia. [online] Available at: http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/marine/jurisdiction/maritime-boundary-definitions [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Imli.org, (2015).International Maritime Law Treaties and Legislative Instruments | IMO International Maritime Law Institute (IMLI). [online] Available at: http://www.imli.org/content/international-maritime-law-treaties-and-legislative-instruments-0?sid=3563 [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. International Maritime Organization.(2010). Flag state implementation. London, International Maritime Organization. Nordquist, M. H. (1985). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: a commentary. Dordrecht, MartinusNijhoff. Paclii.org, (2015).Case Summaries – FISHERIES (Maritime Law Virtual Database). [online] Available at: http://www.paclii.org/maritime-law/case-summaries-fisheries/index.html [Accessed 14 Mar. 2015]. Un.org, (2015).PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. US Department of Commerce, N. (2015).NOAA Office of General Counsel International Section - Ballast Water - Maritime Zones and Boundaries. [online] Gc.noaa.gov. Available at: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_maritime.html [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Read More