[Cable Text\
]{.underline}

SUBJECT: PROTEST OF SEYCHELLES EXCESSIVE MARITIME CLAIMS

REF: A. 82 STATE 156775

B. 82 VICTORIA 01170

C. C 82 VICTORIA 1235

1\. THIS IS AN ACTION REQUEST. POST IS REQUESTED TO DELIVER THE
DIPLOMATIC NOTE SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 5 TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES (GOS) FOLLOWING DELIVERY OF THE NOTE, POST IS
REQUESTED TO REPORT THE DATE OF THE NOTE, DATE OF DELIVERY AND THE
REACTION OF THE GOS, IF ANY.

**UNCLASSIFIED 1**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

2 SUMMARY: IN FEBRUARY 1999, THE GOS PUBLISHED THE MARITIME ZONES BILL
OF 1999 (BILL NO 2 OF 1999). A NUMBER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW GOS
LAW LIKE THOSE OF THE 1977 ACT PROTESTED BY REFS A AND B ARE NOT IN
CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS REFLECTED IN THE 1982 UNITED
NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS). IN PARTICULAR, THE
LAW PURPORTS TO RESTRICT INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND
ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS, AND HIGH SEAS FREEDOMS IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC
ZONE (EEZ), ASSERT EXCESSIVE JURISDICTION IN THE EEZ AND OVER THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF, AND ASSERT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER SOVEREIGN
IMMUNE VESSELS.

3\. BEGIN BACKGROUND (POST MAY WISH TO DRAW ON THESE

POINTS AND THE TALKING POINTS IN PARAGRAPH 4 IF THE GOS IS WILLING TO
ENGAGE IN ANY DIALOGUE ON THIS ISSUE. AS

DESCRIBED IN REF C, THE GOS SIMPLY REJECTED OUR 1982 PROTEST AND MAY DO
SO AGAIN):

THE GOS PUBLISHED A NEW MARITIME ZONES BILL (BILL NO. 2 OF 1999) IN
FEBRUARY 1999 THE NEW LAW WAS SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MARCH 25, 1999
AND REPEALS THE MARITIME ZONE ACT OF 1977 THE LAW PURPORTS TO DELIMIT
THE MARITIME ZONES OF THE GOS IN CONFORMITY WITH UNCLOS ALTHOUGH MOST OF
THE LAW\'S PROVISIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, THERE ARE
SEVERAL PROVISIONS THAT ILLEGALLY RESTRICT NAVIGATIONAL RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA, ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS AND EEZ, THAT
ASSERT EXCESSIVE COASTAL STATE RIGHTS IN THE BEE AND OVER THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF, AND THAT ILLEGALLY ASSERT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER
SOVEREIGN IMMUNE VESSELS EMBASSY VICTORIA\'S NOTE 37, DATED JULY 8,
1982, PROTESTED A NUMBER OF SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN THE 1977 ACT.

THE UNITED STATES CONCERN WITH THE GOS MARITIME CLAIMS EXIST ON TWO
LEVELS AS NOTED ABOVE AND IN DETAIL BELOW, WE VIEW THE CLAIMS AS
INFRINGING ON OUR RIGHTS IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE SEAS AROUND THE
SEYCHELLES SECOND, AND PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF LEFT UNPROTESTED,
THE GOS CLAIMS COULD INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
GENERALLY AND RUN COUNTER TO EXISTING PRINCIPLES OF LAW SUCH ASSERTIONS
OF JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY THAT EXCEED WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW ALLOWS
MUST BE CONFRONTED OR OUR RIGHTS WILL DIMINISH AS WE ARE SEEN TO
ACQUIESCE IN SUCH CLAIMS.

INCONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

WHILE THE UNITED STATES IS NOT YET A PARTY TO UNCLOS, AS ANNOUNCED IN
THE PRESIDENT\'S UNITED STATES OCEANS POLICY STATEMENT OF MARCH 10,
1983, THE UNITED STATES WILL EXERCISE AND ASSERT ITS NAVIGATION AND
OVERFLIGHT RIGHTS IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE OF
INTERESTS REFLECTED IN UNCLOSE AND ACCEPTS THE CONVENTION AS DECLARATIVE
OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW THE GOS IS A PARTY TO UNCLOS

**UNCLASSIFIED 2**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

UNDER ARTICLES 17 TO 26 OF UNCLOS, THE SHIPS OF ALL STATES ENJOY THE
RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE THROUGH A COASTAL STATE\'S TERRITORIAL SEA THE
RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE ALSO APPLIES IN ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS (ARTICLE
52, UNCLOS). INNOCENT PASSAGE IS A NAVIGATIONAL RIGHT THAT MAY BE
EXERCISED WITHOUT REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO OR OBTAIN
PERMISSION FROM THE COASTAL STATE THE RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE APPLIES
TO ALL SHIPS (INCLUDING WARSHIPS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT NON-COMMERCIAL.

VESSELS), REGARDLESS OF FLAG, TYPE, MEANS OF PROPULSION, CARGO, ORIGIN,
DESTINATION, ARMAMENT, OR PURPOSE OF VOYAGE PASSAGE IS INNOCENT SO LONG
AS IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER OR SECURITY OF THE
COASTAL STATE PASSAGE SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE PREJUDI- CIAL TO THE
PEACE, GOOD ORDER OR SECURITY OF THE COASTAL STATE IF IN THE TERRITORIAL
SEA OR ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS A FOREIGN SHIP ENGAGES IN ONE OF TWELVE
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES LISTED IN ARTICLE 19(2) OF UNCLOS, INCLUDING ANY ACT
OF WILLFUL AND SERIOUS POLLUTION CONTRARY TO UNCLOS.

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF UNCLOS, A COASTAL STATE MAY ADOPT LAWS AND
REGULATIONS RELATING TO INNOCENT PASSAGE THROUGH THE TERRITORIAL SEA
HOWEVER, A COASTAL STATE MAY NOT HAMPER INNOCENT PASSAGE EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UNCLOS NOR MAY A COASTAL STATE, THROUGH ITS LAWS OR
GUIDELINES, IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON FOREIGN SNIPS THAT HAVE THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF DENYING OR IMPAIRING THE RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE (ARTICLE
24, UNCLOS). UNDER ARTICLE 30, IF A WARSHIP DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COASTAL STATE CONCERNING PASSAGE THROUGH THE
TERRITORIAL SEA AND DISREGARDS ANY REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE THEREWITH
WHICH IS MADE TO IT, THE COASTAL STATE\'S REMEDY IS THAT IT MAY REQUIRE
THE WARSHIP TO LEAVE THE TERRITORIAL SEA IMMEDIATELY.

SECTIONS 16(2) AND (4) OF THE GOS LAW REQUIRE WARSHIPS, NUCLEAR-POWERED
SHIPS AND SHIPS CARRYING ANY NUCLEAR OR RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES OR
MATERIALS TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO AND OBTAIN PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE GOS
BEFORE TRANSITING THE TERRITORIAL SEA OR ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS SECTION
17(3) FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER
AND SECURITY OF THE SEYCHELLES FOR A FOREIGN WARSHIP TO TRANSIT ITS
ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS AND TERRITORIAL SEA WITHOUT THE PRIOR NOTICE TO AND
AUTHORIZATION OF THE GOS. THESE SECTIONS IMPERMISSIBLY RESTRICT THE
RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE AND ARE THEREFORE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH
INTERNATIONAL LAW, INCLUDING UNCLOS.

