U.S. maritime claims and boundaries

(1815020102)

I. Introduction

Since the end of the 19th century, the United States has gradually developed into the most powerful country in the world, which is closely related to the United States becoming a maritime power. The United States is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south. The United States has passed many pieces of legislation to protect its own interests in accordance with its own national interests. As an established maritime power, the United States' maritime power is unquestionable. The United States is adjacent to the open ocean, and disputes over maritime rights and interests with its neighbors are relatively rare and less conflicted. The United States has yet to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but its well-developed maritime legal system has always been a leader in the world's oceans, and the United States' position on the law of the sea has always revolved around the core of its national maritime interests.

2. U.S. maritime claims

The United States is a maritime power, with a total area of 3.4 million square nautical miles in its exclusive economic zone, more than the combined land area of its 50 states, and the United States claims a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles, an adjacent zone of 24 nautical miles, and an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles, but the United States has not defined the outer limits of its continental shelf. The United States advocates overlap and transit passage with straits used for international navigation, including underwater transit by submarines, overflights by military aircraft, and surface transit of warships and naval auxiliary equipment (including transit in a manner consistent with the security of the forces involved) without prior notification or authorization.

(1) Freedom of navigation and overflight

The U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program (also known as the FON Plan) was a program launched by the Carter administration in 1979 to protect the national interests of the United States and to adjust and implement the U.S. maritime policy and maritime development strategy. Historically, the FON program can be traced back to the modern idea of freedom on the high seas. Its core is to safeguard the freedom of navigation and overflight of the United States and to confront other countries' "excessive maritime claims" that are inconsistent with international law. This U.S. policy is aimed at the peaceful exercise of freedom of navigation and overflight recognized under international law and at accepting and implementing it in accordance with a balance of interests associated with traditional uses of the oceans. In this regard, the United States will recognize the rights of other States in their coastal waters, as reflected in the Convention, as long as those coastal States recognize the rights and freedoms of the United States and other States under international law. In addition, it is the policy of the United States to exercise and assert its rights and freedoms of navigation and overflight worldwide in a manner consistent with the balance of interests embodied in the Convention.

For the US FON program, its importance to safeguarding its own maritime national interests is unquestionable. The United States believes that as long as it is not expressly prohibited in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, then the United States has the right to implement it, that is, "the law is not prohibited, it can be done". For example, relying on its own powerful maritime power, the United States enters the territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, archipelagic waters, straits and other waters of other coastal countries, and the United States refuses to apply for entry in advance in accordance with the requirements of other countries. In this regard, some of the actions of the United States actually undermine and abuse the freedom of navigation under international law and undermine the international maritime legal order.

On the other hand, the US FON plan is also conducive to the development of other countries' "excessive maritime claims" into new rules of international law. There is a path of development in international law, namely "acquiescence". If coastal States acquiesce to the "excessive maritime claims" of other States, these "excessive maritime claims" will develop into a new international legal order. Under the FON program, the United States takes diplomatic action at multiple levels to assert its rights under international law. It consulted bilaterally with many States and stressed that all States must comply with customary international law and their obligation to comply with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Where appropriate, the United States conducts formal diplomatic protests against specific maritime claims that are inconsistent with international law. The United States has raised more than 140 such protests since 1948, including more than 110 since the FON program was launched.

(2) The right of innocent passage

A fundamental principle of the international law of the sea is that all ships of each State have the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of another State. The LOS Convention provides definitions for the meaning of "adoption" (Article 18) and "innocent adoption" (Article 19) and lists those activities that are considered non-harmless and "detrimental to peace, good order or security".

The Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union issued a joint statement in 1989 providing a uniform interpretation of the rules of international law governing the innocent passage of territory and urging all Governments to accept it. The Joint Declaration highlights the following, which the Convention is cited as containing relevant rules of international law governing ships passing through the territorial sea without restriction; Ships exercising the right of innocent passage must comply with all laws and regulations of the coastal State adopted in accordance with international law, as reflected in articles 21, 22, 23 and 25 of the Convention; If a warship behaves contrary to innocent passage and fails to take corrective action at the request of the coastal State, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea under article 30. Without prejudice to the exercise of the rights of coastal and flag States, all differences between coastal and flag States concerning specific cases of acquittal shall be resolved through diplomatic channels or other agreed means.

III. Borders of the United States

In 1988, the United States extended its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles. The United States stands for a 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone and respects the 24-nautical-mile adjacent of a foreign contiguous zone in accordance with the provisions of the LOS Convention. Although the United States had not yet established the outer limits of its continental boundary, it had recognized the definition in article 76, which reflected customary international law. The delimitation provisions of article 76 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea reflect customary international law and will be used by the United States in delimiting its continental shelf and assessing its continental shelf claims.

(1) Historical waters

In order to meet international legal standards establishing ownership of historic waters, a State must demonstrate its open, effective, long-term and sustained exercise of power over bodies of water, accompanied by foreign acquiescence in the exercise of that power. The position taken by the United States is to require foreigners to actually acquiesce in such requests, rather than to be completely absent from objections.

(2) Baselines of the territorial sea

The territorial waters and most other waters of a U.S. state are measured against a baseline. Articles 5 to 14 of UNCLOS contain existing rules for the delineation of ocean baselines. They distinguish between normal baselines along coastal low-water lines and straight-line baselines that can be adopted in specific geographical situations. Unless other special rules apply, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the normal baseline, that is, the coastal low water line marked on the state's official large nautical charts.

