Security Jurisdiction at Sea: The Legality and Future Directions of Maritime Security Zones as Foreign Policy Tools
(2009)Department of Law
- Abstract
- The use of force plays a major role in achieving foreign policy goals. States have resorted to engaging maritime security zones, including naval blockades and maritime exclusion zones, to put pressure on the enemy. In establishing these zones, States are in effect exercising security jurisdiction at sea. Naval blockades aim to prevent sea traffic to and from enemy ports and are enforced through search and confiscation. Maritime exclusion zones aim to provide protective cover for territories or warships within the zones' limit and are enforced through sinking unauthorised ships and shooting down unauthorised aircrafts. The law of the sea does not permit security jurisdiction as it violates the rights and freedoms of users of the sea, save... (More)
- The use of force plays a major role in achieving foreign policy goals. States have resorted to engaging maritime security zones, including naval blockades and maritime exclusion zones, to put pressure on the enemy. In establishing these zones, States are in effect exercising security jurisdiction at sea. Naval blockades aim to prevent sea traffic to and from enemy ports and are enforced through search and confiscation. Maritime exclusion zones aim to provide protective cover for territories or warships within the zones' limit and are enforced through sinking unauthorised ships and shooting down unauthorised aircrafts. The law of the sea does not permit security jurisdiction as it violates the rights and freedoms of users of the sea, save for a possible implied right in the State's own territorial sea. The law of war outlaws maritime security zones that are established and enforced through the use of force. If zones are set up in defiance of the law, they are prohibited from endangering lives through starvation blockades. A State may establish a United Nations Security Council-approved maritime security zone as a self-defence measure if attacked by another State. Even though most maritime security zones are unlawful in international law, their constitution and enforcement are governed by sets of rules. A blockade can exist only during formal war and must be effective. In reality, peacetime blockades exist. Maritime exclusion zones must be enforced reasonably and proportionately. Military manuals recognise maritime security zones but manuals are not legally binding. Notwithstanding the position of maritime security zones in law, events in recent years may necessitate their establishment. Global security landscapes changed after the 11 September 2001 attack on the United States. Today, non-State entities such as terrorist organisations are capable of waging armed conflict. Economic sanctions through blockades help prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons. The risk of terrorist attacks on warships creates a reason for the establishment of proportionate maritime exclusion zones. New technology in war machines also necessitates the setting up of such zones. Persistent state practice coupled with favourable legal opinion on maritime security zones are paving the way towards legalisation of the zones. Codification does not appear to be a feasible option as attempts to codify and regulate naval warfare have failed in the past due to the nature of war itself. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1555421
- author
- Mok, Lay Yong
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2009
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Maritime Law
- language
- English
- id
- 1555421
- date added to LUP
- 2010-03-08 15:23:42
- date last changed
- 2010-03-08 15:23:42
@misc{1555421,
abstract = {{The use of force plays a major role in achieving foreign policy goals. States have resorted to engaging maritime security zones, including naval blockades and maritime exclusion zones, to put pressure on the enemy. In establishing these zones, States are in effect exercising security jurisdiction at sea. Naval blockades aim to prevent sea traffic to and from enemy ports and are enforced through search and confiscation. Maritime exclusion zones aim to provide protective cover for territories or warships within the zones' limit and are enforced through sinking unauthorised ships and shooting down unauthorised aircrafts. The law of the sea does not permit security jurisdiction as it violates the rights and freedoms of users of the sea, save for a possible implied right in the State's own territorial sea. The law of war outlaws maritime security zones that are established and enforced through the use of force. If zones are set up in defiance of the law, they are prohibited from endangering lives through starvation blockades. A State may establish a United Nations Security Council-approved maritime security zone as a self-defence measure if attacked by another State. Even though most maritime security zones are unlawful in international law, their constitution and enforcement are governed by sets of rules. A blockade can exist only during formal war and must be effective. In reality, peacetime blockades exist. Maritime exclusion zones must be enforced reasonably and proportionately. Military manuals recognise maritime security zones but manuals are not legally binding. Notwithstanding the position of maritime security zones in law, events in recent years may necessitate their establishment. Global security landscapes changed after the 11 September 2001 attack on the United States. Today, non-State entities such as terrorist organisations are capable of waging armed conflict. Economic sanctions through blockades help prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons. The risk of terrorist attacks on warships creates a reason for the establishment of proportionate maritime exclusion zones. New technology in war machines also necessitates the setting up of such zones. Persistent state practice coupled with favourable legal opinion on maritime security zones are paving the way towards legalisation of the zones. Codification does not appear to be a feasible option as attempts to codify and regulate naval warfare have failed in the past due to the nature of war itself.}},
author = {{Mok, Lay Yong}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Security Jurisdiction at Sea: The Legality and Future Directions of Maritime Security Zones as Foreign Policy Tools}},
year = {{2009}},
}