In order to ascertain if the "specific legal regime" outlined in UNCLOS Part V has established a stable and dependable system that has endured throughout time, this Article will analyze it. During the negotiations for the United Nations convention on law of sea, military activities in another state's eyes were a point of contention.

UNCLOS makes an effort to strike a balance between the various interests of maritime and coastal nations, but it remains quiet or unclear about the legitimacy of military activities inside EEZs. Freedom of navigation is a top priority for marine governments, whereas coastal states aim to impose more control over their maritime zones. With the aid of legal documents such as the UN charter and the UNCLOS and practice of related countries the legality of the military activities in the eyes is discussed and analyzed.

Introduction
The 1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) represents a remarkable accomplishment in the history of international treaty negotiations. It was hailed as a constitution for the seas and has 320 Articles plus 9 annexes. It tackles many of the controversial topics that earlier conferences on the law of the sea had failed to resolve. The UNCLOS's primary accomplishment is the creation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) legal framework. The legal framework known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is the outcome of the effort of emerging nations to secure 200 nautical mile maritime rights. It also represents the compromise reached between these nations and major sea powers.

The emerging nations attempt to include the EEZ and large in an effort to preserve their customary liberties and interests in this marine region, the developing nations attempt to expand their jurisdiction and maritime rights to the EEZ and major maritime powers. The UNCLOS creates fair legal frameworks for the EEZ that grant one party rights while also placing duties on it. Thus, the ambiguous or perhaps contradictory EEZ laws give rise to fresh disagreements amongst the involved parties.

Outline Of The Basics:
United Nation Charter
The UN Charter gives the organization and its member states the following mandates: to achieve "higher standards of living" for their citizens; to uphold international law; to address "economic, social, health, and related problems"; and to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

• Article 2 of the UN Charter states that everyone is entitled to all the rights and a freedom set forth in the Declaration of Human Rights, without distinction of any
• Article 4 of the UN charter deals with other states, all Members should abstain from threatening or using force against their political independence or territorial integrity, or from acting in any other way that would be contrary to the UN's goals.

United Nation Conventions On Law Of Sea (UNCLOS) 1982: A Constitution For The Sea

United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1982 is sometimes referred to as the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea Treaty. It is an international convention or agreement that creates rules and regulations for the use of the world's oceans and seas in order to preserve and protect all marine life as well as to use and conserve marine resources.

• Article 56 of UNCLOS defines parameters for establishing a nation's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nautical miles from that nation's coastline. The Article offers sovereign rights for exploration, conservation, resource exploitation, and resource management of living and non-living natural resources.
• Article 57. Breadth of the exclusive economic zone: The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
• Article 58: Outlines the rights and duties of other states in the EEZ and mandates similar obligations upon maritime states to have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal states.

Exclusive Economic Zone:

Exclusive Economic Zone is an area of the sea in which a sovereign state has exclusive rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. EEZ does not define the ownership of any maritime features (islands, rocks and low-tide elevations) within the EEZ.

The term does not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit. The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters are international waters.

Military Activities:

The military activities of a state conducts in the EEZ of the coastal state can be of various kinds. The term military activities include navigation of warships in EEZ, flight of military aircrafts over the EEZ, Military scientific research in the EEZ, Military survey in the EEZ, Military exercise and arm trails, use of force of warships or military aircraft in the EEZ of the coastal states.

International Tribunal Law Of The Sea (ITLOS)1982:

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) 1982 is an independent judicial body that adjudicates disputes arising out of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Its jurisdiction allows for the resolution of disputes related to these zones, ensuring the fair distribution of resources and the peaceful settlement of conflicts.

ITLOS decisions on EEZ demarcation and maritime boundaries have a direct impact on coastal states' rights and responsibilities, as well as on the delimitation of EEZs. Moreover, ITLOS plays a crucial role in promoting ocean governance and contributing to the development of international maritime law. With its authority, ITLOS ensures the equitable use of marine resources and the preservation of good international relations.

Article 21 Jurisdiction of the ITLOS: ITLOS has jurisdiction over all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), subject to the provisions of Article 297 and declarations made under Article 298 of UNCLOS.

