Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
EPPiSM Baner

No. 3/2025/75 (2025)

Artykuły

Legal Challenges in Protecting Transboundary Submarine Cables and Pipelines from Intentional Damage in the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52097/eppism.10228  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2025-09-16

Abstract

Considering the contemporary global importance of transboundary submarine cables and pipelines, particularly from economic and societal perspectives – in contrast to the intentional breaking or injuring of such infrastructure – the aim of this research is to
examine the extent to which international law supports the jurisdiction of coastal states over maritime areas where they hold only certain sovereign rights. To that end, the author analyzes the legal regimes of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone,
as well as the relevant international law governing the protection of submarine cables and pipelines. Two key international treaties are examined: the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1884 Convention for the Protection of Sub-
marine Telegraph Cables. In line with the research objectives, the author also considers the opinions of legal scholars, state practices, and relevant international jurisprudence. After synthesizing the findings, the author provides a nuanced answer regarding the scope and legal foundations of coastal states’ jurisdiction in their continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, in relation to the jurisdiction of states whose vessels or citizens intentionally damage submarine cables or pipelines.

References

  1. Besch, S., Brown, E., The Geopolitics of Subsea Data Cables: Securing Europe’s Subsea Data Cables, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC 2024; [Google Scholar]
  2. https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Besch%20Brown-Europe%20Subsea%20Cables.pdf [accessed: 04.03.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  3. Burnett, D. R., Submarine Cable Security and International Law, ‘International Law Studies’ 2021, vol. 97; https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2992&context=ils [accessed: 03.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  4. Convention for the Protection of Submarine Telegraph Cables, 1884; https://www.iscpc.org/information/government-and-law/ [accessed: 24.05.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  5. Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958; https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20499/v499.pdf [accessed: 24.05.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  6. Convention on the High Seas, 1958; https://treaties.un.org/pages/showdetails.aspx?objid=080000028003327e [accessed: 24.05.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  7. Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs); https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx [accessed: 26.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coventry, T., What Should States Do to Combat the Sabotage of Submarine Cables and Pipelines Beneath the High Seas/EEZs?, ‘EJIL:Talk! – Blog of the European Journal of International Law’ 2024, Dec. 13; https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-should-states-do-to-combat-the-sabotage-of-submarine-cables-and-pipelines-beneath-the-high-seas-eezs/ [accessed: 06.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cwalina, A., Concerns Grow over Possible Russian Sabotage of Undersea Cables, ‘Atlantic Council’ 2024, Sept. 12; https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/concerns-grow-over-possible-russian-sabotage-of-undersea-cables/ [accessed: 03.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davenport, T., Submarine Communications Cables and Law of the Sea: Problems in Law and Practice, ‘Ocean Development & International Law’ 2012, vol. 43, 3; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00908320.2012.698922?scroll=top&needAccess=true[accessed: 03.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  11. Davidson, H., Taiwan Investigating Chinese Vessel over Damage to Undersea Cable, ‘The Guardian’ 2025, Jan. 7; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/07/taiwan-investigating-chinese-vessel-over-damage-to-undersea-cable [accessed: 04.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  12. Escolano, M. L., The Legal Status and Applicable Regime of International Submarine Cables, ‘Submarine Telecoms Forum’ 2022, May 18; https://subtelforum.com/legal-status-of-submarine-cables/ [accessed: 21.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  13. Halog, J., Margat, P., Stadermann, M., Submarine Infrastructures and the International Legal Framework, ‘Transactions on Maritime Science’ 2024, vol. 13, 1; https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/file/457744 [accessed: 12.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  14. Harrison, J., Making the Law of the Sea: A Study in the Development of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoerr, K., What Lies Beneath: Undersea Cables and the Laws Protecting Them, ‘Law Society Journal Online’, 16 Dec. 2024; https://lsj.com.au/articles/what-lies-beneath-under-sea-cables-and-the-laws-protecting-them/ [accessed: 06.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ibler, V., Koliko vrijedi međunarodno pravo, Ministarstvo vanjskih i europskih integracija RH, Zagreb 2006. [Google Scholar]
