THE LAW OF THE SEA
Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Continental Shelf.
The very important principle to consider as clarified in
the Magallona Case:
The law of the sea is a regime that provides only the
delimitation, determination of maritime zones. The law
of the sea is not a regime for the acquisition of territory.
(The law of the sea is not a regime for determining
whether State A owns piece of land as against the claim
of State B. The Permanent Court of Arbitration made
that pronouncement in a landmark case involving nine
became 10 dash line of China covering the South China
Sea, the West Philippine Sea. The law of the sea is not a
regime that settles claims of ownership over territories.
Therefore, the claim of China, for instance, saying it
owns the Spratly islands by reasoned of discovery and
alleged occupation during the early dynasties.)
Magallona petitioned that the Philippine Baseline Law
be declare unconstitutional. She claimed that it will
reduce the territory of the State in a manner that the
baseline to be drawn under the baseline law.
Try to imagine the Philippines. When you go to
northwest, you have the Scarborough Shoal. You go
west of Palawan, you have the Spratly Islands. We have
not yet occupied the whole of the Spratly Islands
consisting of more than 50 island and islets but we have
occupied physically 8 islands and islets of the Spratly
Islands. These 8 islands and islets, we call them the
Kalayaan Group of Islands.
The problem of the Philippine Baseline Law is that in the
drawing of the baseline, we did not enclose the
Scarborough Shoal and Calayaan Group in the west
Group in the western part of Palawan.
How do we determine the baseline of the archipelago?
We draw imaginary straight baseline, connecting the
outermost points of the outermost islands and dry reefs
of the archipelago. So if we did not include the
Scarborough Shoal, our baseline will be restricted or
limited. But if we include the Scarborough Shoal, we will
have a larger archipelagic waters and an extended
territorial sea and the EEZ will follow.
SC said that law of the sea is not a regime of acquiring
ownership. But we treated these islands, the Spratly
Island, Scarborough Shoal, Calayaan Group of Islands, as
Regime of Islands.
So what if Regime of Islands? (RP v. PRC, July, 2016)
Under our law of the sea, when we see a naturally
formed structure that appears even during low tide and
is capable of human habitation, or capable of economic
activity, then we can call it island. In which case, an
island, even not forming part of the main territory of
State, it will still generate the four important zones in
the law of the sea; Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone,
SC said that the Scarborough Shoal forming part of the
Regimes of islands, there’s no problem because we own
them and that they generate the four important zones.
The Law of the Sea was highly ispired by the work of no
less than the father of PIL, Hugo Grotius, when he wrote
the Mare Liberum (most important writings of the
history of PIL). He espoused the freedom of the sea,
when States began to appropriate and declare huge
chunks of the sea as forming part of their territory.
Hugo wrote no. A part of the sea must remain available
to all mind kind, and therefore, res communes
common. And the landlocked states agreed to the
writings of Hugo Grotius.
The Law of The Sea now is governed by the 1982
UNCLOS, the III (3rd) convention on the Law of the Sea.
Trivia Question: Do you think that the 4 conventions of
the1958 have been rendered meaningless, no longer
relevant at present time because they have been
codified?
Answer: No.
Reasons:
- The reasons for the inclusions of specific
provisions, then we can make use of
interpretations of courts pertaining to
the same provisions found in older
Conventions. This is for as long as they
are the same nature and character,
then codified under the old UNCLOS.
- Don't you know there were parties to
the 4 1958 Conventions which did not
become parties to the UNCLOS III?
There is. In fact, the US is not even part
of the UNCLOS III. But US said while they
are not part of the UNCLOS, they
definitely support the Law of the Sea.
Many provisions in UNCLOS III are
codified CIL. Therefore, if a particular
state is not a party to UNCLOS III but it is
a party to the 4 1958 Conventions, the
Convention to which that state is a
party will still be considered relevant
insofar as that state is concerned.
How do we study the law of the sea?
Framework:
1. What are the measurements of the different
Maritime Zones
The law of the sea delineates where these maritime
zones are.
1
 2. What is the extent of State’s authority or right/s the natural configuration or shape of the
of the coastal State over which of these archipelago. (May be depart occasionally, but
maritime zones? What is included What is the not should be abrasively)
nature of the right? 4. The drawing of the straight line, therefore, the
enclosure of waters shall not result in a ratio
MEASUREMENT OF THE ZONES OF THE SEA more than 1:9, land to water ratio. The drawing
of straight line and include the enclosed water,
When we measure, we have to start somewhere. The it shall not result to more than a ratio of 1:9.
important principle is that concept of Baseline. That’s (only 1:1 to 1:9 land to water ratio)
why in the study of the law of the sea, there is this
notion that because we determine the extent of SPECIAL RULE AFFECTING BASE
maritime zones on the basis of baseline which cannot
be determined through the nature and characteristics
of the land mass, the principle of IL now is that the land
dominates the sea. The extent of the maritime zone will
depend on the land because we measure the baseline
on the basis of the character of our terrestrial domain
or land mass.

