Defence of EEZ: Pakistan's resource rich 5th province.

[Joe Shearer]

When I heard the news of extension of Pakistan' sea boundaries EEZ by UN, I was really happy because I knew what it entailed and how we can use it strategically and benefit both politically and economically by controlling the trade and exploring the resources....a great blessing for Pakistan. For example, we can charge Indian/Iranian ships heavily to offset any benefit they could get via Chabahar trade if they continue to challenge or pose threat to Gawader and CPEC:

Pakistan cannot charge any ship, Indian or anything else, a penny for passing through its waters in the EEZ. That is a right of free passage.

 

[Penguin]

I


In one sentence, UNCLOS represented the final surrender of the eastern conventions governing maritime commerce, and imposed a one-sided legal regime developed and refined by Europeans, for Europeans.



There is no doubt that UNCLOS was needed when it was negotiated and instituted, if for no other reason than to protect the weaker, less belligerent nations from the intimidatory tactics of their unsought rivals: the Europeans into the Indian Ocean, then into the Pacific, the Americans into the Pacific from the other direction, the Japanese against all of south-east Asia, and into China as well, though more on land than on sea, until it seemed that any nation with a strong navy could impose any regime that it wanted to on its hapless neighbours. It is just that an immediate descent to warfare was not a default option in earlier centuries.

"Among the major beneficiaries of the EEZ regime are the United States, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia and the Russian Federation." From:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(A historical perspective)
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm
(read the whole thing, it's interesting)

Another interesting read:

The three-mile limit of territorial seas: a brief history.
by Swarztrauber, Sayre Archie
Published 1970
Topics Political science

ABSTRACT

The three-milo limit originated in the eighteenth century. Previously, states had fixed their seaward boundaries at various limits for various purpose si range of cannon shot for neutrality, range of eyesight for security, and one or more marine leagues for fishing.During the late eighteenth century the French Foreign Office and Italian writers suggested that a uniform limit of three miles might bemore suitable. When forced to proolaim a neutral zone in the war between England and France, the fledgeling United States hurriedly andreluctantly adopted the three-mile limit as a temporary measure in 1793. Great Britain, perceiving the world-wide advantages that such a narrow international limit of territorial waters would afford her vastly superior merchant, naval, and fishing fleets, adopted that limit for herself. Then with the consensus of the other great powers, Britain championed the three-mile limit to its peak of strength as a rule of
international law in the 1920s. Only Soviet Russia, devastated by military defeat and civil war, diplomatically ostracized, and possessing no maritime assets, claimed a greater extent, twelve miles.

During the inter-war period there commenced a series of events and developments leading to the decline and demise of the three-mile rule.World War Two saw the return of Russia as a great power. She reaffirmed her twelve-mile claim and many states followed suit. The United States' 1945 proclamations on the continental shelf and fisheries trig-
gered several Latin American state olaims to 200-mile limits. The United States, having inherited Britain's role as champion of the three-mile limit, was not in a position to defend it forcibly as had the British.

To challenge the Soviet twelve-mile claim and the Latin American 200-mile claims would have risked nuclear war and a disruption of the Inter- American System, respectively. By the end of the 1960's, international agreement had been replaced by an anarchic situation with respect to the extent of the territorial sea. The three-mile limit was dead, having been superseded by several special limits for special purposes.

The study includes an historical summary of the development of the concept of territorial waters. The opinions of publicists; state domestic practice, laws, decrees, and court cases; and international conventions, arbitrations, and tribunals are examined for each historical period of the study. Additionally, the three-mile limit is consider ed in terms of its impact on international relations and from the standpoint of individual states' interests.

The study leads to two conclusions; First, it will require United States-Soviet Union agreement on a limit of territorial seas if the existing law of the sea anarchy is to be overcome. Second, unless the successor to the three-mile limit— presumably the twelve-mile limit—meet with the same fate, states must withdraw their several olaims to special jurisdiction beyond the territorial sea, e. g. , the continental shelf, special fishing rights, security, etc. , and settle on one limitbeyond which the seas and their resources are free for the use of all.

https://archive.org/details/threemilelimitof02swar

 

[war&peace]

Pakistan cannot charge any ship, Indian or anything else, a penny for passing through its waters in the EEZ. That is a right of free passage.

Singapore charges Chinese ships through SCS.

 

[nang2]

Singapore charges Chinese ships through SCS.

What? What happened to freedom of navigation?!

 

[Cyberian]

... Pakistan has nearly 990 kilometers long coast line. With the acceptance of Pakistan’s claim early this year by UN commission for extension of its continental shelf from 200 to 350 nautical miles, its ‘sea bed territory’ has increased by another 50,000 square kilometers to 290,000 square kilometers. This is more than the combined area of Sind and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) provinces. ...

East Pakistan - 148,000 sq km

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, can you do us that favour.

Hope you found that useful. @knight

"Among the major beneficiaries of the EEZ regime are the United States, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Australia and the Russian Federation." From:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(A historical perspective)
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm
(read the whole thing, it's interesting)

Another interesting read:

The three-mile limit of territorial seas: a brief history.
by Swarztrauber, Sayre Archie
Published 1970
Topics Political science

https://archive.org/details/threemilelimitof02swar

Very nice reading.

There are several excellent books on the political economy of the Indian Ocean, which bring out clearly that the Islamic peace and settled commercial practices that prevailed brought unprecedented prosperity to the littoral states. India was a major beneficiary, especially states with a maritime orientation, such as Surat, Calicut (Kozhikode), Kalinga, and Tamralipti.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

I'm not going to debate you just for the sake of debating, which is what you seem intent on doing. For I see not what point(s) you are attempting to make. I have been the one here pointing out ICAO etc. So, thank you and good bye.

You do not want to debate fine ... Please do read about Article 3 Bis of Chicago Convention 1944...

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

That doesn't matter for the treaties that are entered in to by a country: even under a military regime, you still have a distinction between civilian and military activity (e.g. civil aviation and military aviation). It is the activity that is regulated.

bottom-line, If we perceive mischief ,we wont let you swim by our EEZ

whether we have to regulate it militarily or militarily regulate it .

 

[Penguin]

You do not want to debate fine ... Please do read about Article 3 Bis of Chicago Convention 1944...

See my post of May 16 in the thread

Britain says fighters intercept Russian aircraft approaching Baltic states.....

(i.e. I really don't need you lecturing me on this)

https://defence.pk/threads/britain-...hing-baltic-states.430397/page-2#post-8313640

bottom-line, If we perceive mischief ,we wont let you swim by our EEZ

whether we have to regulate it militarily or militarily regulate it .

From the sentence marked in red it is clear to me you have not grasped the difference between 'regulating military activity" and "militarily regulating [something else]"

Bottom line: the EEZ is international waters as far as the sea surface and shipping is concerned. In the EEZ of a coastal state, that state can regulate the use of resources in the water or at/in the seabed. That's it. An EEZ does not give the right to interfere with normal shipping, including the transit of military ships. Period.