Question

A Coastal State, subject to the obligations imposed by International Law, has sovereignty over its:

• A. Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters, and the air space above them.
• B. Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters.
• C. Territorial waters only.
• D. Territorial waters and the air space above them.
• A. Article 86
• B. Article 87
• C. Article 88
• D. Article 89
• A. To conform to generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices and to take any steps which may be necessary to mitigate the damage so caused.
• B. To cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified person(s) into such casualty or incident.
• C. To investigate the matter and, if appropriate, take any action necessary to remedy the situation.
• D. To assume jurisdiction under its internal law over such casualty or incident in respect of its administrative, technical and social implications.
• A. Liability
• B. Equitable interest
• C. Appurtenance
• D. Trust
• A. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.
• B. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the provisions of the UNCLOS while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.
• C. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the foreign State’s sovereign or territorial waters.
• D. A vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State’s sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto a third State’s sovereign or territorial waters.
• A. State of Tamil Nadu v. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294.
• B. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 3 SCC 354.
• C. Republic of Italy through Ambassador v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721.
• D. Sabeeha Faikage v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 262.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Sovereignty over maritime zones.
According to international law, particularly as codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a coastal State exercises full sovereignty over its territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil beneath such waters, and the air space above. This sovereignty is similar to that exercised over its land territory.
Step 2: Scope of rights and obligations.
This sovereignty is subject to obligations imposed by international law, including innocent passage rights of foreign vessels. However, within this 12 nautical mile zone from the baseline, the State’s authority is supreme over the water column, the seabed and subsoil, and the airspace above.
Step 3: Elimination of wrong options.
- (B) excludes air space, which is incorrect as airspace sovereignty is also recognised.
- (C) excludes seabed, subsoil, and air space, hence incomplete.
- (D) excludes seabed and subsoil, which is part of the sovereign rights.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 2

The question asks precisely what a coastal State's sovereignty over its territorial sea extends to under international law.

1. Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters, and the air space above them: This mirrors the sovereignty a State exercises over its land territory, extended to the maritime belt. It covers the water column, the ground beneath it, and the space above it, which is the complete scope international law recognises.
2. Territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters: This captures two of the three dimensions but leaves out the air space above the territorial sea, over which the coastal State also exercises sovereign control, for instance in regulating overflight.
3. Territorial waters only: This is the narrowest option and ignores that sovereignty is not confined to the water column, it also extends downward to the seabed and subsoil and upward to the airspace.
4. Territorial waters and the air space above them: This includes the airspace but drops the seabed and subsoil, even though a coastal State's sovereign rights clearly extend to the ground beneath its territorial sea as well.

Only the option that lists all three dimensions together, the waters, the seabed and subsoil, and the airspace, correctly reflects the full territorial sovereignty a coastal State holds.

So, the correct answer is territorial waters, the seabed and subsoil underlying such waters, and the air space above them.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the high seas principle.
Under UNCLOS, the high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or landlocked, and no State may claim sovereignty over any part of them. This principle ensures freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses.
Step 2: Relevant Article.
Article 89 of UNCLOS clearly declares: “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
Step 3: Elimination of options.
- (A) Article 86 defines the scope of the high seas provisions but does not contain the prohibition.
- (B) Article 87 details the freedoms of the high seas but not the sovereignty prohibition.
- (C) Article 88 reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes but is not the relevant provision here.
- (D) Article 89 specifically addresses the sovereignty prohibition.
\[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 4

This question tests familiarity with the sequence of articles in Part VII of UNCLOS dealing with the high seas.

1. Article 86: This article defines the geographic scope of Part VII, describing which waters count as the "high seas" for the purposes of that Part. It does not contain the sovereignty prohibition.
2. Article 87: This article lists the freedoms of the high seas, such as navigation, overflight, and fishing. It describes what States may do on the high seas rather than what no State may claim over them.
3. Article 88: This article reserves the high seas for peaceful purposes. It addresses the use of the high seas, not sovereignty claims over them.
4. Article 89: This is the provision that expressly states no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty. It directly matches the wording quoted in the question.

