Determining Limits of National Sovereignty

Dr. B. A. Hamzah, Director-General, Maritime Institute of Malaysia, presented a paper on "Determining the Limits of National Sovereignty: A Delicate Balancing Act." Dr. Hamzah noted that the views are his, and not official Government of Malaysia policy. He said that in years past, some maritime nations attempted to exert control over, or claim rights to, "adjacent" waters that, if accepted by the larger international community, would have had serious and adverse consequences for all concerned. For example, Sweden once claimed the entire Baltic Sea; Denmark-Norway the North Sea; Spain the West Atlantic and Pacific, and Portugal the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Yet, maritime nations are still entitled to claim certain waters as part of their national structure, usually with reciprocity and recognizing that "encroachment" by one almost certainly assures encroachment by another.

Dr. Hamzah observed how maritime law has evolved over the years, with the ebb and flow of competing interests – national sovereignty and international interests. Indeed, international interests impact on and necessarily inhibit, restrict, or define national sovereignty. He maintains it is less a question, then, of whose "ox is gored," than recognition that in order to live in a finite space (earth), those linkage mechanisms (air, and in this case, water) must become shared resources. Abrogate the right to transit, to use, or to peacefully ply these waters and the system collapses. While usually agreed upon in principle, it is the execution that creates international tensions, and assures the continued employment of lawyers who practice the art of international and admiralty law. For more than 300 years, states have attempted to craft laws that address these concerns.

However, as technology increased along with the demand for natural resources, states wrestled with an inherently dichotomous situation - how to protect "my" (some would argue, "selfish") interests, while demanding unfettered access to other waters in the interest of international trade and commerce. Dr. Hamzah noted the ongoing Spratlys dispute as a case in point: six claimants each assert exclusive jurisdiction over areas in the South China Sea by reason of proximity, historical precedence, or disturbingly, by reasons of military capability. This dispute in particular is larger in context than the immediate area in contention. International law, or treaties amongst claimants, must be the format for resolution.

Other concerns are equally valid: marine pollution, scientific marine research, navigation, and fisheries. The fact that the law is silent on certain issues only assures continued disputes until such time the international community demands and reaches an agreement. To be sure, agreements will necessarily impinge upon and diminish individual state sovereignty–a painful realization, no doubt, and one invariably resisted.