It is the policy of the United States that its baseline is a normal baseline.

The United States measures the width of its maritime area from baselines derived from the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. According to article 3 of the Convention: "Unless otherwise provided in this article, the normal baseline for measuring the width of the territorial sea shall be the coastal low tide line indicated by large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." According to article 7 of the Convention: "Whoever has a distance of more than twenty-four nautical miles between the low tide markers at each end of the natural entrance to the bay may draw a closing line between these two low tide targets, and the waters enclosed by them shall be regarded as internal waters." If the distance between the low tide markers at each end of the natural entrance to the bay exceeds 24 nautical miles, a straight baseline of 24 nautical miles in length shall be drawn in the bay and one of the largest water surfaces shall be selected as possible. "Offshore facilities and artificial islands are therefore not permanent port works and cannot be considered part of the baseline."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that straight baselines can only be adopted in the United States with federal approval. Drawing near the coastline at the baseline is either not "deeply indented and cut", or it does not produce "coastal island edges". A state must first meet at least one of these two geographic conditions before it can apply a straight baseline clause at a specific location.

(iii) Islands

The concept of archipelagos as considered by the United States was established in Part IV of the 1982 Convention (arts. 46-54). By definition, an archipelagic State is "a State consisting entirely of one or more archipelagos and may include other islands" (article 46). This paper defines "archipelago" as a group of islands, including a portion of an island as well as interconnected waters and other closely related natural features. The waters and other natural features of these islands form an inherent geography that exists in economic and political entities, or as islands in history. Therefore, archipelagic States must consist entirely of islands. For the purposes of defining the archipelago, a state may draw an archipelago baseline that meets certain requirements under section 47. For example, the length of the baseline must not exceed 100 miles, unless 3% of the total baseline can be used to have a maximum length of 125 miles (paragraph 2). The baseline should be drawn in such a way that the ratio of water to land area enclosed by the baseline must be between 1:1 and 9:1 (para. 1). States claiming to be archipelagic States must publicize the charts or tables of geographical coordinates that define the archipelago and deposit such charts or tables with the United Nations.

(iv) The contiguous zone

The United States claims a 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone, but will abide by the provisions of the Convention and respect the 24-nautical-mile contiguous zone of foreign States. The contiguous area means an area of a certain width contiguous to the territorial sea over which the coastal State exercises the necessary control over certain matters, and whose width shall not exceed 24 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Under the Convention, a coastal State may have the necessary controls in the contiguous zone to prevent violations of its customs, fiscal, immigration or health laws and regulations in its territory or territorial sea. The United States considers the contiguous zone to consist of international waters, and that ships and aircraft of all States, including warships and military aircraft, enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight on the high seas.

(e) Exclusive economic zones

The fundamental purpose of this new maritime regime is to give coastal States more rights over their coastal resources, while reducing national claims to the wider territorial sea and maintaining as much freedom of the high seas as possible. The United States announced the establishment of an exclusive economic zone in 1983. The exclusive economic zone of the United States means the area connected to the territorial sea, including the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (within the limits consistent with the Convention) and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement, and the United States Overseas Territories and property.

The exclusive economic zone is located 200 nautical miles from the baseline, from which the width of the territorial sea can be measured. If maritime boundaries with neighbouring countries still need to be determined, the boundaries of the exclusive economic zone shall be determined by the United States and other interested States in accordance with the principle of equity. With regard to the legal status of the exclusive economic zone, consensus agreed that non-resource-related freedoms of the high seas, including freedom of navigation and overflight, and freedom to lay pipelines and submarine cables, would remain within the exclusive economic zone. However, even the exercise of these freedoms must be balanced with the exercise of the exclusive economic zone rights of the coastal State. For example, article 58 of the Convention recognizes the "freedom of the high seas" enjoyed by all States, "subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention ...", and "shall take into account the rights and obligations of coastal States ...".

The exclusive economic zone of the United States

Within the exclusive economic zone, the United States exercises (a) sovereign rights to the extent permitted by international law: for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing living and inanimate natural resources and uppermost waters of the seabed and subsoil and other activities related to economic exploitation and exploration of the area, such as energy generated from water, ocean currents, and wind; (b) Jurisdiction over the establishment and use of artificial islands, facilities and structures with economic purposes and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The United States will exercise sovereignty over living and non-living resources within 200 nautical miles of its shores. This would provide the United States with jurisdiction over mineral resources up to 200 nautical miles not on the continental shelf. At the same time, article 58 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that when exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall take full account of the rights and obligations of the coastal State and shall abide by the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Oceans and Nature. This Convention and other rules of international law, insofar as they do not contradict this Part.

With regard to the application of law in the EEZ, Barbados has claimed the right to extend the application of any of its laws to its EEZ. The United States protested the statement by the provisions of the Maritime Boundaries and Jurisdiction Act of 1978, which was intended to empower the Governor of Barbados to extend the application of any law of Barbados to the claimed Barbados EEZ. The United States Government considers that the claims made in the Maritime Boundaries and Jurisdiction Act of 1978, including unlimited authority to extend Barbados law to maritime areas, are unfounded in international law. It follows that the United States will explicitly protest in the face of excessive maritime claims by other countries. This prevents the excessive maritime claims of other countries from developing into a new international legal order through "acquiescence".