Browsing by Author "Savova, Vasilena"

The right to hot pursuit in the international law of the sea, as encompassed in Article 111 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), allows for a coastal state to extend its jurisdiction onto the high seas in order to arrest an escaping foreign vessel. That right is based on the breach by a foreign vessel of two duties. First, the duty to abide by the laws and regulations of the coastal state, within whose waters the vessel is sailing. Second, the duty to respect the signal to stop given by the authorities of the coastal state and not sail to the high seas. The right constitutes an exception to the right to freedom of navigation set out in Article 87(1) of UNCLOS and the exclusive flag-state jurisdiction under Article 94(1) of UNCLOS. Under Article 111, a right to hot pursuit arises provided that a foreign vessel has committed an offence within one of the jurisdictional zones of the coastal state. The latter can commence a pursuit only if it has a good reason to believe that such an offence has been committed and do so with a vessel or an aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service. The hot pursuit has to commence when the foreign vessel is within one of the coastal state’s jurisdictional zones and may only commence when the pursuing vessel gives an auditory or visual signal to stop. The hot pursuit has to start immediately and be carried out without any interruption. Use of force can be used to a certain extend should the foreign vessel refuse to stop. Nonetheless, these criteria or requirements turn out to be rather ambiguous in their practical application. It is, therefore, the purpose of this research to clarify these ambiguities in search of legal certainty. The purpose of this research on a more general level is to determine whether the ambiguities within Article 111 are necessary to allow for the adaptability of the right in different times or they are overstepping the boundaries of the right to hot pursuit and threatening the right to freedom of navigation. The main conclusions that are drawn are the following. First, the right to hot pursuit should, in any case, be interpreted as narrowly as possible and as necessary to preserve the balance between the exceptional right to hot pursuit and the freedom of navigation. Second, modern developments have allowed for states to interpret Article 111 in very broad ways, which has, in certain cases, resulted in a violation of the right to freedom of navigation.