Question

A Coastal State, subject to the obligations imposed by International Law, has sovereignty over its:

• A. Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters, and the air space above them.
• B. Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters.
• C. Territorial waters only.
• D. Territorial waters and the air space above them.
• A. Article 86
• B. Article 87
• C. Article 88
• D. Article 89
• A. To conform to generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps which may be necessary to mitigate the damage so caused.
• B. To cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified person(s) into such casualty or incident.
• C. To investigate the matter and, if appropriate, take any action necessary to remedy the situation.
• D. To assume jurisdiction under its internal law over such casualty or incident in respect of its administrative, technical and social implications.
• A. Liability
• B. Equitable interest
• C. Appurtenance
• D. Trust
• A. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.
• B. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the provisions of the UNCLOS while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.
• C. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the foreign State’s sovereign or territorial waters.
• D. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto a third State’s sovereign or territorial waters.
• A. State of Tamil Nadu v. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294.
• B. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 3 SCC 354.
• C. Republic of Italy through Ambassador v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721.
• D. Sabeeha Faikage v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 262.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

According to International Law, a Coastal State, being subject to specific obligations, holds sovereignty over certain maritime and aerial territories. This sovereignty is not merely a right but a compulsory possession, encompassing:

• Territorial Waters: These are the waters adjacent to the State's coast, extending up to a limit prescribed by international agreements, usually 12 nautical miles from the baseline.
• Seabed and Subsoil: The sovereignty of a Coastal State extends to the seabed and subsoil beneath its territorial waters. This means the State can exploit these resources, complying with international obligations.
• Air Space: The air space above these territorial waters also falls under the State's jurisdiction, allowing it to regulate activities occurring overhead.

Therefore, the correct option is: Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters, and the air space above them.

In summary, international law mandates that maritime sovereignty is a non-negotiable attribute of a coastal State, conferring specific rights and responsibilities over its designated maritime and aerial zones.

Answer 2

The provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) that states "No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty." is found in:

Article 89

Explanation: The high seas are areas that are not under the sovereignty of any state. According to Article 89 of the UNCLOS, states are prohibited from claiming any part of the high seas as their sovereign territory. This aligns with international legal principles that prevent unilateral claims over parts of the high seas, ensuring they remain open for navigation and use by all states without exclusive control.

Context: In Oppenheim’s International Law, it is outlined that vessels on the high seas must possess a nationality and fly under the flag of a state, which subjects them to that state’s jurisdiction. However, the jurisdiction is limited to the vessel and persons on board rather than territorial claims, reaffirming the boundary that states cannot extend their sovereignty to the high seas, except under certain conditions like 'hot pursuit'.

Answer 3

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, particularly Article 94(7), outlines specific duties for the flag state when a marine casualty or incident occurs on the high seas involving a ship flying its flag. The focus of this article is to ensure accountability and proper investigation when such events result in loss of life or cause serious injury to nationals of another state.

Among the provided options, the correct duty of the flag state is:
To cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified person(s) into such casualty or incident.

This duty emphasizes the necessity for a formal investigation conducted by qualified individuals to gather facts, establish the cause, and determine any potential negligence or breach of international maritime rules. By ensuring such inquiries, the flag state fulfills its obligation under international law to uphold safety and justice on the high seas.

The significance of such a requirement lies in maintaining the legal and social order, ensuring that national interests and international maritime regulations are adhered to, and contributing to the broader framework of maritime safety and cooperation between states.

Answer 4

The term that fits best in the context of territorial waters being not only 'territory' but also a compulsory component to the coastal state is "Appurtenance." Here's the reasoning: Territorial waters, under international law, are not simply optional territories that a coastal state can claim; instead, they are inherently linked to the state as extensions of its sovereignty. This connection is mandatory and not subject to the state's discretion. Therefore, in this context, territorial waters function as an 'appurtenance'—a legal term meaning something subordinate to or attached to a more significant entity, which is the coastal state in this case. In summary, the possession of territorial waters is necessary and legally tied to the state, akin to an appurtenance.

Answer 5

The question pertains to the right of 'hot pursuit' as established in Article 111 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982. The principle of 'hot pursuit' allows a coastal state to pursue a foreign vessel that has violated its laws while in its territorial waters, onto the high seas. This pursuit must begin while the vessel is still within the pursuing state's territorial waters and must be continuous. The options provided offer different scenarios regarding the pursuit of a vessel:

• Option 1: A vessel that has violated the laws of a foreign state while in that state's territorial waters may be pursued onto the high seas.
• Option 2: A vessel that has violated the provisions of the UNCLOS while in that state's territorial waters may be pursued onto the high seas.
• Option 3: A vessel that has violated the laws of a foreign state may be pursued within another state's territorial waters.
• Option 4: A vessel that has violated the laws of a foreign state may be pursued into a third state's territorial waters.

According to Article 111 of UNCLOS, the correct application of the 'hot pursuit' principle is highlighted in Option 1. The pursuit is limited to the high seas, thereby excluding pursuit into another state’s territorial waters. Therefore, the correct choice is that a vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign state while in that state’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.

Answer 6

The question pertains to the principle of sovereignty as discussed in the judgments of the Supreme Court of India. The correct judgment here is Republic of Italy through Ambassador v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721.

In this case, the Supreme Court analyzed the concept of sovereignty in the context of international maritime law. The court referenced Oppenheim’s International Law, discussing how sovereignty is not simply granted to states but is asserted through international legal frameworks. Specifically, it focused on maritime territory rights, where international law dictates certain obligations and rights for maritime states. The court emphasized that the possession and exercise of sovereignty over maritime territory is compulsory, not optional, as international law requires maritime states to claim territorial waters and fulfill corresponding obligations.

Additionally, the ruling addressed the concept of flag jurisdiction, explaining that every vessel on the high seas must have a nationality and fly the flag of a state, thereby subjecting itself to the state's legal jurisdiction. This elucidates how sovereignty operates on the high seas, underscoring the idea that states do not choose sovereignty but must assert it through compliance with international norms.

The judgment ultimately clarified that sovereignty, particularly in maritime contexts, is something countries assert through adherence to international law rather than being an inherent entitlement granted independently of legal constructs.