SECTION 17 (2) (H) OF THE GOS LAW PROVIDES THAT ANY ACT OF POLLUTION
CALCULATED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DAMAGE OR HARM TO SEYCHELLES, ITS PEOPLE,
RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENT QUALIFIES AS AN ACTIVITY THAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO
PEACE, GOOD ORDER AND SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES THIS SECTION EXCEEDS THE
INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARD OF WILLFUL AND SERIOUS POLLUTION SET
OUT IN ARTICLE 19(2) OF UNCLOS AND IS THEREFORE INCONSISTENT WITH
INTERNATIONAL LAW

SECTIONS 23(1) AND 24(1) OF THE GOS LAW PURPORT TO GRANT CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN WARSHIPS AND THEIR CREWS FOR ACTS THAT ARE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE, GOOD

**UNCLASSIFIED 3**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

ORDER OR SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES TO THE EXTENT THESE SECTIONS ASSERT
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION OVER WARSHIPS AND THEIR CREWS, THEY
VIOLATE THE UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED IMMUNITIES ACCORDED SUCH VESSELS AND
PERSONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

WITHIN THE EEZ, A COASTAL STATE HAS SOVEREIGN RIGHTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXPLORING, EXPLOITING, CONSERVING, AND MANAGING THE LIVING AND
NON-LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE WATER COLUMN AND THE SEA-BED AND ITS
SUBSOIL THE COASTAL STATE ALSO HAS JURISDICTION WITH REGARD TO THE
PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, MARINE SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH AND THE ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS,
INSTALLATIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES (ARTICLE 56, UNCLOS)
SIMILARLY, THE COASTAL STATE EXERCISES OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING IT AND EXPLOITING ITS
NATURAL RESOURCES THE COASTAL STATE ALSO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS, INSTALLATIONS AND
STRUCTURES ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES, AND THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE AND REGULATE DRILLING ON THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF FOR ALL PURPOSES (ARTICLES 77, 80 AND 81, UNCLOS) HOWEVER, A
COASTAL STATE\'S RIGHTS AND JURISDICTION WITHIN THE SEE AND ON THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF ARE SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OTHER STATES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (UNCLOS, ARTICLES 56 AND 78). THE
RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY PRESERVED FOR THE SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT OF ALL STATES
IN THE EEZ AND THE SUPERJACENT WATERS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF INCLUDE
THE FREEDOMS OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT, AND OTHER INTERNATIONALLY
LAWFUL USES OF THE SEA RELATED TO THOSE FREEDOMS (UNCLOS, ARTICLES 58
AND 78).

SECTION 15 OF THE GOS LAW APPEARS TO LIMIT NAVIGATIONAL FREEDOMS IN THE
EEZ AND THE SUPERJACENT WATERS AND AIRSPACE OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
TO THE FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND THE FREEDOM OF OVERFLIGHT TO THE EXTENT
SECTION 15 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT OTHER INTERNATIONALLY LAWFUL USES OF THE
SEA RELATED TO THOSE FREEDOMS, SUCH AS THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
OPERATION OF SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT AND SUBMARINE CABLES AND PIPELINES, IT
IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

SECTION 25(1) IS SO BROADLY WORDED AS TO EXCEED THAT WHICH IS PERMITTED
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR EXAMPLE, PARAGRAPH 25(1) (D) PROHIBITS
WITHIN THE EEZ OR ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
OR OPERATION OF ANY ARTIFICIAL ISLAND, OFFSHORE TERMINAL, INSTALLATION
OR OTHER STRUCTURE OR DEVICE COASTAL STATE JURISDICTION OVER ARTIFICIAL
ISLANDS, ETC , IS LIMITED TO

INSTALLATIONS OR STRUCTURES FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES. TO THE EXTENT THAT
SECTION 25 PURPORTS TO APPLY TO ANY SUCH STRUCTURE, IT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, INCLUDING UNCLOS

END BACKGROUND

4\. BEGIN TALKING POINTS

**UNCLASSIFIED 4**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

\- SINCE 1983, THE UNITED STATES HAS ACCEPTED THE TRADITIONAL-USE
PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
(UNCLOS) AS REFLECTING CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND HAS ACTED
ACCORDINGLY.

\- I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO CONVEY TO YOU THE CONCERNS OF MY GOVERNMENT
REGARDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE MARITIME ZONES BILL OF 1999, SIGNED
BY YOUR PRESIDENT ON MARCH 25, 1999.

\- SECTION 15 OF THE LAW APPEARS TO LIMIT

NAVIGATIONAL FREEDOMS IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND THE SUPERJACENT
WATERS AND AIRSPACE OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELF OF SEYCHELLES.