Development Of The EEZ:

The law of sea has always had a tension between states supporting the doctrine of an open sea (mare liberum) and states that seek control over a more closed sea (mare clausum). This struggle has been continuous throughout the evolution of the law of sea and many UNCLOS provisions reflect this balance between coastal state and maritime same interests.

The concept of EEZ developed early in the course of negotiations during the third United Nations Conference on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS III). During UNCLOS III, there was considerable debate regarding the EEZ's legal status. Maritime powers maintained that the EEZ should have the traditional freedoms of the high seas, while coastal states argued for more rights and control over the zone. The result is an EEZ that is a compromise between the varying positions.

• The term "mare liberum" originates from Latin and has legal significance. It refers to a navigable body of water, such as a sea, that is open to all nations.
• Mare clausum (from legal Latin, meaning "closed sea") refers to a navigable body of water, such as a sea or ocean, that falls under the jurisdiction of a specific state and is not accessible to other nations.

Specific Legal Regime Of The Exclusive Economic Zone:

• Article 55 of UNCLOS : Specific legal regime of the exclusive economic zone. It makes it clear that the EEZ is a regime that is neither under the sovereignty of the coastal state nor part of the high sea, but a special, sui generis regime.
   
• Sui generis is a Latin expression that translates to "of its own kind." It refers to anything that is peculiar to itself, unique, or in a class of its own. When something is described as sui generis, it means it cannot be easily compared to anything else because of its exceptional and distinct characteristics.

Coastal States- Rights, Obligations And Jurisdiction In The EEZ:

Rights:

The coastal state has rights and jurisdiction as set out in Part V of UNCLOS, and supplemented by other provisions in UNCLOS. Article 56 provides the "Sovereign rights" to the coastal states to explore and exploit the natural resources with ceratin obligations with respect to the management of conservation of the living resources in the EEZ. It also impose obligations to the coastal state to determine the allowable catch of the living resources. It is the discretion of the coastal state to give access to the surplus to the other land-locked states and geographically disadvantaged states.

• Sovereign Rights: rights are exclusive and not preferential.
• Explore And Exploit: includes the production of energy from the water currents and winds.
• Living Resources: UNCLOS impose obligations on the coastal state to promote the optimum utilization of the living resources. Also impose obligations to determine the allowable catch of living resources.
• The UNCLOS doesn't provide that they have a right to the surplus.

The EEZ regime gives coastal states sovereign rights over three main resources:

1. Non-living resources on the seabed, and Subsoil and superjacent waters
2. Living resources of the seabed, subsoil and superjacent waters
3. Other economic activities related to the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone.

Obligations:
The general obligations of the coastal state in its EEZ are set out in para 2 of Article 56. First, in exercising its rights and performing duties in the EEZ, the coastal state shall have "due regard" to its rights and duties of other states. Second, costal states must act in a manner compatible with the provisions of the UNCLOS.

Due Regard: the UNCLOS doesn't define the term due regard. In law, this simply means to give a fair consideration.

Jurisdiction:
Article 56 also sets out the extent of the jurisdiction of the coastal state over these matters in its EEZ is "as provided in the relevant provisions of the convention". The key point is that the coastal state has no residual jurisdiction to regulate matters in its EEZ. Since the EEZ is not subject to its sovereignty, its jurisdiction is limited to that set out in the provisions in UNCLOS.

Relevant Provisions Of UNCLOS:

Including Part V on the EEZ, Part VI on the Continental Shelf, Part XII on Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment, Part XIII Marine Scientific Research.

Other States: Rights And Duties In The Eez Of A Costal State
Rights:
Article 58 provides that in the EEZ all states enjoys the freedoms referred to in Article 87 of navigation and over flight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operations of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this convention.

Other International Lawful Uses Of The Sea:

Was subject to much negotiation at the 3rd United Nation Conference leading to the adoptions of the UNCLOS.

Article 87: Don't expressly mentions military activities or survey activites, but the naval powers maintain that the language was intended to ensure that traditional freedoms of the sea in Article 87 were preserved in the EEZ.

Article 301 emphasizes that States must refrain from any threat or use of force inconsistent with international law principles.

Duties:

The other state has two duties when exercising their rights in the EEZ. Firstly, they have a "due regard" obligation similar to that of the coastal states. In exercising their rights in the EEZ, other states must have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal states in the EEZ.

