CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

JAN ONDŘEJ are mainly concerned. Military activity is permitted even in the exclusive economic zone if it is not incompatible with the rights guaranteed to coastal states in the sense of Article 58(2) of the Convention. 26 In this context, Beckman and Davenport question whether other states should notify and consult with the coastal state to ensure that there is no interference with coastal states’ natural resource rights. 27 They consider this reasonable for certain types of military activity, such as shooting practice, but not for others, such as reconnaissance military activity. R.R. Churchill stated in 2005, that there is no agreed interpretation of the Convention or customary international law on the right to conduct military operations in the exclusive economic zone. 28 In case of a dispute arising over the legality of carrying out military activity in the exclusive economic zone, the question also arises as to whether such a dispute can be subject to mandatory binding dispute resolution under Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention. Compulsory jurisdiction may also be excluded by a state, if there are applied the exceptions according to Article 298 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Upon signing, ratifying, or acceding to this Convention, or at any time thereafter, a state may make a written declaration that it does not accept one or more procedures for the settlement of disputes set forth in Section 2. These disputes include, in letter b), disputes that relate to military activity, including the military activity of state ships and aircraft used for non-commercial purposes. In total, 32 states made declarations related to Article 298 of the Convention. Some statements refer only to letter a), but most often letters a), b), and c), e.g., China, Russia, Ukraine, France, South Korea, and others. Great Britain has made statements relating to (b) and (c). Military action could also be covered by Article 59 of the Convention, according to which, in cases in which this Convention does not confer rights or jurisdiction on the coastal state or other states in the exclusive economic zone, and if there is a conflict between the interests of the coastal state and any other state or states, this conflict should be resolved fairly and in the light of all relevant circumstances. The question of the legality of activities in the exclusive economic zone also concerns various types of surveys as well as marine scientific research . The survey can be carried out for various purposes, for example, a hydrographic survey for navigational purposes or to determine the direction of cables and pipes. Another case could be a military survey to collect data for military purposes, etc. Some states have adopted laws and regulations requiring permits for any exploration activities in the exclusive economic zone. For example, the PRC adopted a very broad definition of marine scientific research in the sense that all exploration activities are subject to regulation by the coastal state in the exclusive economic zone. Other states such as the USA have argued that the coastal state’s consent is dependent on the purpose of the survey. 29 T hese 26 GUILFOYLE, D. The High Seas. in: ROTHWELL D. R, ELFERINK A, G. O., SCOTT, K. N., STEPHENS T. The Oxford Handbook of The Law of the Sea . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 213. 27 BECKMAN, R., DAVENPORT, T. The EEZ Regime: Reflections after 30 Years. LOSI Conference Papers 2012 “Securing the Ocean for the Next Generation”, p. 28. In: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Beckman Davenport-final.pdf, (accessed on 10. 4. 2024). 28 R. R. Churchill in: ROTHWELL, D. R., STEPHENS, T. The International Law of the Sea. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010, p. 280. 29 BECKMAN, R., DAVENPORT, T. The EEZ Regime: Reflections after 30 Years. LOSI Conference Papers

12