CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

JAN ONDŘEJ apply a greater width of the territorial sea up to 200 nautical miles. The exclusive economic zone extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles, which is measured from the low water line along the coast (from which the width of the territorial sea is measured). Coastal states have sovereign (exclusive) rights in this zone to explore and exploit natural resources. However, they may appropriate neither the sea beyond the territorial sea nor the seabed. It should be noted that the maximum width up to 200 n.m. the exclusive economic zone has no geographical, ecological or biological significance and was adopted for pragmatic historical and political reasons. 5 At the beginning of negotiations at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the most extensive territorial sea zones claimed by some Latin American and African coastal states were just 200 nautical miles. As it would be difficult to convince these states to accept a distance less than 200 miles, it was the easiest to reach an agreement on the outer limit of the exclusive economic zone by fixing the distance, which represented the broadest existing claims 6 to the territorial sea. The exclusive economic zone was supported both by developing countries and also by developed states such as Canada or Norway. The exclusive economic zone is thus a compromise between the states that asserted the width of the coastal sea of 200 nautical miles (some Latin American and African states) and those developed states, e.g., Japan, the USA, but also the USSR, which were against the expansion of the jurisdiction of the coastal state. 7 The 200 mile strip of the exclusive economic zone covers a total of 35–36% of the world’s oceans. The seven largest states that claim the exclusive economic zone are the United States, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia, Russia, and Japan. 8 As Y. Tanaka states, it is ironic that the states that hold the largest areas of the exclusive economic zone are the developed states. 9 The legal regime of the exclusive economic zone was generally accepted by the states. Even before the Convention entered into the force, the International Court of Justice stated in 1985 in the case of Libya vs. Malta in the matter of the continental shelf that the practice of states shows that the exclusive economic zone becomes part of customary law. 10 Regarding the legal nature of the exclusive economic zone at the time of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, it was not clear whether the exclusive economic zone would be considered an area of the high seas with a special regime, or whether it would be a new zone of the coastal state in which the freedoms of the high seas are considered equivalent to the right of innocent passage in the territorial sea. Many sea states at the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea argued that the exclusive economic zone has the residual character of the high seas. By this it was meant, that any activities not falling under the expressly defined rights of the coastal state would be subject to the regime of the high seas. This approach did not receive the support of the majority of participants of the Third 5 BECKMAN, R., DAVENPORT, T. The EEZ Regime: Reflections after 30 Years . LOSI Conference Papers 2012 “Securing the Ocean for the Next Generation”, p. 5. In: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Beckman Davenport-final.pdf, (accessed on 10. 4. 2024). CHURCHILL, R. R. and LOWE, A. V. The Law of the Sea . Third edition . Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999, p. 163. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., pp. 160–161. 8 Ibid., p. 178. 9 TANAKA, Y. The International Law of the Sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 125. 10 International Court of Justice, Case concerning the Continental Shelf ( Libya v. Malta ) Judgement, 1985, para. 34.

8