Second, other state must comply laws and regulations adopted by the coastal states, but only such laws that are in accordance with the provisions of the convention and other rules of international law, and only in so far as they are not incompatible with the UNCLOS provisions on the EEZ. Therefore, if coastal states adopt law and regulations on matters over which it doesn't have jurisdiction under UNCLOS, there is no obligation on other states to comply with such laws and regulations.

Military Activities:

Legal Status Of The Military Activity Of One Country In The Eez Of Another Country:

Article 58(1): Grants all States the right to conduct military activities within the EEZ. However, this right must be exercised while considering the coastal State's resource and other rights, as well as the rights of other States as outlined in the Convention.

The UNCLOS has not generally prohibit all military activities of one state in the EEZ of another states, and in practice it is difficult for a coastal state to prohibit all the military activities of one other states in the EEZ. The general practice of costal states is to tolerate those military activities of the other state in their EEZ if they do not pose a threat to the coastal states.

Most States participating in the UNCLOS negotiations support the view that military operations are internationally lawful uses of the sea and should continue within the EEZs of other States.

Some coastal States have attempted to limit military activities within their EEZs, but such restrictions are often unlawful. Only a few countries, including China, North Korea, and Peru, have demonstrated a willingness to use force to impose excessive EEZ claims.

India's Stance:
India, despite being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has consistently maintained its position regarding military activities within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Here are the key points:

• Prior Consent Requirement:
  • India firmly asserts that UNCLOS does not authorize other states to conduct military exercises or maneuvers involving the use of weapons or explosives within its EEZ or on the continental shelf without prior consent from the coastal state.
  • This stance aligns with India's interpretation of international law and its commitment to safeguarding its sovereign rights over its EEZ.
     
• Persistent Objector Doctrine:
  • India's refusal to recognize the validity of military activities in its EEZ is consistent with the international law doctrine of persistent objector.
  • This doctrine allows exceptions to treaty or customary law obligations when a state consistently objects to a particular provision or practice.
     
• Control Over EEZ:
  • India, along with other countries like China, believes that coastal states should have greater control over foreign military activities within their EEZs.
  • However, it's important to note that the right of a coastal state to stop foreign ships from conducting military activities in its EEZ is not universally accepted and is not formally part of international maritime law as articulated by UNCLOS.

Relation Between Military Activity In EEZ And Peace Principle:

Issue of the military activities of one state in the EEZ of another state is in some degree a grey area. As a result, there arise there questions like:

1. Whether all the military activity of one state in the EEZ of another state are against the peace principle or only some of them are against the peace principle?
2. Who shall have the final judgment of the nature of such activities?

The first view-point holds that military activities can be divided into two categories (a) for peaceful purpose (b) those not for peaceful purpose. The problem lies here is the inconsistent practice in regard to the nature and consequences of such activities.

The second view-point holds that the coastal state that is heavily affected by such military activities should be given the right to judge the nature of the military activities and prohibit those that might threaten its security. Since it considers more feelings and interests of the developing states and submits the military activities to the decisions of the coastal states, it is welcomed by them, but strongly opposed by the big maritime powers.

Since there is inconsistent practice of states it is necessary to codify and lay down a general principle of the military activities and to make universally acceptable norms in this regard. It would be helpful to make a list of permitted military activities and prohibited activities. And the list can be further adjusted according to the development of the international law and state practice.

Dispute Settlement Mechanisms:

UNCLOS provides mechanisms for resolving disputes related to EEZ activities, including military matters:

• Article 59 outlines the basis for resolution of conflicts regarding the attribution of rights and jurisdiction in the EEZ.
• Disputes can be addressed through negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration.
• If these methods fail, parties can seek resolution through judicial proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

International Court Of Justice:

Nicaragua v. Colombia case, the ICJ addressed allegations of violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces in the Caribbean Sea, including issues related to the EEZ.

Impeccable Incident 2009:

• The Impeccable was an ocean surveillance ship acquired by the U.S. Navy in 2001 and assigned to Military Sealift Command's Special Missions Program.
• On March 5, 2009, while in the South China Sea, the Impeccable was monitoring submarine activity.
• It was approached by a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) frigate, which crossed its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards without making prior contact.
• This encounter raised tensions and highlighted issues related to freedom of navigation and military activities in the region.
• On March 8, 2009, five Chinese vessels surrounded the Impeccable approximately 75 miles south of Hainan Island in the South China Sea.
• The Impeccable is an unarmed, civilian-operated ocean surveillance ship belonging to Military Sealift Command.
• Two of the Chinese ships came within 50 feet of the US ship, and their crew attempted to snag the Impeccable's towed acoustic array sonar.

