Exclusive Economic Zone Explained
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 19 hours ago
- 18 min read
Introduction
The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a maritime zone beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea in which the coastal state holds extensive but limited rights. Under UNCLOS, an EEZ may reach 200 nautical miles from the baselines used to measure the territorial sea (United Nations, 1982, arts 55-57).
Those rights are not territorial sovereignty. Article 56 grants sovereign rights for specified economic purposes and jurisdiction over defined matters, while Article 58 preserves navigation, overflight, submarine cables and pipelines, and related lawful uses for other states (United Nations, 1982, arts 56 and 58).
A coastal state may control fishing without controlling ordinary navigation and may authorize offshore installations without converting surrounding waters into national territory. Seabed rights can overlap with the continental shelf, while military and survey activities raise questions UNCLOS does not settle with equal precision.
The EEZ also depends on rules outside Part V. Baselines determine reach, maritime features affect entitlement, overlapping claims may require delimitation, and research or environmental enforcement engages other UNCLOS rules.
1. The Exclusive Economic Zone as a Distinct Maritime Zone
Article 55 defines the EEZ as an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea governed by Part V. It is not an extension of territorial sovereignty, and the coastal state does not acquire general authority over every activity occurring within 200 nautical miles (United Nations, 1982, arts 55-56).
Other states retain navigation, overflight, submarine cable and pipeline freedoms, and related lawful uses under Article 58, while resource exploitation and specified regulation remain under coastal competence. The regime allocates legal functions rather than territorial ownership.
Article 86 excludes the EEZ from the sea areas governed by Part VII as high seas, while Article 58(2) applies relevant high-seas rules insofar as compatible with Part V. Coastal rights and third-state freedoms therefore coexist within a distinct maritime regime.
1.1 The Creation of the 200-Nautical-Mile Regime
The modern EEZ emerged from twentieth-century efforts to move coastal resource authority farther offshore. In 1945, the United States asserted jurisdiction and control over resources of its adjacent continental shelf while preserving the legal status of the waters above (United States, 1945a).
A separate U.S. proclamation addressed fisheries conservation zones on the high seas. Latin American states went farther: the 1952 Santiago Declaration by Chile, Ecuador, and Peru asserted exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over maritime areas extending at least 200 nautical miles from their coasts (United States, 1945b; Chile, Ecuador and Peru, 1952).
The 1958 Geneva Conventions did not establish a general 200-nautical-mile zone. By UNCLOS III, broader fisheries zones and offshore resource claims had become central to negotiations. Part V accommodated those demands without extending territorial sovereignty to 200 nautical miles, while preserving major maritime freedoms for other states (Leanza and Caracciolo, 2014).
1.2 Sovereignty, Sovereign Rights, and Jurisdiction
Sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction describe different forms of authority. Article 2 extends coastal-state sovereignty to the territorial sea, including its airspace, seabed, and subsoil. That territorial sovereignty does not continue automatically into the EEZ (United Nations, 1982, art. 2).
Article 56 uses narrower language. Sovereign rights concern specified economic purposes, principally exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of natural resources. They are functional rights rather than territorial title over the waters.
Jurisdiction is limited to artificial islands, installations and structures; marine scientific research; and protection of the marine environment (United Nations, 1982, art. 56). A coastal measure must be tied to an assigned competence rather than location alone.
The International Court of Justice recognized the EEZ institution, including distance-based entitlement, as customary international law in Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) (ICJ, 1985, para. 34). That finding does not establish identical customary status for every detailed Part V rule (Andreone, 2015).
2. The 200-Nautical-Mile Limit
The 200-nautical-mile figure is a maximum distance-based entitlement, not a guaranteed boundary. Article 57 measures the possible outer limit of the EEZ from the baselines used for the territorial sea. Where neighboring entitlements overlap, the final boundary may lie substantially inside that distance (United Nations, 1982, art. 57).
Measurement and delimitation answer different questions. Baseline rules determine where distance is calculated from, while delimitation determines how competing entitlements are divided between neighboring states. A coast may generate a 200-nautical-mile entitlement in principle without receiving that full distance at every point.
The validity of the baseline can also affect the reach of the claim. Normal, straight, and archipelagic baselines are governed by different UNCLOS rules, and an excessive baseline may improperly push dependent maritime limits seaward. EEZ analysis consequently begins with the relevant coast and baseline.
