navigationintheeez（15页）.docVIP

Freedom of Navigation in a post 9/11 World: Security and Creeping Jurisdiction Professor Stuart Kaye Dean Faculty of Law University of Wollongong Draft only – Not to be cited without the Author’s permission Address for Correspondence: Faculty of Law University of Wollongong NSW 2522 Ph: (02) 4221 3382 Fax: (02) 4221 3188 E-mail: skaye@.au  Introduction The phrase “creeping jurisdiction” has been applied by a number of publicists to the gradual extension of State jurisdiction offshore in the law of the sea through the course of the Twentieth Century. The phase aptly captures the nature of this change, as States have slowly increased their control over progressively wider areas. For example, in 1900, the width of the territorial sea would have been accepted as 3 to 4 nautical miles. By UNCLOS II in 1961, the favoured proposal of 6+6 nautical miles for the territorial sea and contiguous zone was only just short of achieving the required two-thirds majority of participating States. Under the current Law of the Sea Convention, and confirmed by international practice, the territorial sea is now 12 nautical miles wide. Similar observations could be made in respect of resource jurisdiction, with the emergence of the continental shelf with the Truman Proclamation in 1945, and the exclusive economic zone growing out of Latin American and African practice to be confirmed at UNCLOS III. It might have been thought that jurisdictional creep had ended with the conclusion of the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982, and such a conclusion would find support in the general lack of acceptance of State’s attempting to grab jurisdiction beyond what the Convention permits. Neither the Chilean “presential sea” nor the Canadian extension of jurisdiction over the Grand Banks have received much in the way of international support. Rather than an extension of national jurisdiction to resolve the problems facing high seas marine living resources,