In summary, the Impeccable incident underscores the complexities of maritime security, sovereignty, and military interactions in contested waters.

Suggestions:
It is inevitable that there will be challenges or concerns, but in many cases, these can even be welcomed because they point out areas that the law needs to be improved and help it evolve. UNCLOS has usually included methods for handling these kinds of disputes. In many cases, governments' failures or in capabilities to use these mechanisms, apply UNCLOS in the intended way, or interpret the treaty are more problematic than the provisions of UNCLOS itself.

The kind of tool most suited to tackle these challenges will vary depending on the specifics of the situation and the nature of the challenge itself. If the coastal states and user states cooperated, many of the problems that have emerged around activity in the EEZ could be avoided. If the coastal states and the user states both acted in good faith in fulfilling their "due regard obligations," many of the issues that have arisen around operations in the EEZ could be avoided. When a coastal state's rights and obligations in its exclusive economic zone are threatened by an exercise of its freedom or rights in the area, the coastal states should be informed and consulted before taking any action.

Regretfully, the dispute settlement process is not as frequently utilized as it should be when it comes to resolving challenges to the EEZ framework. There may be many reasons why states are reluctant to unilaterally invoke the dispute settlement system in UNCLOS when it has a dispute with another state. It is pricey, to start. Second, it can be viewed as an unfriendly gesture by one state, which could harm ties between the two states in other areas. Seeking an advisory opinion from the international tribunal for law of sea ITLOS would be the last resort available to settle some of the conflicts over the activities in the eyes.

Conclusion
In state practice, military operations in the EEZ continue to be contentious and were a source of controversy throughout UNCLOS III discussions. UNCLOS is vague or mute on the legitimacy of military actions in other EEZs, despite its best efforts to strike a balance between the divergent interests of maritime and coastal states. While maritime governments place a higher priority on the freedom of navigation, coastal states aim to exert ever-greater control over their marine zones. The conditions and variables that determine what constitutes legal military operations are numerous.

Coastal governments shouldn't unilaterally withdraw some high-sea freedoms, and maritime nations can't conduct naval operations without restrictions. Mutual respect and proper consideration should be shown for each other by the coastal and maritime states. Without precise guidelines defining the type and extent of acceptable action, the subject of military operations in the EEZ would remain complicated. States ought to hold discussions and negotiate agreements to help define the parameters of military operations within the EEZ. Rather than seeing the ocean to be a zero-sum resource, they ought to concentrate on shared interests, interdependence, and coexistence.

References:

• The United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea 1982.
• The United Nations Charter.
• Satya Nandan, The Exclusive Economic Zone: Historical Perspective, FAO Website available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/s5280t0p.htm.
• Satya N. Nandan and Shabtai Rosenne (eds.), United Nations Conventions on the Law of Sea 1982: A Commentary Volume II (United States, 1993), 569.
• Peaceful use of force, Military activities, and the New Law of the Sea (1985) 18 Cornell Int’l LJ 203, 222 Valencia (n 45).
• Churchill and Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 163.
• George V. Galdorisi and Alan Kaufman, "Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Preventing Uncertainty and Defusing Conflict," California Western International Law Journal 32 (2001-2002): 253-302, 272.
• Myres S. McDougal and William T. Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans: A Contemporary International Law of the Sea (New Haven, 1962), 77.
• Jon M. Van Dyke, "The Disappearing Right to Navigational Freedom in the Exclusive Economic Zone," Marine Policy 29 (2005): 107-121, 107.
• John R. Stevenson & Bernard H. Oxman, The Future of the United Nations Conventions on the Law of Sea, 88 AJIL 488, 496 (1994).
• Jon M. Van Dyke, "The Disappearing Right to Navigational Freedom in the Exclusive Economic Zone," 109.
• Alan Boyle, "Further Development of the Law of Sea Convention: Mechanisms for change," International and Comparative Law Quarterly 54 (July 2005): 563-584, 572-574.