2.1 Baselines and Maritime Measurement
For most coasts, the normal baseline is the low-water line shown on officially recognized large-scale charts (United Nations, 1982, art. 5). It is the starting point from which the territorial sea and maximum EEZ distance are measured.
UNCLOS permits straight baselines only where Article 7 is satisfied. Qualifying archipelagic states may draw archipelagic baselines under Article 47 and measure the territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf from them under Article 48 (United Nations, 1982, arts 7 and 47-48).
Article 57 measures the EEZ from those baselines, not from the outer edge of a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. Where both zones are claimed at full breadth, the EEZ begins beyond the territorial sea but may extend only to 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
States commonly assert EEZs through legislation or proclamations. Part V contains no equivalent to Article 77(3), which expressly makes continental-shelf rights independent of proclamation. Authorities differ on whether formal EEZ establishment is always constitutive (Andreone, 2015).
2.2 Overlapping Maritime Entitlements
Opposite coasts less than 400 nautical miles apart may generate overlapping EEZ entitlements, while adjacent coasts can produce similar overlaps depending on their configuration. The problem is not that either coast necessarily lacks an entitlement; it is that both potential entitlements cannot be enjoyed in full in the same space.
Entitlement and delimitation must remain separate. Entitlement asks what maritime area a coast or qualifying island can generate under the law of the sea. Delimitation determines how competing entitlements are divided once they overlap. A potential 200-nautical-mile entitlement is not an automatic final boundary.
Article 74 governs delimitation between states with opposite or adjacent coasts and requires agreement on the basis of international law to achieve an equitable solution (United Nations, 1982, art. 74). The Convention thus distinguishes Article 57's maximum distance from the boundary ultimately established between neighboring states.
3. Coastal-State Rights Under UNCLOS Article 56
Article 56 is the doctrinal center of the EEZ regime because it identifies what the coastal state may control. Sovereign rights attach to specified economic purposes, while jurisdiction is confined to designated matters. The provision does not create a general police power throughout the zone.
A single activity may engage several legal regimes. Offshore drilling can involve continental-shelf resource rights, an installation governed by Article 60, environmental duties under Part XII, and navigation interests protected by Article 58. Each regulatory measure needs its own legal basis.
Article 56(2) also requires due regard for the rights and duties of other states. Coastal authority is extensive but not absolute. UNCLOS places it alongside continuing maritime freedoms and requires each set of rights to be exercised within its assigned limits.
3.1 Living and Non-Living Natural Resources
Article 56(1)(a) grants sovereign rights over living and non-living natural resources in the waters above the seabed and in the seabed and subsoil. Fisheries are the clearest water-column example; oil, natural gas, and minerals illustrate seabed resources (United Nations, 1982, art. 56(1)(a)).
These rights are exclusive within their assigned sphere. Foreign vessels do not acquire a right to fish merely because they may navigate through the same waters. Nor may a foreign company exploit hydrocarbons on another state's continental shelf within its EEZ without a lawful basis.
Article 56(3) directs EEZ rights concerning the seabed and subsoil to the continental-shelf provisions. The regimes may cover the same seabed within 200 nautical miles, but their legal foundations remain distinct.
Water-column living resources are principally governed through the EEZ regime, while minerals, hydrocarbons, and sedentary species fall within continental-shelf law. Treating every seabed resource simply as an 'EEZ resource' can obscure the separate source of coastal rights.
3.2 Energy and Other Economic Uses
Article 56 reaches beyond conventional extraction. It expressly recognizes sovereign rights concerning other activities for the economic exploration and exploitation of the zone, including production of energy from water, currents, and winds (United Nations, 1982, art. 56(1)(a)). The provision therefore encompasses economic uses that do not depend on removing a resource.
Offshore renewable-energy projects illustrate that breadth. A wind farm may fall within the coastal state's economic rights, while its turbines, platforms, cables, and associated infrastructure can simultaneously engage Article 60, navigation rules, environmental obligations, and continental-shelf rights. Several UNCLOS provisions may govern the same project.
Article 56 supplies the economic entitlement but does not displace separate rules on construction, safety, environmental effects, or third-state rights. Coastal regulation must remain tied to the particular legal competence involved. The EEZ is a framework of allocated powers, not one undifferentiated right over offshore activity.
4. Fisheries Rights, Conservation, and Enforcement
Fisheries were a major force behind the development of the EEZ, and UNCLOS gives the coastal state the central management role over living resources. That authority is coupled with conservation and utilization duties, so control over access cannot be separated from the obligation to manage stocks within the treaty framework.