How do we measure the baseline?

There are two ways of determining the baseline,

depending on the measure of the state. A state may be
You notice that there is a natural indention inward. You
archipelagic or non-archipelagic.
notice that the yellow line has been drawn without
following the configuration of the bay because there’s a
NON-ARCHIPELAGIC STATE
special rule on determining the baseline with respect to
bay.
The manner of determining the baseline is through the
LOW WATER MARK METHOD. It is the point where the
A bay (not baybayon), per definition of the UNCLOS,
land meets the sea or the sea meets the land during low
requires that the indention should be at least half of a
tide.
circle. If it will not reach half of the circle, it is not bay.
ARCHIPELAGIC STATE
There are two kinds of bays, depending on the distance
of outermost points during low tide. The distance of the
What is an archipelago?
outermost points of entrance- 2 points connecting the
mouth of the bay. During the low tide, you check the
 Archipelago consists of a body of water studded
distance of the mouth of the bay if it exceeds 24nm. If
with islands
in the entrance, the 2 points will exceed 24 nm, you
 Archipelago is a group of islands surrounded by
cannot draw a straight line. You will follow the
bodies of water
configuration or the contour of the bay, which means,
you are not allowed to enclose. But if the distance of
What is the baseline?
these two points in the entrance or mouth of the bay
during low tide is less than 24 nm, you are allowed to
STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD. There are many rules to
draw a straight line and therefore, enclosing the water.
observe. (Standards)
This is important because as enclosed, it will form part
of our internal water. (not same with our idea of
1. There shall be drawing of straight lines
internal water, rivers, lakes, etc.) So you draw the
connecting the outermost points of the
imaginary straight line, that is your baseline. This is not
outermost islands and dry reefs of the
archipelagic state.
archipelago.
2. Its line however, shall not exceed 100 nautical
Territorial sea is 12 nm from the baseline.
miles. It may exceed in few instances, but only
up to 125 nautical miles. But such lines
Contiguous zone is 24 nm from the baseline (There is a
consisting of 125 nautical miles shall not exceed
limited jurisdiction (protective) of the coastal state;
not more than 3% of the entire lines.
PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION: custom, sanitation,
3. (Justification of the Philippine Baseline Law by
immigration and currency. In other words, it is alright
Magallona) The reason why Congress decided
for the coastal state to pass a law subject matte rof
not to include the Scarborough Shoal and the
which is among those four activities and extend the
Spratly Islands is because if the Philippines
application of the law to the contiguous zone. Ex. Law of
would include the same, it will violate the very
Marriage will extend up to the contiguous zone;
important principle which is the drawing of the
Environmental Law)
straight lines shall not depart abrasively from
2
Contiguous zone is 12 nm from territorial sea (full
jurisdiction of the coastal state). No difference of
jurisdiction of coastal state in its terrestrial
domain and its territorial sea.
NOTE: Legally speaking, contiguous zone is 12
miles from the territorial sea.
EEZ is 188 nm from the territorial sea.
Where do we find the EEZ of a state The EEZ is 188 nm
from the territorial sea. Therefore, it is 200 nm from the
baseline. (It is better to say that the EEZ is 188 nm from
the territorial sea.) The coastal state has sovereign
rights over the EEZ for the exploration, exploitation,
management, conservation and preservation of the
natural resources. Just a clarification: These sovereign
rights, with respect to EEZ, refers only to the rights with
respect to the superjacent water. Why? Because the
area below the EEZ, which is no longer the superjacent
water, which therefore, refers to the seabed, the
subsoil, and the continental shelf, is governed by
another regime, the continental shelf regime.
Continental Shelf
You have the baseline, yellow; the territorial sea, red;
and the contiguous zone, 12nm from the territorial sea;
the EEZ, green, from the territorial sea. Here, the
continental shelf, gray one, refers to the extent of the
sovereign rights of the state in the continental shelf
because the water, superjacent water is governed by
the EEZ regime. This part (not part of the water, where
the shukoys live), is the continental shelf.
A continental shelf is the natural prolongation of the
continent that is submerged with water.
If you notice, it’s already submerged, it continues to
drop, and it’s called the continental shelf. (Refer to the
picture)
Rules on Continental Shelf:
1. The GR: Continental Shelf extends up to 200 nm
from the baseline. Which means, generally that
it is parallel to the EEZ.
Exceptions: 2 Kinds of Extended Continental Shelf
2. 1st Exception: If the natural prolongation of the
continental shelf extends beyond the 200nm,
the continental shelf can extend more than 200
nm but only to the extent of 350 nm (UNCLOS).
This is called the Extended Continental Shelf.
ECS extends beyond the 200nm. That is why
Benham Rice, northeast part of the Philippines,
is still within our ECS.
