Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

In August 2005, the Pacific Area commander of the U.S. Coast Guard on a maritime security conference in Copenhagen proclaimed that the United States intended to push back its sea borders for searches as much as possible, maybe even by 2,000 nautical miles.^1 According to him, such a step would significantly limit the terror threat the United States is facing. This statement is characteristic for a new attitude concerning the policing of the oceans, an attitude not only of the United States, but also of many of its partners.

Research in the existent public international law cannot and must not be isolated from factual matters and policy concerns. In fact, it is very likely that respect of public international law will increase if international lawyers are well aware of these factual matters while applying international law. Furthermore, public international law seems to be more flexible than other legal systems because custom plays a great role as one of its sources and because the analysis of State practice constitutes a major part of the interpretation of treaties.

The Law of the Sea with the Law of the Sea Convention and a great number of IMO conventions represents one area of public international law which is very densely codified. Even though the Law of the Sea Convention alone with its 320 articles and 11 annexes has rightly been called the “Constitution of the Oceans” represents only a small part of the codified Law of the Sea. This is particularly true for the matter of interferences with navigation on the high seas because over decades, States became aware of new security concerns and adopted separate conventions for these particular concerns. Each convention which permitted an interference on the high seas accompanied this authorization with a provision on compensation. This definitely shows how important the States parties to all these conventions deemed the issue of State responsibility.

Instead of relying on multilateral conventions, the United States has a considerable tradition of concluding bilateral agreements in order to obtain permission to conduct the boarding of foreign vessels on the high seas or even in waters under foreign jurisdiction when the United States deemed such interferences necessary.

The classical distinction in public international law between rules applicable in times of peace on the one hand, and rules applicable in times of war on the other hand, also generally applies to the Law of the Sea.^1 Therefore, the Law of the Sea Convention as such does not govern the relations between States in times of war.^2

In spite of their considerable significance in order to maintain a reasonable balance between a great number of security concerns and the freedom of navigation, the compensation provisions analysed in this study have not played a major role in international dispute settlement. Considering the increasing number of interdiction measures, it seems doubtful whether this lack of application is due to the absence of abusive interferences.