The regime separates allowable catch and conservation, harvesting capacity and foreign access, and enforcement. Article 73 supplies coercive powers for fisheries violations, but those powers are constrained by prompt-release, penalty, and notification requirements.
Stocks that cross jurisdictional boundaries may require cooperation beyond one EEZ. Articles 63-67 address several shared or migratory resources, while the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement adds rules for its parties. Coastal primacy therefore coexists with cooperation where biology crosses legal boundaries.
4.1 Conservation and Allowable Catch
Article 61 requires the coastal state to determine allowable catch and ensure that living resources are not endangered by over-exploitation (United Nations, 1982, art. 61). Conservation is part of fisheries jurisdiction rather than a discretionary policy choice.
Measures must use the best scientific evidence available and aim to maintain or restore populations at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. UNCLOS qualifies that objective by environmental and economic factors, including coastal fishing communities and the special requirements of developing states (United Nations, 1982, art. 61(3)).
The Convention also requires attention to associated or dependent species and appropriate cooperation. Articles 63-67 add rules for stocks crossing jurisdictions or possessing distinctive biological characteristics, linking EEZ conservation to wider marine-resource management.
For parties to the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, straddling and highly migratory stocks are subject to additional cooperation and compatibility requirements. Measures inside and beyond national jurisdiction should remain compatible without displacing coastal sovereign rights within the EEZ (United Nations, 1995, art. 7).
4.2 Foreign Access to Surplus Stocks
Freedom of navigation in an EEZ does not include freedom to fish. Article 62 places harvesting under coastal-state resource jurisdiction and defines the conditions for foreign access. A foreign vessel needs a lawful basis to exploit living resources even though it may navigate through the same waters without comparable permission.
Where the coastal state lacks capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, Article 62(2) requires access to the surplus through agreements or other arrangements, subject to UNCLOS and lawful coastal regulations. The obligation concerns surplus identified after domestic harvesting capacity is assessed, not an unrestricted foreign entitlement.
Article 62(3) permits consideration of coastal economic and national interests, regional developing-state requirements, and economic dislocation in states whose nationals have habitually fished in the zone or which have made substantial efforts in research and stock identification. Articles 69 and 70 create additional qualified participation rights, not automatic access.
4.3 Fisheries Enforcement Under Article 73
Article 73 authorizes measures necessary to secure compliance with fisheries laws adopted consistently with UNCLOS, including boarding, inspection, arrest, and judicial proceedings (United Nations, 1982, art. 73(1)). Enforcement authority follows from coastal living-resource competence rather than territorial sovereignty over the EEZ.
In M/V Virginia G, ITLOS recognized coastal authority to regulate bunkering of foreign vessels engaged in fishing in the EEZ, while distinguishing bunkering unrelated to fishing (ITLOS, 2014, paras 217, 222-223). The judgment ties enforcement to the regulated activity's connection with coastal resource rights.
Arrested vessels and crews must be promptly released upon reasonable bond or security. Unless the states concerned agree otherwise, fisheries penalties may not include imprisonment or corporal punishment (United Nations, 1982, art. 73(2)-(3)).
Article 73(4) also requires prompt notification of the flag state, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and any penalties subsequently imposed. Strong fisheries enforcement therefore remains subject to express treaty safeguards for foreign vessels and crews.
5. The EEZ, Continental Shelf, and Offshore Structures
The EEZ and continental shelf often occupy the same geographical area, but they answer different legal questions. The EEZ includes water-column resource rights and specified jurisdiction, while continental-shelf law concerns the seabed and subsoil beyond the territorial sea. Article 78 confirms that shelf rights do not alter the status of waters or airspace above.
The distinction matters for minerals, hydrocarbons, sedentary species, and areas beyond 200 nautical miles. Describing all seabed interests merely as EEZ rights can conceal the separate legal basis of the continental shelf and the different rules governing its existence, extent, and relationship with third-state freedoms.
Artificial islands and installations add another layer. Article 60 gives the coastal state construction and regulatory powers in the EEZ, but the structures do not become natural islands. Their safety zones, removal, and relationship with navigation are governed by specific treaty rules rather than territorial sovereignty.
5.1 EEZ Rights and the Continental Shelf
In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the International Court of Justice described shelf rights as existing ipso facto and ab initio by virtue of sovereignty over land territory (ICJ, 1969, para. 19). Article 77(3) likewise states that shelf rights do not depend on occupation or express proclamation.