3. 2nd Exception: The 350nm can still be further
extended. That is when we apply the Isobath
Rule. The continental shelf extends beyond
200nm, but after the 200nm, it goes deeper
than 2500 meters. If it’s that deep, the
continental shelf, then you can start your
Isobath point where you will have the 2500
meters deep up to 100nm miles, which would
likely to extend beyond the 350nm because you
don’t know where the 2500 meters depth is.
“Kung mo extend lang gyud ang continental shelf to
200nm, kung asa ang isobath nga 2500meters, ang
State man gud, favorable sa iya kung naa siyay isobath
and counting 100nm from the isobath, mag isobath
nalang sila rather than the 350nm kay favorable man sa
state. There is no rule that the isobats be counted from
beyond the 200nm. But in most cases, ang state man
gud ang mo determine.”
NOTE: The EEZ, 200nm, requires a state to make a
claim, that’s why we are required to pass a law or
proclamation claiming that this is our EEZ. If you don’t
make a claim, we are bound to share the natural
resources in the EEZ with other states in Joint Venture
Agreements. That is why it’s not really truly exclusive.
Our sovereign right in the EEZ is not reserved by law.
We have the right and so we have to make a claim on it.
While the continental shelf is reserved by UNCLOS to
the coastal state, no need to make a claim. This is the
true exclusive. The true exclusive must be in the
continental shelf. Our sovereign rights over the
resources in the continental shelf reserved even if we
don’t make a claim. However, for the extended
continental shelf, we are required to make a claim. That
is why if the isobath rule is favorable, in most cases, the
coastal state will apply the isobath rule.
“So for instance, after 200nm naa didto ang 2500
meters, didto siya mo count kay pwede pa man mo
extend kay 100nm baya na. So mathematically, kung
naa siya sa 250nm, ang 2500 meters depth, your
isobath, and pun.an nimo ug 100 nm, 350nm (sayup ang
3
example). So 255nm, you have the isobath rule, so you
strat counting 100nm there to extend, so 355nm.”
High Seas and The Area
What goes beyond the EEZ, High seas.
What goes beyond the continental shelf, The Area
High seas is superjacent water. What extends after the
continental shelf, the area.
So if the high seas is to EEZ, the area is to continental
shelf.
Philippine Maritime Zone
The red line is our imaginary lines, connecting the
outermost points of the outermost islands of the
archipelago. The green is the extent of our EEZ. You
notice the Kalayaan Islands, Spratly Islands, only part of
which is covered by the 200nm. That is why Carpio said
that the extended continental shelf can be used in
Palawan. It can cover a large area there because it can
go beyond 350nm.
This is not ownership. All islands within the EEZ, if we
have not exercised territorial sovereignty, we cannot
claim it yet. But if the natural resources there may be
part of our EEZ sovereign rights. (The box is the
determination of the Philippine archipelago under the
treaty of Paris. But we have to ignore it now because we
sign the UNCLOS. We are with the UNCLOS delineation
of our baseline)
REGIMES
Internal Waters
Problem: X, an American, was in possession of
marijuana, while on board M/V Francois, a
vessel registered in France, and while the
vessel was in British internal waters. When
accosted by Y, a Filipino Captain of the vessel,
X killed Y in the upper deck of the vessel.
A. Which court/s has/have jurisdiction over
the crimes committed on board M/V
Francois. Explain your answer/s.
B. Would your answer/s be the same if M/V
Francois were in the territorial sea of UK?
Why or why not
C. Will your answer/s be the same if the case
involved a Naval ship of France Why or
Why not?
Answer:
Criminal Jurisdiction is on territoriality. However,
the offense was committed on board the
vessel. This is in a way a deviation of territoriality
notion of criminal law under IL because there
are two principles practiced by states
concerning crimes committed on board a
merchant vessel. (We have to clarify this
because if a warship of a government of
public vessel, you apply the vessel as an
assimilation of the territory of the foreign state.
Therefore, the coastal state will not have a
jurisdiction over the crime committed there. If
government, we yield, well, this is to assume
that the government vessel or warship is of
course, in the internal waters of the coastal
state lawfully. Otherwise, why would he be
there? So we assume that the warship is in the
internal water of the coastal state lawfully, its
with consent and respect the principle of
assimilation of the warship or government
vessel of the territory of the foreign state.) This is
espoused in the Lotus case.
First Answer:
So this is a merchant vessel because it says that
a vessel registered in France otherwise, you will
not be required to register if it is not a
merchant vessel.
The French Rule
The coastal state will not exercise a criminal
jurisdiction over the offense commited on
board unless the nature of the offense affects
the peace and order of the coastal state
The British Rule
It is the converse. Therefore, the effect is the
same. The coastal state will exercise criminial
jurisdiction over the offense committed on on
board a merchant vessel unless the offense
committed is related to internal waters or
involving disciplinary action of the members of
the crew.
4

