CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

VERONIKA D’EVEREUX state with traditional freedoms of high seas. In regard to passage of ships, the coastal state has, according to Article 58 no right to interfere with the use of the freedoms of the high seas, in particular they have no right to interfere with the freedom of navigation. In the exclusive economic zone, in regard to the navigation of ships, including stateless ships, the same rules as in regard with the high seas are applied . Thus, a warship of any state can take measures against the stateless ship in the exclusive economic zone. In the author’s opinion, there is a difference in treatment of the stateless ship in the zones of the sea falling under the territorial jurisdiction of the coastal state, and in treatment of a stateless person located on the territory of the state. The coastal state must follow the obligations stemming from the international maritime law . Therefore, the coastal state cannot deviate from the UNCLOS provisions and apply domestic laws, based on which the state would for example not interfere in any way in relation to the passage of stateless ships in the zones of the sea falling under its territorial jurisdiction. On the contrary, international law does not stipulate the rules for the state’s action in relation to stateless persons living in its territory. The UNHCR remarks that in many cases the existence of stateless persons is ignored by the state, and these persons are treated as if they did not exist, 68 which is a fundamental difference compared to the specifically stipulated international legal obligations of the territorial state concerning the ships without registration. Conclusion In order to verify the fulfilment of the objective of this paper, the research question: To what extent is it appropriate to compare the position of a stateless person to stateless vessel on the high seas and in other zones of the sea? remains to be answered. The question is assessed in two perspectives, in regard to acquiring nationality, in regard to the intervention against a stateless person and stateless ship, and then it is explicitly answered. In regard to registration of the birth of the child, which is a prerequisite for granting the citizenship, it can be remarked that states often stipulate conditions, which cannot be fulfilled independently of parents’ will. There were identified states, which mostly do not respect the mother’s right to register the birth of her child, as well as the states, which do not allow women to confer their citizenship to the child. If the parents are unable to fulfil the domestic laws in this regard, the child might be stateless at birth. Article 7(1) of the Convention the Rights of the Child stipulates that the right to identity as well as nationality is a human right, and in this regard states must implement the respective rules of the domestic law to ensure the child is not stateless at birth. In regard to the registration of the ships, as stated in Article 91 of UNCLOS ‘every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag’ . If the vessel does not fulfil these conditions, it is possible to remove these obstacles first, e.g., to repair the ship and make sure it fulfils the criteria for registration. As far as the international maritime law concerned, it is not impossible to postpone the beginning of the ship’s operation (this may be associated with the risk of significant economic losses for the shipowner or sanctions stemming from commercial treaties). The fulfilment of overall legal conditions, including technical criteria, is justified by

38

68 Cf. UNHCR. Background note on Sex Discrimination in Birth Registration.