The Limits of Maritime Law

Abstract

This chapter explains the central components to the contrasting legal stances adopted by China and South Korea with regards to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelf rights. Because maritime law is often referred to by both parties, certain basics of maritime law need to be understood when examining this topic. Their claims include China’s natural prolongation of ‘its’ continental shelf and South Korea’s more internationally accepted median line solution with the submerged feature located well within Seoul’s EEZ. These claims overlap, and Socotra Rock rests within the overlapping area. The crux of the dispute is thus not territorial, but rather one concerning the right to exercise jurisdictional authority while also protecting against ‘foreign’ intervention. These also tie directly into national and regional security concerns, making it important to clarify where international legal practice tends to stand on these questions of equidistance, proportionality, natural prolongation, jurisdiction, and freedom of navigation.