Untitled

saerTaSoriso samarTlis Jurnali, #1, 2008 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, N1, 2008
its boat or crew members in illegal activities in
this zones is a good reason for the coastal
State to exercise the hot pursuit.
In ‘the Araunah’ case the British Government
noted that, although, the Canadian fishing
vessel was not in the territorial sea and
was not participating in illegal fishing, its detention
was justified because its sailors entered
in the territorial sea of Russia by the
boats and were fishing. 51
A Persuing ship may take any necessary
and reasonable measure to detain the guilty
ship. However, each country establishes its
own regulations regarding the procedure of
detention of a guilty ship and person within
the scopes of its jurisdiction. 52 On the other
hand the compensation for any damage
caused as a result of illegal pursuit or illegal
use of force is established. 53
Some authors deem that, the right of hot
pursuit is a privilege 54 which is granted to the
coastal State in case of violation of double
obligations by the offender ship. First, when
ship violates the local laws, and the second
when it refuses to surrender to local competent
authorities. 55
While it is hot pursuit and it continues on
the high sea the issue of its conclusion does
not depend on time and place. But if there is
no special entitling agreement, the pursuit
shall end when the pursued ship crosses the
outer boarder of the territorial sea of any State
other then the persuing State. 56
Article 111.3 of the Convention strictly
determines that the hot pursuit ceases and
not temporarily terminates when the ship pursued
enters the territorial sea of any other
State. In other words perusing ship shall not
have a right to wait when the pursued ship
leaves the territorial sea. 57
Pursuit may be exercised only by a warship
or an aircraft or a specially authorized
ship for these purposes (ships of coast
guards). Location of the pursued vessel for
the moment of commencement of pursuit is
less important, as it is not necessary for it to
be in the territorial sea or the contiguous zone
for the moment of commencement of pursuit.
CONCLUSION
The Convention managed to establish
more or less acceptable, universal regime for
everyone, when the territorial sovereignty of
coastal State on the one hand, and freedom
of navigation on the other hand are balanced.
As it is noted in the commentary of the USA, it
establishes the balance between the coastal
and maritime interests with respect to all maritime
zones. 58
First of all this balance has ensured popularity
of the Convention both in developed
and developing States. This once again is
proved in the address of the US President to
the Senate, where it is noted that, The United
State has a basic and long term national interest
in the oceans and gradually came to
the opinion that complete protection of this
interests can be best achieved by universally
recognized international frame agreement,
which manages the application of the seas. 59
The convention has introduced new Articles
that have significantly extended the jurisdiction
of the coastal State not only in the internal
waters and the territorial seas, but also
in other maritime zones. In particular, the norms
relating to the protection of maritime environment
is implied. Traditional scope of jurisdiction
of the coastal State, mainly limited with
criminal law jurisdiction, has been significantly
extended with the jurisdiction of environmental
protection. Moreover, it may be easily said
that exactly this area is the most unified and
effective among all jurisdictions exercised by
the coastal States.
And finally the Convention not only grants
the coastal States the jurisdiction over the
maritime zones, but gives an opportunity to
actually execute this jurisdiction, in particular
by granting the right of hot pursuit.
1
Implied the date of signature of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
2
Please see ”A Constitution for the Oceans” Remark by Tommy T.B. Koh, of Singapore,
President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
3
Hereafter “Convention”.
4
Please see. Bernaert’s Guide to the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law
of the Sea, Arnd Bernaerts, Trafford Publishing, 2006. p. 9.
98