Within 200 nautical miles, the EEZ and continental shelf can apply to the same seabed without merging. Article 56(3) directs seabed and subsoil rights in the EEZ to Part VI, while Article 77 identifies resources governed by continental-shelf law (United Nations, 1982, arts 56(3) and 77).
Fish swimming in the water column fall within the EEZ fisheries regime, while minerals, hydrocarbons, and sedentary species are governed by continental-shelf rights. Article 78 preserves the status of superjacent waters and airspace.
The coastal state may exercise both sets of rights in the same area, but each measure must rest on the correct legal basis, particularly where seabed activity affects navigation, cables, environmental regulation, or another third-state interest.
5.2 Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles
An EEZ cannot extend beyond 200 nautical miles, but continental-shelf entitlement may reach farther where Article 76 is satisfied. The outer shelf is determined through the geological and geomorphological criteria, formulas, and constraints contained in that provision rather than by extending the EEZ seaward (United Nations, 1982, art. 76).
Beyond 200 nautical miles, the coastal state's shelf rights remain rights over the seabed and subsoil. They do not create an EEZ in the waters above. Those waters retain the legal status that otherwise applies, while the coastal state continues to exercise exclusive rights over continental-shelf resources.
The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf examines scientific and technical submissions and makes recommendations; it does not create entitlement. Outer limits established on the basis of those recommendations are final and binding under Article 76(8), while Article 76(10) preserves maritime delimitation questions between states.
5.3 Artificial Islands and Installations
Article 60 gives the coastal state the exclusive right to construct, authorize, and regulate artificial islands and specified installations and structures in its EEZ. It also grants exclusive jurisdiction over them in fields including customs, fiscal, health, safety, and immigration laws (United Nations, 1982, art. 60).
Safety zones generally may not exceed 500 meters from each point of the outer edge unless accepted international standards authorize a greater distance or the competent international organization recommends otherwise (United Nations, 1982, art. 60(5)).
Abandoned or disused structures must be removed to ensure navigation safety, with due regard to fishing, the marine environment, and other states' rights. Where removal is incomplete, appropriate publicity must identify what remains (United Nations, 1982, art. 60(3)).
Artificial islands do not possess the status of islands, generate no territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf, and do not affect maritime delimitation (United Nations, 1982, art. 60(8)). Construction creates regulatory consequences without creating new maritime entitlement.
6. Navigation and Other States' Rights
Article 58 preserves navigation, overflight, submarine cables and pipelines, and related lawful uses in the EEZ. Coastal economic rights therefore coexist with continuing mobility and communications interests. The zone does not become territorial waters merely because the coastal state possesses extensive resource rights within it.
The balance depends on the activity. Ordinary navigation, fishing, seabed exploitation, pollution enforcement, marine scientific research, and military operations do not receive identical legal treatment. UNCLOS assigns specific rights and duties instead of providing one general rule for every foreign use within 200 nautical miles.
Due regard is the principal coordinating obligation, while Article 59 supplies a residual rule where Part V attributes the disputed right or jurisdiction to neither side. Military, intelligence, and some survey activities remain contested because the Convention does not resolve them with the same specificity as fisheries or navigation.
6.1 Navigation in the EEZ
Foreign ships enjoy freedom of navigation in the EEZ under Article 58. That regime differs from innocent passage through the territorial sea, which reflects coastal sovereignty over those waters. A vessel does not need coastal authorization merely to navigate through an EEZ (United Nations, 1982, arts 17 and 58).
Article 58(3) nevertheless requires states exercising EEZ freedoms to have due regard to coastal rights and duties and to comply with coastal laws adopted consistently with UNCLOS and other applicable international law. Navigation freedom is not immunity from every lawful coastal measure.
Fisheries enforcement and vessel-source pollution illustrate the distinction. A coastal state may exercise powers assigned by UNCLOS without converting navigation into a permission-based regime. Domestic legislation likewise cannot transform the EEZ into territorial waters or remove freedoms the Convention preserves.
6.2 Due Regard and Article 59
Due regard operates in both directions. Article 56(2) requires the coastal state to consider the rights and duties of other states, while Article 58(3) places a corresponding obligation on states exercising freedoms and lawful uses. Neither side may treat its assigned rights as if competing rights did not exist.