\- SECTIONS 16(2) AND 16(4) OF THE LAW APPEAR TO

REQUIRE PRIOR NOTICE TO AND WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF
SEYCHELLES BEFORE A WARSHIP, NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIP, OR SHIP CARRYING ANY
NUCLEAR OR RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES OR MATERIALS CAN TRANSIT SEYCHELLES\'
TERRITORIAL SEA AND ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS.

\- SECTION 17(2)(H) PROVIDES THAT ANY ACT OF

POLLUTION LIKELY TO CAUSE DAMAGE OR HARM TO SEYCHELLES, ITS PEOPLE,
RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE,
GOOD ORDER AND SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES.

\- SIMILARLY, SECTION 17 (3) PROVIDES THAT

UNAUTHORIZED PASSAGE BY FOREIGN WARSHIPS WILL BE CONSIDERED PREJUDICIAL
TO THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER AND SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES.

\- IN THIS REGARD, SECTIONS 23(1) AND 24(1) OF THE

LAW APPEAR TO GRANT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN WARSHIPS AND
THEIR CREWS FOR ACTS THAT ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER AND
SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES, AS WARSHIPS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM
THESE PROVISIONS.

\- SECTION 25(1)(D) APPEARS TO ASSERT JURISDICTION

WITHIN THE EEZ AND ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF OVER THE

CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF ANY ARTIFICIAL ISLAND,
OFFSHORE TERMINAL, INSTALLATION OR OTHER STRUCTURE OR DEVICE.

A NUMBER OF THESE PROVISIONS ALSO APPEARED IN THE MARITIME ZONES ACT OF
1977 THE UNITED STATES PROTESTED THOSE PROVISIONS IN 1982, AND RENEWS
THAT PROTEST AT THIS TIME.

\- AS SET FORTH MORE FULLY IN THE NOTE I HAVE BEEN

ASKED TO GIVE YOU, THE UNITED STATES FIRMLY BELIEVES THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THESE SECTIONS ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL
LAW, INCLUDING THE 1982 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA.

**UNCLASSIFIED 5**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

\- I WISH TO ASSURE YOU THAT MY GOVERNMENT\'S

OBJECTIONS TO THESE SECTIONS SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS

SINGLING OUT SEYCHELLES FOR CRITICISM THEY ARE PART OF

OUR WORLDWIDE EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHTS
AND FREEDOMS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN NAVIGATION, AND THEREBY
MAINTAIN THE BALANCE

OF INTERESTS REFLECTED IN THE 1982 CONVENTION.

\- THIS IS ONLY ONE OF A NUMBER OF U S DEMARCHES

MADE OVER THE YEARS CONCERNING MARITIME CLAIMS BY COASTAL STATES THAT
ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS REFLECTED IN THE 1982
CONVENTION.

\- AS THESE ARE MATTERS OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE

TO BOTH OUR COUNTRIES IN MAINTAINING THE BALANCE OF

INTERESTS SET OUT IN THE 1982 CONVENTION, THE UNITED

STATES WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THESE

MATTERS FURTHER BETWEEN EXPERTS FROM OUR TWO GOVERNMENTS, WITH A VIEW
TOWARDS SEEKING A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
GOVERNING THESE ISSUES.

END TALKING POINTS

5\. BEGIN TEXT OF U S NOTE: (COMPLIMENTARY OPENING) AND

HAS THE HONOR TO REFER THE GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES TO THE MARITIME
ZONES ACT OF 1999, WHICH PURPORTS TO DELIMIT THE MARITIME ZONES OF
SEYCHELLES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE 1982

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS).

THE EMBASSY RECALLS AMERICAN EMBASSY VICTORIA\'S NOTE NO.