  17. International Cable Protection Committee, Government Best Practices for Protecting and Promoting Resilience of Submarine Telecommunications Cables, Portsmouth 2024; [Google Scholar]
  18. https://www.iscpc.org/publications/icpc-best-practices/ [accessed: 24.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  19. International Law Association, Submarine Cables and Pipelines under International Law Committee, Interim Report 2020; https://www.ila-hq.org/en_GB/committees/submarine-cables-and-pipelines-under-international-law [accessed: 21.09.2024]. [Google Scholar]
  20. International Law Association, Submarine Cables and Pipelines under International Law Committee, [Third] Interim Report 2024; https://www.ila-hq.org/en/documents/ilathi-1-1 [accessed: 12.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  21. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, The ‘Arctic Sunrise’ Case (Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Russian Federation), Order of 22 November 2013; https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1438 [accessed: 21.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jochecová, K., Us, sabotaging undersea cables? Ridiculous, says Russia, ‘Politico’ 2024, [Google Scholar]
  23. Nov. 20; https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-sabotaging-cables-ridiculous-dmitry-peskov-ukraine-germany-baltic-sea/ [accessed: 03.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  24. Korontzis, T., Exceptions to the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Coastal State on Merchant and on Naval Vessels in the Hellenic Legal Order, ‘European Scientific Journal’ 2014, Special Edition vol. 1, February; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4894783[accessed: 28.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lott, A., Attacks against Europe’s Offshore Infrastructure Within and Beyond the Territorial [Google Scholar]
  26. Sea Under Jus ad Bellum, ‘EJIL:Talk! – Blog of the European Journal of International Law’ 2023, Oct. 17; https://www.ejiltalk.org/attacks-against-europes-offshore-infrastructure-within-and-beyond-the-territorial-sea-under-jus-ad-bellum/ [accessed: 21.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  27. Newdick, T., Norwegian Undersea Surveillance Network Had Its Cables Mysteriously Cut, ‘The War Zone’ 2021, Nov. 11; https://www.twz.com/43094/norwegian-undersea-surveil-lance-network-had-its-cables-mysteriously-cut [accessed: 03.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pancevski, B., Chinese Ship’s Crew Suspected of Deliberately Dragging Anchor for 100 Miles to Cut Baltic Cables, ‘The Wall Street Journal’ 2024, Nov. 29; https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/chinese-ship-suspected-of-deliberately-dragging-anchor-for-100-miles-to-cut-baltic-cables-395f65d1 [accessed: 03.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  29. Papastavridis, E., Coastal State’s (Criminal) Jurisdiction in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Recent Case-Law and State Practice, ‘Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht’ 2023, vol. 83, 2; https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/de/10.17104/0044-2348-2023-2-307/ [Google Scholar]
  30. coastal-state-s-criminal-jurisdiction-in-the-exclusive-economic-zone-recent-case-law-and-state-practice-jahrgang-83-2023-heft-2?page=1 [accessed: 28.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  31. Prölss, A., The Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone in Perspective: Legal Status and Resolution of User Conflicts Revisited, ‘Ocean Yearbook’ 2012, vol. 26. [Google Scholar]
  32. Schaller, C., Critical Maritime Infrastructure and the Regime of the EEZ: A Blank Cheque for Saboteurs?, 11 July 2024; https://www.ejiltalk.org/critical-maritime-infrastructure-and-the-regime-of-the-eez-a-blank-cheque-for-saboteurs/ [accessed: 21.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sobhani, M., Study on the Criminal Jurisdiction on the Exclusive Economic Zone with Emphasis on Enrica Lexie Case, ‘International Journal of Maritime Policy’ 2021, vol. 3, 3; [Google Scholar]
  34. https://www.noormags.ir/view/ar/articlepage/1785372/study-on-the-criminal-jurisdiction-on-the-exclusive-economic-zone-with-emphasis-on-enrica-lexie-case [accessed:01.03.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  35. Szumski, C., No Sweden-Latvia Underwater Cable Sabotage, ‘Euractiv’ 2025, Feb. 4; https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/no-sweden-latvia-underwater-cable-sa-botage/ [accessed: 04.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]
  36. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982; https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf [accessed: 01.10. 2024]. [Google Scholar]
  37. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, A. Prölss (ed.), Bloomsbury Publishing, London 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A commentary, M. H. Nordquist (ed.), 6th edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. United Nations – General Assembly, Resolution A/RES/78/69 of 11 December 2023; https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/397/33/pdf/n2339733.pdf [accessed: 10.02.2025]. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.