خلاصة:
Basis for the Coastal State’s ban on criminal jurisdiction over foreign ship affairs in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Contiguous Zone is subject to the regulations of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. As the observance of the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea is accepted by the Coastal State by its membership, it shall refrain from enforcing or enacting domestic laws contrary to its requirements. Examining the dimensions of this theory by relying on the dispute between the Coastal State and the Flag State in the case of the Enrica Lexie ship in the Contiguous Zone is one of the objectives and topics of this manuscript to answer the related questions. First, what are the requirements of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in relation to the maritime zones and the criminal jurisdiction of the Coastal State in the Contiguous Zone? Second, what confirms the superiority of the requirements of the Convention on the Law of the Sea over the domestic laws of the Coastal State over the Flag State? The research findings show that the area of maritime zones is subject to the provisions of articles 3, (33)2 and 57 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it is not possible to relocate or integrate them into the domestic laws of the Coastal State. The Coastal State’s criminal jurisdiction over incidents in the Contiguous Zone and the involvement of foreign ships is subject to the provisions of articles 33(1)(a), 58(2), 94(7) and 97(1) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, the criminal jurisdiction of the Coastal State in contrast of the Flag State by ignoring the requirements of different maritime zones and the components of criminal jurisdiction of the Coastal States and the Flag State in domestic law is not effective.
ملخص الجهاز:
Examining the dimensions of this theory, based on the dispute between the coastal state and the flag state in the case of the Enrica Lexie vessel in the contiguous zone, is the aim and subject of this paper to answer related questions; firstly, what are the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding maritime zones and the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal state in the contiguous zone?
In this regard, the framework of the coastal state’s criminal jurisdiction with respect to incidents occurring in the contiguous zone and involving a foreign vessel is subject to the provisions of (a)(1)33, (2)58, (7)94 and (1)97 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, the coastal state’s belief in having criminal jurisdiction against the flag state, by ignoring the requirements governing the different boundaries of maritime zones and the components of exercising criminal jurisdiction of coastal and flag states in their domestic laws, is ineffective.
In these circumstances, the coastal state claims to exercise jurisdiction on two grounds, including the occurrence of a crime within its territorial waters and the occurrence of a crime against its nationals (Mouland: 2019, 174), but the perception of the coastal state is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding the surveillance zone under the title of the territorial sea, where domestic criminal laws prevail.
Coastal states, when ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, tended to consider the exclusive economic zone as part of their territory and, according to domestic laws, to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all incidents occurring in this area.
(
, 
, 
)
