Jurisdictional Tensions: Divergent Judicial Approaches to Conflicts between UNCLOS and National Public Law Policies

This article examines the intricate jurisdictional tensions arising from the interplay between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and national public law policies. Focusing on the interpretative approaches of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the study identifies a fundamental conflict between coastal states’ exercise of public enforcement powers and the navigational freedoms and jurisdictional limitations established under UNCLOS. Through comprehensive analysis of pertinent case law, the research elucidates distinct jurisprudential methodologies reflecting varying institutional priorities and normative frameworks. The ECHR consistently applies a human rights-centric approach, effectively subordinating maritime jurisdictional claims to human rights standards, while the ICJ emphasizes state sovereignty and strict treaty interpretation in resolving jurisdictional disputes. These divergent approaches pose significant challenges for coastal states striving to align their criminal enforcement activities with potentially conflicting international legal obligations. The study further explores emerging harmonization efforts, including the integration of explicit human rights safeguards into maritime enforcement protocols, the development of specialized judicial review mechanisms, and the adoption of interpretive guidance addressing both UNCLOS compliance and human rights obligations. Additionally, the research analyzes how the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime framework introduces further complexity to maritime enforcement, particularly concerning migrant smuggling and human trafficking operations. The article concludes that reconciling these tensions necessitates sophisticated legal frameworks and institutional innovations capable of accommodating both the jurisdictional boundaries established by UNCLOS and the human rights obligations enforced by various international tribunals while addressing transnational crime suppression obligations.