Sea management and the claim to jurisdictional zone: the Chinese Situation

The sea management requires a special attention to the relationship between the legal and geographic dimensions. The authority over the sea adjacent to the shoreline (coastline) of different countries has always been a difficult problem to face. In the past centuries, the jurisdictional authority over the sea corresponded to a 3 nautical miles wide stretch in front of the shoreline of the interested country. It corresponded to the area that could be protected by guns situated on the shoreline. In 1609 Grotins (NL), following the trend to explore new commercial lines, suggested the idea of \u201cMare libero\u201d (freedom of the seas). Up to the first half of the 20th Century, the utilisation of sea water depended on unilateral agreements among neighbouring countries. After the end of the Second World War, a more exact and severe regulation concerning the sea control became necessary. This mainly depended on new economic needs and on a new possible utilisation of sea: delimitation and jurisdictional use of zones devoted to fishing and mining activities (oil field research), and of free passages devoted, like sea roads, to the international navigation lines. From that time a series of international conferences followed, which aimed to promote a general law of the Sea (LOS) accepted by all the countries. At UN Assembly meeting in 1994, 85 countries accepted a version of the LOS identifying 4 different sea zones: 1) territorial sea waters up to 12 nautical miles from the shoreline; 2) the contiguous sea zone up to 24 n. m. from the shoreline; 3) the EEZ (exclusive economic zone) up to 200 n. m. from the shoreline and devoted to fishery or mining activities. In this wide area the passage of navigation lines is permitted only if \u201cinoffensive\u201d (no submarines or battle-cruisers); 4) international waters considered of common interest for the entire world (like the Antarctic territories) and not completely free