37, DATED JULY 8, 1982, THAT PROTESTED SIMILAR PROVISIONS

OF THE MARITIME ZONES ACT OF 1977.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOTES THAT SECTIONS

16(2) AND 16(4) OF THE LAW REQUIRE WARSHIPS,

NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIPS AND SHIPS CARRYING ANY NUCLEAR OR RADIOACTIVE
SUBSTANCES OR MATERIALS TO PROVIDE PRIOR

NOTICE TO AND OBTAIN PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF

SEYCHELLES BEFORE SUCH VESSELS TRANSIT THE TERRITORIAL SEA

AND ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS OF SEYCHELLES. SECTION 17(3)

FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE, GOOD

ORDER AND SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES, AND THEREFORE

INCONSISTENT WITH INNOCENT PASSAGE, FOR A FOREIGN WARSHIP

TO TRANSIT ITS ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS AND TERRITORIAL SEA

WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO AND AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF
SEYCHELLES. SECTION 17(2) (H) ADDITIONALLY PROVIDES THAT ANY ACT OF
POLLUTION IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA

OR ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS CALCULATED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE

DAMAGE OR HARM TO SEYCHELLES, ITS PEOPLE, RESOURCES OR ENVIRONMENT
QUALIFIES AS AN ACTIVITY THAT IS PREJUDICIAL

TO PEACE, GOOD ORDER AND SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES, AND IS THEREFORE
INCONSISTENT WITH INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THIS

REGARD, SECTIONS 23 AND 24 OF THE LAW APPLIES TO \"FOREIGN

SHIPS\" AND DOES NOT EXCLUDE WARSHIPS AND THUS APPEARS TO

GRANT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN WARSHIPS AND

THEIR CREWS FOR ACTS THAT ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE,

GOOD ORDER OR SECURITY OF SEYCHELLES

**UNCLASSIFIED 6**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

THE UNITED STATES WISHES TO RECALL THAT ARTICLES 17 TO 26

AND ARTICLE 52 OF UNCLOS, TO WHICH SEYCHELLES IS A PARTY

AND WHICH THE UNITED STATES ACCEPTS AS DECLARATIVE OF CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW, PROVIDE THAT THE SHIPS OF ALL STATES ENJOY THE RIGHT
OF INNOCENT PASSAGE THROUGH THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS
OF A COASTAL

STATE. INNOCENT PASSAGE IS A NAVIGATIONAL RIGHT THAT MAY

BE EXERCISED WITHOUT REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO OR
OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COASTAL

STATE THIS RIGHT APPLIES TO ALL SHIPS (INCLUDING

WARSHIPS), REGARDLESS OF FLAG, TYPE, MEANS OF PROPULSION, CARGO,
DESTINATION, ARMAMENT, OR PURPOSE OF VOYAGE.

PASSAGE IS INNOCENT SO LONG AS IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO

THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER OR SECURITY OF THE COASTAL STATE. PASSAGE IS
CONSIDERED TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER OR SECURITY OF THE
COASTAL STATE IF A FOREIGN SHIP ENGAGES IN ONE OF TWELVE SPECIFIC
ACTIVITIES LISTED IN

ARTICLE 19(2) OF UNCLOS, INCLUDING ANY ACT OF WILLFUL AND SERIOUS
POLLUTION CONTRARY TO UNCLOS MERE PASSAGE OF A WARSHIP IS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES

CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 19(2). IT IS THEREFORE THE FIRM

BELIEF OF THE UNITED STATES THAT SECTIONS 16 AND 17 OF THE

LAW IMPERMISSIBLY RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE A

NO ARE THEREFORE INCONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, INCLUDING UNCLOS.

THE UNITED STATES ALSO WISHES TO RECALL THAT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 21 OF
UNCLOS, A COASTAL STATE MAY ADOPT LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO
INNOCENT PASSAGE. HOWEVER,

ARTICLE 24 MARES CLEAR THAT A COASTAL STATE MAY NOT HAMPER INNOCENT
PASSAGE EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNCLOS. NOR

MAY A COASTAL STATE, THROUGH ITS LAWS OR GUIDELINES,

IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON FOREIGN SHIPS THAT HAVE THE

PRACTICAL EFFECT OF DENYING OR IMPAIRING THE RIGHT OF

INNOCENT PASSAGE UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF UNCLOS, IF A

WARSHIP DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF

THE COASTAL STATE CONCERNING PASSAGE THROUGH THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND
DISREGARDS ANY REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE THEREWITH WHICH IS MADE TO IT, THE
COASTAL STATE MAY

REQUIRE THE WARSHIP TO LEAVE THE TERRITORIAL SEA IMMEDIATELY.

