Multiple states have opted out of dispute resolution for settling issues with military activities in their EEZ
A number of States, in ratifying the Convention, have chosen to declare that they do not accept procedures for disputes concerning military activities. As of October 16, 2001, those States include Cape Verde, Chile, France, It- aly, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Tunisia."258 Others, such as India, Pakistan and The United Kingdom, have reserved judgment, per- haps waiting to make a declaration if and when the issue presents itself.259
Given the language of Article 298, and the concomitant proclivity on the part of maritime nations---especially the United States, which is not yet even a party to the Convention-to treat their naval vessels as sovereign entities ex- empt from the normal obligations of commercial vessels plying the seas, it is highly probable that these maritime nations would invoke Article 298 in every case.260 Thus, when disputes arise regarding the military activities of a flag State in the EEZ of a coastal State, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the flag state would submit to the dispute resolution mechanisms of the Convention.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
The United States, as authorized by Article 298, would exempt “military activities” from compulsory dispute resolution. Under the Convention, a state party has the exclusive right to determine what constitutes a “military activity.” The U.S. declaration states:Related Quotes:
- US has made clear numerous times that military activities including intelligence gathering would not be subject to dispute resolution
- Article 310 of UNCLOS allows ratifying parties to submit signing statements to clarify their intent
- U.S. signing statements for UNCLOS outlined and clarified seven critical issues for U.S. support
- In prepared signing statements, U.S. has declared an exemption for its military activities from compulsory dispute resolution
- ... and 14 more quote(s)