The Great Tuna Boat Chase and Massacre Case has Ecuador claiming that the United States is in violation of its 200-mile territorial sea. From it’s inception, Ecuador had accepted the customary three mile limit as the demarcation of its territorial waters. However, after 130 years, Juan Valdez achieved power in 1952. Under his regime, he proclaimed that the three mile boundary was never meant to be considered a fixed and unalterable boundary, and that historical practices as well as the natural features of the area justified a 200-mile territorial sea. Each Ecuadorian president since Valdez claimed this as well.
Under the UN 1982 treaty, a state’s territorial sea extends twelve nautical miles from the national coastline (Slomanson 305). Within this area, Ecuador exercises its sovereignty over these waters as if it were a landmass (Slomanson 305). All aspects of the sea are under its control, including the seabed and airspace. Furthermore, Ecuador is allowed to impose laws that regulate the territory and consume resources that lie inside this defined area. Within this territorial sea, Ecuador “must exercise its sovereign power in this adjacent strip of water” (Slomanson 305). Additionally, Ecuador is expected to chart this water and to provide warning of navigational hazards (Slomanson 305). However, Ecuador did not act upon this and was “lax in enforcing it”. In 1951, the International Court of Justice issued this statement in response to a ruling:
“To every State whose land territory is at any place washed by the sea, international law attaches a corresponding portion of maritime territory consisting of what the law calls territorial waters... No maritime States can refuse them. International law imposes upon a m...
... middle of paper ...
... laws governing the activities of foreign states in its EEZ. Ecuador’s blatant violation demonstrates their lack of respect for UN law. Donald Thomas was simply conducting his business to preserve his quality of life and his rights were infringed upon. To allow this case to go unresolved endangers the livelihood of many more fishermen. Ruling in favor of Ecuador would set a precedent that has far-reaching consequences: Exclusive Economic Zones are territorial waters. As a result, rights would be granted to States in their territorial waters that were not intended to be by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The violence exhibited by the Ecuadorian navy shows a lack of restraint parallel to the actions of rogue nations. The United States continues to insist that Ecuador did not meet the customary international standard in handling this situation.
United Nations , "United Nations and Convention on the Law of the Sea:Division for Ocean Affairs and the LAw of the Sea." Accessed November 27, 2013. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm.
On July 1st 1934, Alcatraz opened officially as a federal prison. Previously, the island of Alcatraz was a military prison that held criminals from the American Civil War. Alcatraz was meant to hold only the most disruptive inmates so they could learn how to follow rules. Alcatraz inmates lived under harsh conditions with few privileges.
...ield, James Blaine was no longer Secretary of State and Trescott –in representation of US government- had to sign the protocol of Viña del Mar (February 1882) accepting “the Chilean principle that peace depended on territorial transfer” from Peru. Chile had imposed its conditions and -as Heraldo Muñoz says- the United States “lost prestige in Chile due to its behavior in the War of the Pacific.”
...to pay 15 billion dollars to the Ecuadorian State to end the conflict. Chevron which has never had a refinery in Ecuador, must be acknowledgeable of the acts of its subsidiary (The Independent)
Drumbl, M. B. (2007). International Decisions. American Society of International Law , 101 (4), 841-848.
The Rio Grande River makes a natural barrier between Mexico and Texas. There are currently old policies or prohibitions that “bans any barriers from blocking the flow of rivers.” (Aguilera 2). Diplomacy is needed for the two countries to cooperate and share the river in a fair way. “’The means of physically marking the maritime boundaries and the division of work for construction and maintenance of the markers’…will be determined when ‘the two Governments’ are in full agreement, pending approval from the International Boundary and Water Compromise.” (“Up Against the…”5)
With newly acquired land the United States has become to within 90 miles of Cuba. Secretary of State John Quincy Adam sends a letter to Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson speculating the likelihood of U.S. “annexation of Cuba” within half a century in spite of deterrents:
The first article, entitled “National Constitutional Compatibility and the International Criminal Court”, is written by Helen Duffy and published in the Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law. The second article, entitled “Reasonable Doubt: The Case against the Proposed International Criminal Court”, is written by Gary T. Dempsey and published online at the Cato Institute website. Duffy’s article was published late in 2001, a contrast to Dempsey’s article which was published in 1998, just one day prior to the International Rome conference on July 17th that resulted in the establishment of the ICC. Many of the incongruencies in the ICC treaty that troubled Americans three years ago have yet to be brought into balance with American values. These two papers give similar, although at times slightly different, viewpoints on the issue.
Laver, R. C. (2001). The Falklands/Malvinas Case: Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute. Developments in International Law , 40, 66-71.
The presumption is that a state jurisdiction is territorial and if each State has jurisdiction over its own territory, consequently, other States do not have jurisdiction over those affairs in line with the international law principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality of States . In fact, territorial jurisdiction is universally recognized. However, as Ryngaert points out, jurisdiction is not only linked with sovereign and is no exclusively of domestic concern (Ryngaert, p. 7), making reference to the “extra-territorial
Deirdre M. Warner-Kramer & Krista Canty, Stateless Fishing Vessels: The Current International Regime and a New Approach, (2000).
On August 15th, 1914, the Panama Canal opened, connecting the world's two largest oceans, and firmly positioned the U.S. as the next global superpower. American ingenuity and innovation had succeeded where, 15 years earlier, the French had failed disastrously. The U.S. however, paid a cost normally associated with a pyrrhic victory; a decade of ceaseless, grinding toil, an outlay of more than 350 million dollars (the largest single federal expenditure in history to that time), and the loss of more than 5,000 lives. Central America also witnessed the brazen overthrow of a sovereign government, the influx of over 55,000 workers from around the globe, the removal of hundreds of millions of tons of earth, and engineering innovation on an unprecedented scale. The construction of the Canal was the epitome of man's mastery over nature. The result of it completion however meant for the first time there was an international waterway connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, via the Caribbean Ocean. This route simplified the passage of ships between these two bodies of water, by cutting across the Isthmus of Panama. ...
According to Article 38 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” in its decisions (Kritsiotis 123). In other words, the International Court of Justice cites customs as a formal source of law. According to Roberto Unger, author of Law in a Modern Society, customary international law is best defined as “any recurring mode of interaction among individuals and groups, together with the more or less explicit acknowledgement of these groups and individuals that such patterns of interaction produce reciprocal expectations of conduct that out to be satisfied (Shaw 72-73). In other words, customary international laws are primarily concerned with how and why sates behave in a particular manner. Customs derive from the behavior of states (state practice) and the subconscious belief that a behavior is inherently legal (opinio juris). Evidence of state behavior is documented in the decisions of domestic courts, international courts, and international organizations. Unlike treaty law, customary laws are binding on all states. Additionally, if a treaty derives from a custom it is also binding on all states. Some of the international court cases that have been instrumental in the development of customary international law include the Nicaragua v. United States case, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Scotia case, the Asylum case, the Paquete Habana case, and the Lotus case.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) has been managing maritime issues fundamentally for years and acceptable as the basic convention on solving maritime dilemmas. Not only dispute among states but also managing sea resources among states. Remarkably, maritime issues have been developing into more complex and complicated regarding the modernization, globalization and transnational problems. This convention alone is not enough to provide complete guidance to manage the confronting interests on the sea.
Many controversies have arisen nowadays as to whether international law is “natural law”, international law now faces considerable criticism as to its effectiveness as law and doubts as to its actual existence, and its power to bind countries .