TO THE EXTENT SECTIONS 23 AND 24 OF THE LAW AUTHORIZE

CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION OVER WARSHIPS AND THEIR CREWS, THEY
VIOLATE THE UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED IMMUNITIES ACCORDED SUCH VESSELS AND
PERSONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. THE EMBASSY WOULD BE PLEASED TO RECEIVE
CONFIRMATION THAT THESE SECTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO FOREIGN WARSHIPS OR
THEIR OFFICERS AND CREWMEMBERS.

THE UNITED STATES NOTES THAT SECTION 15 OF THE LAW APPEARS

TO LIMIT NAVIGATIONAL FREEDOMS IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC

ZONE AND THE SUPERJACENT WATERS AND AIRSPACE OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
TO THE FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND THE FREEDOM OF OVERFLIGHT THE UNITED
STATES WOULD FURTHER

NOTE THAT SECTION 25(1)(D) PROHIBITS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
OR ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF THE

CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF ANY ARTIFICIAL ISLAND,
OFFSHORE TERMINAL, INSTALLATION OR OTHER STRUCTURE

OR DEVICE.

**UNCLASSIFIED 7**

**UNCLASSIFIED**

THE UNITED STATES WISHES TO RECALL THAT, WITHIN THE

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, A COASTAL STATE HAS SOVEREIGN

RIGHTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING, EXPLOITING,

CONSERVING, AND MANAGING THE LIVING AND NON-LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES OF
THE WATER COLUMN AND THE SEA-BED AND ITS

SUBSOIL THE COASTAL STATE ALSO HAS JURISDICTION WITH

REGARD TO THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT,
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND THE

ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS, INSTALLATIONS

AND STRUCTURES FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES SIMILARLY, THE

COASTAL STATE EXERCISES OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING IT AND

EXPLOITING ITS NATURAL RESOURCES THE COASTAL STATE ALSO

HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF

ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS, INSTALLATIONS AND STRUCTURES ON THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF FOR ECONOMIC PURPOSES, AND THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE AND
REGULATE DRILLING ON THE

CONTINENTAL SHELF FOR ALL PURPOSES.

TO THE EXTENT SECTION 25 PURPORTS TO ASSERT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
ALL ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS, INSTALLATIONS OR

STRUCTURES IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF,
INCLUDING THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE AN ECONOMIC PURPOSE, IT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH INTERNATIONAL

LAW.

THE UNITED STATES ALSO WISHES TO RECALL THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 56 AND
78 OF UNCLOS, A COASTAL STATE\'S RIGHTS AND JURISDICTION WITHIN THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE ARE

SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF OTHER STATES AS

PROVIDED FOR IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THE RIGHTS

SPECIFICALLY PRESERVED FOR THE SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT OF ALL

STATES IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND THE SUPERJACENT WATERS OF THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF ARE THE FREEDOM OF

NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT, AND OTHER INTERNATIONALLY

LAWFUL USES OF THE SEA RELATED TO THOSE FREEDOMS.

TO THE EXTENT SECTION 15 OF THE LAW LIMITS OTHER INTERNATIONALLY LAWFUL
USES OF THE SEA RELATED TO THE FREEDOMS OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT,
SUCH AS THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATION OF SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT AND
SUBMARINE CABLES AND PIPELINES, IT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH
INTERNATIONAL LAW.

ACCORDINGLY, THE UNITED STATES REAFFIRMS ITS 1982 PROTEST

AND IS OBLIGED TO CONTINUE TO RESERVE ITS RIGHTS AND THOSE

OF ITS NATIONALS.

(COMPLIMENTARY CLOSE)

END TEXT OF U S NOTE

ALBRIGHT

NNNN

**End Cable Text**

**UNCLASSIFIED 8**