COUNTRERMEASURES AS MEANS OF ADDRESSING THE INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE OF SUBMARINE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE EEZ
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46763/Schlagwörter:
law of the sea, countermeasures, submarine critical infrastructure, submarine cables and pipelinesAbstract
The concept of countermeasures discussed by the International Law
Commission (ILC) in the 2001 draft on State Responsibility for
Prohibited Acts (ASR) derives from reprisals, a measure used by States
as a form of self-help to facilitate the enforcement of international
obligations. However, in the second place, the countermeasures are also
mentioned as means facilitating the process of solving of international
disputes.
Submarine critical infrastructure is an attractive target for ‘grey zone
operations’ below the threshold of armed conflict where i.e. so-called
shadow fleet is involved. Such incidents, which often take place within
the EEZ form a breach of rights of coastal states and therefore the resort
to countermeasures seems one of the legitimate ways to respond.
Countermeasures are supposed to fill the gap resulting out of the fact
that non-flag states are allowed to board the ship on the basis of right of
visit only in some, restrictively specified, and cases. For that reason, it
is not easy to attribute the incident to the flag state on the basis of
effective control.
Hence, injured states seem to be allowed to resort to countermeasures
within the EEZ when the responsibility would be based on the omission
of the flag state, providing that the measures would be applied
according to the ASR. However, it has to be considered, whether those
provisions reflect the current state of customary law in this respect.
Downloads
Literaturhinweise
Award in the arbitration regarding the delimitation of the maritime boundary
between Guyana and Suriname, Award of 17 September 2007, UNRIAA,
Vol. XXX,
Azaria D., Treaties on the Transit of Energy via Pipelines, Oxford 2015.
Azaria D., Treaties on the Transit of Energy via Pipelines.
Beckman R., Protecting Submarine Cables from Intentional Damage - The Security
Gap [in:] Submarine Cables The Handbook of Law and Policy (ed.) D.R.
Burnett, R.C. Beckman, T.M. Davenport, Leiden – Boston 2014.
Burnett D.R., OSPAR and Coastal State Encroachment on High Seas Submarine
Cable Freedoms [in:] Sustainable Ocean Resource Governance Deep Sea
Mining, Marine Energy and Submarine Cables, M.Kotzur, N.Matz-Lück,
A.Proelss, R.Verheyen, J.Sanden (eds), Leiden – Boston 2018.
Case concerning the Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United
States of America and France, decision of 9 December 1978, UNRIAA, vol.
XVIII (Sales No. E/F.80.V.7),
Crawford J., State Responsibility, The General Part, Cambridge 2013.
Czapliński W., Wyrozumska A., Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Zagadnienia
systemowe [Public International Law. Systems issues], 3’rd ed., Warsaw
2014.
de Vattel E., The Law Of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the
Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, transl. by J.Chitty,
Philadelphia 1863 , Book 2.
GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project (HungarylSlovakia), Judgment, 1. C. J. Reports
1997.
Guilfoyle D., Article 91. Nationality of Ships [in:] United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea. A Commentary, ed. Alexander Proelss (Munich/Oxford/
Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2017), 692-700.
Guilfoyle D., Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea, Cambridge University
Press 2009.
ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol.II, Part.Two, 128-129 [4].
International Law Association, Submarine Cables and Pipelines under International
Law, Final Report: Conclusions on Monitoring, Prevention and Response at
Sea in Respect of Intentional Damage to Submarine Cables and Pipelines,
June 2026, not published.
Kamiński T., The status of straight baselines and the so-called creeping jurisdiction
of coastal states, [in:] T.Kamiński, K.Karski (ed.), 40 Years of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Assessment and Prospects,
Routledge, London 2025, 50-62.
Klein N., Responding to Law of the Sea Violations, 2021, UNSWLRS 75.
Lesaffre H., Cirsumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the ILC Articles on State
Responsibility: Countermeasures, [in:] J.Crawford, A.Pellet, S.Olleson (ed.),
The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford 2010, 469-473.
M/V Saiga (No.2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea, 1 July 1999,
Judgment, ITLOS Reports 1999.
Militarv and Puramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986.
Pedrozo R.(P)., Safeguarding Submarine Cables and Pipelines in Times of Peace and
War, International Law Studies, Vol. 106, 2025, 45-65.
Rayfuse R.G., Non-Flag State Enforcement in High Seas Fisheries, Leiden-Boston
2004.
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session (23
April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001), ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol. II Part
Two, ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol. II Part Two, 1-208.
Roach J.A., Excessive Maritime Claims, 4 ‘th ed., Leiden – Boston 2021.
Szwedo P., Środki odwetowe w prawie Światowej Organizacji Handlu
[Countermeasures in WTO law], Warsaw 2008.
Tams Ch. J., Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law, Cambridge
2005.
The IMLI Manual of International Maritime Law (ed. D.J.Attard), Marine
Environmental Law and Maritime Security Law (ed. M.Fitzmaurice, N.A.
Martínez Gutiérrez, R.Hamza), Volume III, E.Papastavridis, The Illicit
Trafficking of Drugs, Oxford University Press 2016.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982,
1833 UNTS 3.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran)
(Judgment) [1980] ICJ Rep 3.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1980.
Warner R., The High Seas Regime: a Model of Self-regulation? [in:] Routledge
Handbook of Maritime Regulation and Enforcement (ed.) R.Warner and
S.Kaye, London and New York, 2016, 16-26.