Notice you have two crimes. (Why are there
two? Maybe they differ in nature)
Possession of marijuana:
Old Chinese case, Opium case. The court said
that possession of opium on board the vessel
will never affect the peace and order of a
coastal state. If it is smoked, it can affect the
peace and order. (Hard to imagine that there
is a difference between possession and
smoking of an opium.) But for purposes of
applying this old case, we will say that
possession of marijuana will not affect the
peace and order. (You may disagree if this will
be applied today.)
Killing of by X of Y:
Murder will affect the peace and order
because our criminal law we consider murder
as a heinous crime. Therefore, we can argue
that it affects the peace and order of the
coastal state. The act of killing is something
serious that affects the peace and order of the
coastal state. So this is a different treatment
from the possession of marijuana.
(Note from Bretch: practice the mentality of
dissecting the problem)
Second Answer:
French Rule and British Rule: You apply it in
internal waters, the rule is found in Art. 27,
UNCLOS III.
Article 27. Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign
ship
The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should
not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing
through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to
conduct any investigation in connection with any
crime committed on board the ship during its
passage, save only in the following cases:
(a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the
coastal State;
(b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of
the country or the good order of the territorial sea;
(c) if the assistance of the local authorities has
been requested by the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag
State; or
(d) if such measures are necessary for the
suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances.
Criminal jurisdiction, in fact is still controversial if
a government ship, or war ship, can exercise the
right of innocent passage. If we speak of internal
water of a coastal state, all vessels will have to seek
the permission of the coastal state before it can
lawfully enter any internal water of the coastal state.
Otherwise, entry will be illegal. There’s only one
exception, even without the consent. This is in the
case when the ship is in distress because under IL,
all coastal states are obliged to assist ships in
distress.
Since there are two principles, apply these in the
case (to impress the examiner. French rule is
already applied in the first question)
Applying the British rule in the killing (not
internal), so the coastal state has jurisdiction.
With respect to foreign ships within the territorial
sea, we assume therefore that this ship is exercising
the right of innocent passage, which is a limitation
to the right of authority of the coastal state over
territorial sea. The criminal jurisdiction of the
coastal state should not be exercised on board a
foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to
arrest any person or to conduct an investigation in
connection with any crime committed on board the
ship during its passage. Same only in the following
cases (The French and British rules will be
extended, cause it says if the consequences of the
crime will extend to the coastal state) These cases
are found in paragraphs a-d of Article 27, UNCLOS
III.
Why is it that the French rule and British rule will
not be applied in territorial sea?
It is because its broad and general. Whereas, the
Article 27, UNCLOS III is specific.
Note the inapplicability of Article 27 in a situation
where the foreign ship reaches the territorial sea not
originally coming from the internal waters of the
coastal state. So Article 27 contemplates the
exercise of right of innocent passage. Meaning, this
is a foreign ship passing through the territorial
waters of another state without entering internal
waters.
When is there prejudicial passage? Prejudicial
passage is the opposite of the right of the innocent
passage because in the UNCLOS, it did not
enumerate what are included in the right of the
innocent passage. It only poses the general
requirement which is the passage must be
continuous and expeditious, without entering
internal waters and without stopping save only for
force majeure instances or when the ship is in
distress. This is the minimum requirement. But it
5
did not enumerate what is the conduct that
constitutes the right of innocent passage. However,
the UNCLOS makes an enumeration of what
constitutes a prejudicial passage. This is what is
contemplated in Article 27.
If the ship now found in the territorial sea, actually
was coming from the internal water of the coastal
state, you do not apply Article 27. What this means
is the coastal state will have jurisdiction. It can
arrest a person or conduct an investigation. The
only exception is when the offense is already
committed when the ship is already in the territorial
sea. But there is no way of the coastal state to know
what has happened to the ship after it leaving the
internal water when its already in the territorial sea.
We don't just look at nature but also activity. Warships
and other government ships operated for non-
commercial purpose are immune. All other government
ships, still public and must be for non-commercial
purposes (for research etc., basta owned by the
government) immune from jurisdiction of the coastal
state. But warships and government ships violating
rules in the territorial sea, they may be ordered to leave
the territorial sea. In fact, the flag state may incur
responsibility in case of loss or damage suffered as a
result of disobedience.
Third Answer:
Yes. Warship and government ship, beyond the
jurisdiction of the coastal state. The only
remedy is to leave. Just like a diplomat -
persona non grata, for the personal bag. If
immune, beyond jurisdiction, remedy is to
leave the territorial sea. There is also state
responsibility if there is loss or damage resulting
from the disobedience.
Internal waters
- Include ports, harbors, rivers, lakes and canals,
but do not include off-shore installations and
artificial islands in the concept of “harbors”
