CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ THIRTY YEARS SINCE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE UN CONVENTION … Unilateral actions by coastal states that limit navigation rights can only undermine the exclusive economic zone regime. In this direction, it would be possible to initiate proceedings according to Article 297(1)(c), which contains mandatory dispute resolution in cases where the coastal state has acted in violation of international rules and standards related to the protection and preservation of marine environment which applies to the coastal state and which have been established by this Convention or through the appropriate international organization or diplomatic conference. 2.1 The issue of activities not regulated by the Convention and different views of states on the interpretation of certain concepts in relation to the exclusive economic zone Another problem and possible disputes in the use of the exclusive economic zone by other states arise in connection with the interpretation of the provisions of Article 58(1) of the Convention, which also mentions other ways of using the sea related to those freedoms recognized by international law, which are associated with the operation of ships and aircraft, submarine cables, and pipelines and which are compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. It is a question of what other ways of using the exclusive economic zone by states other than coastal states are allowed, or not prohibited. In this direction, the question of the performance of military activities by foreign states is questionable. The Convention does not contain any provisions regarding military activity. Freedom of navigation itself includes the freedom of navigation of warships, which was not a source of concern of the coastal states. 21 However, tension between coastal states and sea power states was caused by the question of the right of other states to carry out military activities, 22 including military manoeuvres, firing exercises, military reconnaissance, especially reconnaissance activities that test the electronic defence of coastal states, etc. Military use and activities in the exclusive economic zones were not explicitly mentioned during the official negotiations. According to the interpretation of the US, other ways of using the sea preserve the traditional freedoms of the high seas such as the implementation of a large range of military activities. 23 On the other hand, some coastal states such as Brazil persistently objected to this interpretation. In this direction, a number of coastal states (Bangladesh, Brazil, Cape Verde, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Uruguay) made a statement at signing or ratifying the Convention that foreign military exercises and manoeuvres, including the right to use weapons, are only allowed with the consent of the coastal state. 24 These states have also emphasized the Article 301 of the Convention on the duty to refrain from the use of force against other states to strengthen the argument that military activity is not permitted in the exclusive economic zone. 25 In regard to the military activity in the exclusive economic zone, it can be concluded that the activity of other states must be compatible with the other provisions of the Convention. In this direction, the sovereign rights of the coastal state to explore and use natural resources 21 ROTHWELL, D. R., STEPHENS T. The International Law of the Sea . Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010, p. 228. 22 BECKMAN, R., DAVENPORT, T. The EEZ Regime: Reflections after 30 Years. LOSI Conference Papers 2012 “Securing the Ocean for the Next Generation”, p. 24. In: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Beckman Davenport-final.pdf, (accessed on 10. 4. 2024). 23 Ibid., p. 25. 24 ROTHWELL, D. R., STEPHENS, T. The International Law of the Sea. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010, p. 280. 25 Ibid., p. 26.

11