law_war_manual15

13.11.2 Peacetime Mining. Naval mines may not be emplaced in internal waters, theterritorial sea, or archipelagic waters of another State in peacetime without that State’sconsent. 18413.11.2.1 A State’s Archipelagic Waters and Territorial Sea. A State’s right tomine its archipelagic waters and territorial sea during peacetime is subject to the right ofinnocent passage of foreign vessels. 185If armed mines are emplaced in a State’s own archipelagic waters or territorial sea,appropriate international notification of the existence and location of such mines is required. 186Because the right of innocent passage may be suspended only temporarily, 187 armed mines mustbe removed or rendered harmless as soon as the security threat that prompted their emplacementhas terminated. 188Armed mines may not be emplaced in international straits or archipelagic sea lanesduring peacetime. 189Emplacement of controlled mines in a State’s own archipelagic waters or territorial sea isnot subject to notification or removal requirements. 190preset parameters (if any) are satisfied. Controlled mines have no destructive capability until affirmatively activatedby some form of controlled arming order (whereupon they become armed mines).”).184 2007 NWP 1-14M 9.2.2 (“Naval mines may not be emplaced in internal waters, territorial seas, or archipelagicwaters of another nation in peacetime without that nation’s consent.”). See also Military and Paramilitary Activitiesin and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Merits, Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, 111-12 (213-15) (“Thelegal rules in the light of which these acts of mining should be judged depend upon where they took place. Thelaying of mines within the ports of another State is governed by the law relating to internal waters, which are subjectto the sovereignty of the coastal State. The position is similar as regards mines placed in the territorial sea. It istherefore the sovereignty of the coastal State which is affected in such cases. … It has already been made clearabove that in peacetime for one State to lay mines in the internal or territorial waters of another is an unlawful act;”).185 Refer to § 13.2.2.4 (Innocent Passage of Foreign Vessels Through Territorial Seas and Archipelagic Waters).186 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (“The obligationsincumbent upon the Albanian authorities consisted in notifying, for the benefit of shipping in general, the existenceof a minefield in Albanian territorial waters and in warning the approaching British warships of the imminent dangerto which the minefield exposed them. Such obligations are based, not on the Hague Convention of 1907, No. VIII,which is applicable in time of war, but on certain general and well-recognized principles, namely: elementaryconsiderations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war; the principle of the freedom of maritimecommunication; and every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to therights of other States.”).187 Refer to § 13.2.2.4 (Innocent Passage of Foreign Vessels Through Territorial Seas and Archipelagic Waters).188 2007 NWP 1-14M 9.2.2 (“Because the right of innocent passage can be suspended only temporarily, armedmines must be removed or rendered harmless as soon as the security threat that prompted their emplacement hasterminated.”); 1997 NWP 9 9.2.2 (same); 1989 NWP 9 9.2.2 (same).189 2007 NWP 1-14M 9.2.2 (“Armed mines may not be emplaced in international straits or archipelagic sea lanesduring peacetime.”); 1997 NWP 9 9.2.2 (same).190 2007 NWP 1-14M 9.2.2 (“Emplacement of controlled mines in a nation’s own archipelagic waters or territorialsea is not subject to such notification or removal requirements.”); 1997 NWP 9 9.2.2 (same); 1989 NWP 9 9.2.2(same).893