- Note the rules in “roadsteads” and “low tide
elevations”
- The coastal state can prohibit entry into its
internal waters by foreign ships, except for
ships in distress
- The problem with “archipelagic states”: all such
waters within the straight baseline shall be
considered “archipelagic doctrine” (ergo,
subject to “right of innocent passage” that is
applicable to territorial sea)
Article I, 1987 Philippine Constitution: National
Territory:
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and
aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
The problem with our definition in our national
territory is the last line- The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
In our UNCLOS, waters enclosed by the baselines
of archipelagos, those using the straight baseline
method, waters enclosed are declared archipelagic
waters, not internal waters.
The difference is that in internal waters, there’s no
right of innocent passage, except ship in distress. If
there’s consent, it’s different because you have
treaties, conventions etc. While in archipelagic
waters, there is right of innocent passage by foreign
states. That’s why all archipelagic states are being
asked, under UNCLOS, to as far as practicable and
as soon as possible to identify archipelagic sea
lanes.
When the archipelagic state has established
archipelagic sea lanes, foreign ships may now
exercise archipelagic sea lane passage, not
innocent passage in a territorial sea. This also
includes aircraft, sea lane passage.
Imagine one high sea and another high
sea, left and right. The middle has two
states. Customarily, there is an allotted
area for international transits. From one
high sea to another, we had been using
customarily the line there. Pag-apply sa 12
nautical mile rule, both states had a 10nm
difference = total of 20nm between them.
The foreign states may continue to use it
customarily under the concept of transit
passage. States A and B under UNCLOS will
have to delineate what is called an
international strait. Covered by territorial
states by both states, but it was used by
foreign state from one high sea to access
the other. State A and B will have to
delineate the international strait. Foreign
states that pass here are exercising transit
passage as opposed to right of innocent
passage.
3 Important Terms:
A. Innocent passage
B. Transit Passage
C. Archipelagic sea lane/passage
(archipelagic water - kung na
delineate. If wala na delineate,
6
 pwede matawag ug right of innocent
passage).
Criticism by the international community over the
way we have define our waters- supposing
archipelagic waters, we’re calling it internal waters.
In other words, we are telling the whole world that
we are denying all foreign ships right to innocent
passage.
Merchant vessels must comply with local law and
submarines must navigate on the surface and show
their flag.
What must a submarine do exercising the right of
innocent passage? It must navigate on the surface.
This is relevant because the very nature of
submarine, it is submerged. But for it to be able to
comply with local laws, it must navigate on the
surface and show its flag.
Because it is a right, there is also a corresponding
duty on the part of the coastal state. What that
means is if there is the so called right of innocent
passage, then the coastal state, in respecting the
right of innocent passage is barred or prohibited
from passing laws that will restrict right of innocent
passage. But it doesn’t mean that the coastal state
cannot pass a law affecting the exercise of right of
innocent passage for as long as it is not restrictive
of the right. For instance, one can pass a law on
safe navigation.
TN: Article 21, UNCLOS: Laws and regulations of the
coastal State relating to innocent passage
The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in
conformity with the provisions of this Convention and
other rules of international law, relating to innocent
passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or
any of the following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of
maritime traffic;
(b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities
and other facilities or installations;
(c) the protection of cables and pipelines;
(d) the conservation of the living resources of the
sea;
(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries
laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(f) the preservation of the environment of the
coastal State and the prevention, reduction and
control of pollution thereof;
(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic
surveys;
(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs,
fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations
of the coastal State
If the laws passed are related with what were
enumerated, then it will not restrict. Since this is a CIL,
even though the state is not a party to the UNLCOS, it is
bound to respect the right of innocent passage.
Innocent Passage
Article 17, UNCLOS III: Right of innocent passage
Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether
coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent
passage through the territorial sea.
Why was it become controversial when warship has
been included? It is because the UNCLOS did not
mention any kinds of ships. It only made mention of
ships of all states. But historically, in 1958 Convention,
ships including warships shall enjoy the right of
innocent passage. But this was deleted in UNCLOS III.
The act of deleting it must be deliberate therefore there
was an intention not to include warships. But there is
also a school of thought that says that ships of all states
includes warships.
Article 18, UNCLOS III: Meaning of passage
1. Passage means navigation through the territorial
sea for the purpose of:
(a) traversing that sea without entering internal
waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility
outside internal waters; or
(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a
call at such roadstead or port facility.
2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious.
However, passage includes stopping and anchoring,
but only in so far as the same are incidental to
ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by
force majeure or distress or for the purpose of
rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in
danger or distress.
Article 19, UNCLOS III: Meaning of innocent
passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial
to the peace, good order or security of the coastal
State. Such passage shall take place in conformity
with this Convention and with other rules of
international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to
be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of
the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in
any of the following activities:
Paraphrased: threat or use of force, weapons exercise,
espionage, launching or landing of or other military
device, violation of customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary laws, wilful and serious pollution, fishing,
research or surveying activities, interfering with
communications or other facilities or “any other activity
not having a direct bearing on passage.”
Article 28, UNCLOS III: Civil jurisdiction in
relation to foreign ships
1. The coastal State should not stop or divert a
foreign ship passing through the territorial
7
 sea for the purpose of exercising civil
jurisdiction in relation to a person on board
the ship.
2. The coastal State may not levy execution
against or arrest the ship for the purpose of
any civil proceedings, save only in respect
of obligations or liabilities assumed or
incurred by the ship itself in the course or
for the purpose of its voyage through the
waters of the coastal State.
3. Paragraph 2 is without prejudice to the right
of the coastal State, in accordance with its
laws, to levy execution against or to arrest,
for the purpose of any civil proceedings, a
foreign ship lying in the territorial sea, or
passing through the territorial sea after
leaving internal waters.
Exclusive Economic Zone Regime
Article 55, UNCLOS III: Specific legal regime of
the exclusive economic zone
The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and
adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific
legal regime established in this Part, under which
the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and
the rights and freedoms of other States are governed
by the relevant provisions of this Convention.
Exclusive Economic Zone Rights
Article 56, UNCLOS III: Rights, jurisdiction and
duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic
zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State
has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and
exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources, whether living or non-living, of the
waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed
and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities
for the economic exploitation and exploration of the
zone, such as the production of energy from the
water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant
provisions of this Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial
islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the
marine environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this
Convention.
2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties
under this Convention in the exclusive economic
zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the
rights and duties of other States and shall act in a
manner compatible with the provisions of this
Convention.
3. The rights set out in this article with respect to
the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in
accordance with Part VI.
Article 58, UNCLOS III: Rights and duties of other
States in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States,
whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the
relevant provisions of this Convention, the
freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and
overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and
pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of
the sea related to these freedoms, such as those
associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and
submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible
with the other provisions of this Convention.
2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of
international law apply to the exclusive economic
zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this
Part.
3. In exercising their rights and performing their
duties under this Convention in the exclusive
economic zone, States shall have due regard to the
rights and duties of the coastal State and shall
comply with the laws and regulations adopted by
the coastal State in accordance with the provisions
of this Convention and other rules of international
law in so far as they are not incompatible with this
Part
Article 60, UNCLOS III: Artificial islands,
installations and structures in the exclusive
economic zone
The coastal State shall have the exclusive right to
construct and to authorize and regulate the
construction, operation and use of:
(a) Artificial islands
(b) Installations and structures for the purposes provided for
in article 56 (exploitation of non-living resources in the
seabed, marine scientific research, protection and
preservation of marine environment) and other economic
purposes.
The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
such artificial islands, installations and structures,
including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal,
health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.
Relevant to the decision of Permanent Court of
Arbitration in Philippines v. republic of China,
the right to have artificial islands, installations
and structures for purposes provided for in
Article 56, UNCLOS III (exploitation of non-living
resources, exclusive to the coastal state) The
only way China would have the authority to
build artificial islands in the Spratly Islands is
only when China is able to prove that it owns
the Spratly Islands, otherwise it should delimit its
EEZ so that it can lawfully build artificial island.
8
But in the trial, it had been established by the
Philippines that the artificial islands built by
China are within the EEZ of the Philippines.

