The international legal regime of the Åland Islands was confirmed after the First World War. This notion of not fortifying the Åland Islands came up again during the peace negotiations after the Crimean War. If successful, the Åland Islands would belong to Sweden and the islands' special demilitarized status would no longer be needed.
In the late stages of the war in 1918, the Åland Islands were occupied first by Sweden and then by Germany. But the Åland Convention also refers to the rules of international law and practice, in the case of the innocent passage of warships.
Scope of the UNSC Resolutions
Over 90% of international trade is transported by sea; therefore, the maritime transport of WMDs and related materials is a major concern of the PSI. The effectiveness of the transport system in ordinary commercial transport increases the possibility that WMD-related materials can be trafficked undetected. The cardinal rule in international law of the sea recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of a flag state on the high seas.
Any enforcement action would require a new Council decision.' The representative of the United States also stated that the resolution 'is not about implementation'.46. The lack of discussion of military operations at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea was not accidental; Coastal states have the exclusive right to fish and exploit the seabed and subsoil resources.
They enjoy exclusive airspace over the territorial sea as foreign aircraft do not enjoy the same rights of innocent passage as foreign ships. However, subsection 4 (d) of the Prohibition Statement Principles calls on participants to take appropriate action to do the following: Regarding the legislative powers of the coastal state, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea contains specific provisions regarding innocent passage. a] a coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, regarding innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following:. a) navigation safety and maritime traffic regulation;
Thus, a coastal State cannot obtain any Article 21 authority to implement PSI unless the coastal State is the target of an illegal shipment of WMD materials.
The Right of Innocent Passage
Some authors have suggested that the mere passage of a ship carrying illegal WMDs is a violation of the right of innocent passage. Logan believes that it will be difficult, first, to prove that the shipment of WMD and related material constitutes a threat of violence against the coastal state because 95 percent of the material for WMD is dual-use in nature. The provisions of the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention are more detailed than the simple definitions provided in the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention.
It seems clear that the aim of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was to create a more objective definition that would leave less room for interpretation by coastal states, as well as less scope for abuse of their rights to interrupt innocent passage. Activities are specifically mentioned in the text of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Thus, the wording of the provision governing innocent passage would narrow the scope of the right of innocent passage by adding the illicit trade in weapons of mass destruction and related materials and their delivery systems to activities prejudicial to the peace, order or security of the coastal State.
It is worth noting that these States referred to the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention. The Uniform Interpretation was signed in September 1989, when the former Soviet Union signed the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention, but the United States did not. 85 The Russian Federation ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on 12 February 1997.
The United States signed the Convention on July 29, 1994, and on October 7, 1994, President Clinton referred the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the Senate.
The Territorial Waters of the Å land Islands
Although the United States and the Soviet Union considered the list to be comprehensive, it actually included the phrase "any other activity not directly related to passage," which left some room for further interpretation by the coastal states as to the nature of passage.87 At the time so the non-state actors as possible users of weapons of mass destruction, and therefore there is a strong possibility that the uniform interpretation is not intended to limit the interpretation of Article 19, para. trade in weapons of mass destruction and related materials and their components. The right to innocent passage of warships is thus firmly anchored in a separate article, Article 5.90. This indicates that the intention of the parties to the Convention could have been to exclude any assessment of innocent passage of warships from being based on concepts of demilitarization and neutralization. With this in mind, then, it appears that Finland is not empowered to declare passage innocent on the grounds that warships harm the peace, order or security of the islands due to its demilitarized and neutralized status.
The right to innocent passage of merchant ships originates in customary international law and is codified in the Territorial Sea Convention from 1958 and today in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. According to the preamble to the Åland Convention of 1921, it was concluded that the purpose of the convention was to reduce the islands' potential as a military threat. The purpose of the convention was to protect the coastal states in the Baltic Sea region and not just Finland.
The general protection of the region was achieved by demilitarization and neutralization of land and surrounding waters. Thus, demilitarization and neutralization ensured the security of the region by keeping the area free of military deployments or operations. When discussing the territorial waters of the Åland Islands, it is therefore always necessary to take into account the interests of a wider group of countries and not just the main coastal countries involved.
91 Innocent section is defined in the Finnish Territorial Surveillance Act Article 2 and includes a specific reference to the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention.
Article 25 of UNCLOS
Today, however, non-state actors, for example an international terrorist network, can also get their hands on a nuclear device, which can pose a serious and imminent danger to the parties to the Åland Convention of 1921. In this kind of situation, if the Finnish authorities had received hard intelligence proving the illegal trafficking of a nuclear device, even a temporary presence of illegal trafficking of nuclear devices within the demilitarized and neutralized zone would become an obvious threat. Therefore, today, this type of passage does not seem to be compatible with the 1921-Åland Convention.
It is worth noting that the right to suspend harmless passage covers merchant vessels and warships. Coastal States may exercise this right to exclude foreign vessels from restricted access areas, but the suspension must be non-discriminatory and published before it takes effect. Illicit trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and related materials and their devices does not appear to fall within the scope of Article 25(3) because its cessation may not be discriminatory and the prohibition of PSI is aimed at a particular ship or actors concerned.
Article 25, subsection 1, may, however, establish the legal basis for the PSI ban if illegal trade in weapons of mass destruction and related material renders the passage innocent according to Article 19, para. According to Article 25, paragraph 1, of UNCLOS, coastal states are allowed to take the necessary steps to prevent non-innocent passage from taking place in their territorial waters. What then are the 'necessary steps' that a coastal state can take after the passage has been rendered innocent.
The ship in non-innocent passage is subject to the full authority of the coastal State, and 'the coastal State may use any force necessary, proportionate to the circumstances, to require an offending ship to enter its territorial sea leaves'.97.
Criminal Jurisdiction in the Territorial Sea
The above provisions do not affect the right of the coastal State to take any action authorized by its laws for the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters. Application of Section 27 requires that the crime was committed on board the ship passing through the territorial sea and the crime disturbs the peace of the coastal state or good order of its territorial sea. Therefore, the mere passage of a foreign ship through the territorial sea carrying illegal weapons of mass destruction or related material does not meet the requirements for the exercise of the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal state.
However, the police must take into account international treaty agreements regarding the demilitarization of the Åland Islands. Regarding the illicit trafficking of WMD and related materials, the second option seems plausible in the context of the coastal state's authority to enforce safeguard rules. However, in the demilitarized zone of the Åland Islands, this can be problematic, even against ships flying the Finnish flag.
In the territorial sea, the enforcement of the requirements of the PSI rests on the interpretation of Article 19 (2) of UNCLOS. When the passage through the territorial waters of the Åland Islands is made innocent, any enforcement measures undertaken must comply with the provisions of the 1921 Åland Convention. Ahlstr€om C (2005) The proliferation security initiative: international law aspects of the declaration of prohibition principles.
Mar Policy Hannikainen L (1994) The continuing validity of the demilitarized and neutralized status of the Åland Islands. Zeitschrift für ausla¨ndisches€offentliches Recht und V€olkerrecht Harrison J (2013) Making the law of the sea, a study in the development of international. Nordquist MH, Nandan SN, Rosenna S, Grandy NR (eds) (1993) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, A Commentary, Volume II.