In the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration, the Annex VII tribunal treated due regard as contextual. The degree of regard required depends on the nature and importance of the competing rights, the anticipated impairment, and the surrounding circumstances (Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration, 2015, para. 519).
Article 59 addresses conflicts where Part V attributes the relevant right or jurisdiction to neither side. Such conflicts should be resolved on the basis of equity and all relevant circumstances, taking account of the importance of the interests involved to the parties and the international community (United Nations, 1982, art. 59).
6.3 Military and Intelligence Activities
UNCLOS does not comprehensively state whether naval exercises, surveillance, intelligence gathering, weapons tests, or military surveys in another state's EEZ require coastal consent. States advance competing readings of Articles 58, 59, 88, and 301 (Yang, 2010; Kraska, 2015).
The United States treats prior-consent requirements for military exercises as excessive maritime claims. Thailand, by contrast, declared on ratifying UNCLOS that freedom of navigation excludes certain non-peaceful uses without coastal consent, particularly military exercises or activities affecting coastal interests (Thailand, 2011; United States Department of Defense, 2024).
Because the United States is not a UNCLOS party, its position is evidence of state practice and its view of customary law, not performance of Part V as a treaty obligation. Treaty-party positions must likewise be distinguished from express UNCLOS rules.
Part XIII requires consent for marine scientific research, but UNCLOS does not classify every hydrographic, military data-collection, or intelligence survey as scientific research. Military uses remain subject to applicable UNCLOS duties for parties and to broader UN Charter and customary rules on force.
7. Research, Islands, and Maritime Boundaries
Marine scientific research, maritime features, and delimitation determine different aspects of coastal authority in the EEZ. Research engages a consent regime distinct from ordinary navigation, islands and rocks affect the capacity to generate maritime zones, and delimitation determines where competing entitlements are divided.
These subjects show why Part V cannot be read in isolation. Research is regulated principally by Part XIII, environmental powers interact with Part XII, island entitlement is governed by Article 121, and overlapping EEZ claims fall under Article 74 together with the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals.
The distinctions between consent and freedom, natural and artificial features, and entitlement and delimitation are especially important. Confusing them can turn limited coastal powers into overstated sovereignty claims or make a potential maritime entitlement appear more extensive than international law permits.
7.1 Marine Scientific Research and Environmental Powers
UNCLOS gives the coastal state express jurisdiction over marine scientific research in the EEZ. Part XIII requires consent for research in the zone and on the continental shelf. In normal circumstances, Article 246 requires consent for peaceful projects intended to increase scientific knowledge of the marine environment (United Nations, 1982, art. 246).
Article 246 permits withholding consent in specified circumstances, including projects directly significant for resource exploration or exploitation and projects involving drilling, explosives, harmful substances, or specified offshore structures. Coastal control is substantial but operates within the treaty's defined grounds.
Articles 248 and 249 regulate advance information, participation, and access to data and results, while Article 253 permits suspension or cessation in specified cases of non-compliance (United Nations, 1982, arts 248-249 and 253).
Environmental jurisdiction follows a separate structure. Article 56 recognizes competence to protect the marine environment, while Part XII supplies limits. Articles 211 and 220 regulate vessel-source pollution and related enforcement; environmental concern does not create an unrestricted coastal police power.
7.2 Islands, Rocks, and EEZ Entitlements
Article 121(1) defines an island as naturally formed land, surrounded by water and above water at high tide. Subject to Article 121(3), an island generates the same maritime zones as other land territory, including an EEZ and continental shelf (United Nations, 1982, art. 121(1)-(2)).
Article 121(3) provides that rocks unable to sustain human habitation or economic life of their own have no EEZ or continental shelf. Even a small qualifying feature, however, may generate extensive maritime zones.
In the South China Sea Arbitration, the Annex VII tribunal treated Article 121(3) as an inquiry into a feature's objective capacity in its natural condition. External support does not by itself establish the ability to sustain habitation or economic life of its own (South China Sea Arbitration, 2016, paras 542, 545 and 547-550).
The arbitral tribunal rendered the award; the Permanent Court of Arbitration acted as registry. Entitlement also differs from delimitation: a qualifying island may receive reduced boundary effect, while artificial islands generate no maritime zones and low-tide elevations are governed separately by Article 13.
7.3 Delimiting Overlapping EEZs
Article 74 governs delimitation of overlapping EEZs and requires agreement on the basis of international law to achieve an equitable solution (United Nations, 1982, art. 74(1)). The Convention does not require a single formula or equidistance in every case.
In Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), the International Court of Justice applied a provisional equidistance line and considered relevant circumstances requiring possible adjustment (ICJ, 2009, paras 115-121). This technique implements Article 74's equitable-solution requirement.
The Court then performed a disproportionality check comparing coastal lengths with allocated maritime areas (ICJ, 2009, para. 122). The significance of islands, concavity, coastal configuration, or cut-off effects depends on the dispute.
Delimitation remains distinct from entitlement. A coast may generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ even when the final boundary lies closer because another entitlement overlaps it. A feature incapable of generating an EEZ under Article 121(3) contributes no such entitlement.
Pending agreement, Article 74(3) requires provisional practical arrangements and restraint from jeopardizing or hampering a final agreement. Temporary fisheries or joint-development arrangements can manage an overlap without prejudicing the eventual boundary.
Also read
Conclusion
An exclusive economic zone gives the coastal state extensive economic rights and defined jurisdiction without extending territorial sovereignty to 200 nautical miles. Its strongest powers concern natural resources, fisheries, offshore activity, installations, marine scientific research, and environmental protection. Those powers operate within assigned legal fields.
Other states retain navigation, overflight, cable and pipeline freedoms in the same waters. Due regard, sector-specific rules, and Article 59 govern their interaction, while military and survey activities remain areas of disagreement in state practice and legal interpretation.
The EEZ is best understood as a functional distribution of authority. The decisive question is which state has which right over a resource, activity, installation, or maritime area, the limits on that right, and how overlapping entitlements are reconciled under the law of the sea.
References
Andreone, G. (2015) ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone’, in Rothwell, D.R., Oude Elferink, A.G., Scott, K.N. and Stephens, T. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–180.
Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to UNCLOS (2015) Award in the Arbitration regarding the Chagos Marine Protected Area between Mauritius and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, award, 18 March, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXXI, pp. 359–606, PCA Case No. 2011-03.
Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to UNCLOS (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, award, 12 July, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXXIII, pp. 153–617, PCA Case No. 2013-19.
Chile, Ecuador and Peru (1952) Declaration on the Maritime Zone, signed at Santiago 18 August 1952, entered into force 18 August 1952, 1006 UNTS 323.
International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), judgment, 20 February, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.
International Court of Justice (1985) Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), judgment, 3 June, ICJ Reports 1985, p. 13.
International Court of Justice (2009) Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine), judgment, 3 February, ICJ Reports 2009, p. 61.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2014) M/V “Virginia G” (Panama/Guinea-Bissau), judgment, 14 April, ITLOS Reports 2014, p. 4.
Kraska, J. (2015) ‘Military Operations’, in Rothwell, D.R., Oude Elferink, A.G., Scott, K.N. and Stephens, T. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 866–887.
Leanza, U. and Caracciolo, M.C. (2014) ‘The Exclusive Economic Zone’, in Attard, D.J., Fitzmaurice, M. and Martínez Gutiérrez, N.A. (eds) The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law. Volume I: The Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–216.
Thailand (2011) Declaration upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratification effected 15 May 2011, reproduced in United Nations Depositary Notification C.N.291.2011.TREATIES-4, 25 May 2011 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/cn/2011/cn.291.2011-eng.pdf (Accessed: 9 August 2026).
United Nations (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3.
United Nations (1995) Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, adopted 4 August 1995, entered into force 11 December 2001, 2167 UNTS 3.
United States (1945a) Proclamation No. 2667—Policy of the United States With Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, 28 September 1945 [online]. Available at: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/150/proclamation-2667-policy-united-states-respect-natural-resources-subsoil (Accessed: 10 August 2026).
United States (1945b) Proclamation No. 2668—Policy of the United States with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas, 28 September 1945, 10 Fed. Reg. 12304 [online]. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/02668.html (Accessed: 10 August 2026).
United States Department of Defense (2025) Freedom of Navigation Operational Challenges Fiscal Year 2024 [online]. Available at: https://policy.defense.gov/Portals/11/Documents/FON/TAB%20A%20-%20Summary%20of%20FY24%20Operational%20Challenges.pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2026).
Yang, F. (2010) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) regime in East Asian waters: Military and intelligence-gathering activities, Marine Scientific Research (MSR) and hydrographic surveys in an EEZ. RSIS Working Paper No. 198. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University [online]. Available at: https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/idss/198-wp198-exclusive-economic-zon/ (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