If it is with the intervention of man, it will not

constitute artificial island. It is because the
definition of island (Article 121, UNCLOS III) is
naturally formed elevation which appears
above water even during high tide, then adds
the requirement that it is capable of human
habitation and is susceptible to economic
activity.

What if it is naturally formed land above water

during high tide, but not capable of human
habitation, does not have economic activity
on its own. Not an island anymore, it is called
rock, as opposed to island. Meaning, it has to
be above water during high tide. (Kung dili
gani, low-tide elevation, mo appear lang
during low tide) If it consists of a rock, it can
only generate two zones, territorial sea and
contiguous zone.

A. HighTide Elevation – During high tide, you can still

see the rock. It has its own Territorial sea, but no EEZ
compared to an Island.
B. Low Tide Elevation – It appears only during low tide.
Does not generate any of the zones.

Some states which discovered some rocks

away from the mainland protects the same.

Continental Shelf

Article 77, UNCLOS III: Rights of the coastal State over

the continental shelf

1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf

sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and
exploiting its natural resources.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in
the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the
continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one
may undertake these activities without the express
consent of the coastal State.
3. The rights of the coastal State over the continental
shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or
notional, or on any express proclamation.
4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist
of the mineral and other non-living resources of the
seabed and subsoil together with living organisms
belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms
which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on
or under the seabed or are unable to move except in
constant physical contact with the seabed or the
subsoil.