Working through the sequence of Part VII articles shows that the prohibition on sovereignty claims is specifically located in Article 89, distinct from the scope, freedoms, and peaceful use provisions that surround it.

So, the correct answer is Article 89.

Answer 5

Step 1: Identify the precise obligation in Art. 94(7).
UNCLOS Article 94 sets out flag-State duties. Clause (7) specifically mandates that, where a serious marine casualty on the high seas involves a ship flying a State’s flag and results in loss of life or serious injury to nationals of another State, the flag State shall cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified persons.
Step 2: Distinguish from broader/other duties.
While Articles 94(1)–(6) speak of general compliance with international regulations and effective jurisdiction/control, clause (7) pinpoints the investigative duty via a formal inquiry before qualified persons.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) General compliance duty — not the specific Art. 94(7) obligation.
(C) Vague “investigate/take action” — lacks the formal inquiry requirement.
(D) Internal-law jurisdiction reference — broader administrative aspects, not the mandated inquiry.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 6

The question asks what specific duty Article 94(7) UNCLOS places on a flag State after a serious marine casualty involving its ship and injury to nationals of another State.

1. Conform to international regulations and mitigate damage: This describes the flag State's general operational duties under the earlier parts of Article 94, keeping its ships up to accepted international standards, rather than the specific post casualty obligation in clause (7).
2. Cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified persons: Article 94(7) specifically requires the flag State to institute a formal inquiry conducted by, or before, persons who are properly qualified to investigate a marine casualty of this kind. This is the precise obligation the clause creates.
3. Investigate and, if appropriate, take remedial action: This phrasing is looser than the actual text. It suggests a general investigation followed by optional remedial steps, but it does not capture the specific requirement of a formal inquiry before qualified persons.
4. Assume jurisdiction under internal law over administrative, technical and social implications: This describes a broader jurisdictional stance a flag State takes over its vessels generally, not the particular inquiry obligation that arises specifically after a casualty causing loss of life or serious injury.

Article 94(7) is narrowly worded around the duty to hold a formal inquiry through qualified persons, which distinguishes it from the more general compliance and jurisdiction duties found elsewhere in the same article.

So, the correct answer is to cause an inquiry to be held by or before suitably qualified person(s) into such casualty or incident.

Answer 7

Step 1: Meaning of “appurtenance”.
In public international law, an appurtenance is something that naturally and inseparably attaches to the principal thing. Territorial waters are treated as a necessary extension of a coastal State’s land territory.
Step 2: Why compulsory.
International law (as reflected in UNCLOS and classic writers) treats territorial sea as inherent and compulsory to maritime States — not optional or dependent on a claim — carrying both rights (sovereignty) and obligations (e.g., innocent passage).
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) Liability = responsibility, not an attachment to territory.
(B) Equitable interest = private-law proprietary notion, inapt here.
(D) Trust = fiduciary concept, not the status of territorial waters.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 8

The question fills in a blank describing the special legal relationship territorial waters have with the coastal State, beyond simply being "territory".

1. Liability: A liability is an obligation or burden a State owes to someone else. Territorial waters bring obligations along with them, but describing the waters themselves as a "liability" does not capture the idea of something that is inseparably attached to the State's land.
2. Equitable interest: This is a concept from private property law describing a beneficial interest short of full ownership. It does not fit the public international law relationship between a State and the waters adjoining its coast.
3. Appurtenance: An appurtenance is something that attaches to and follows a principal thing as a matter of course. Territorial waters attach to the coastal land automatically and cannot be separated from it or declined by the State, which is exactly the sense of "compulsory" attachment being described.
4. Trust: A trust involves one party holding property for the benefit of another under fiduciary obligations. That framework does not describe a State's own sovereign relationship with the sea adjoining its coast.

The word that captures an automatic, non-optional attachment to the coastal land is "appurtenance", which is why territorial waters are described as such rather than in terms of liability, equitable interest, or trust.

So, the correct answer is Appurtenance.

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding “Hot Pursuit” in UNCLOS.
Article 111 UNCLOS codifies the right of “hot pursuit” — it allows a coastal State to pursue and arrest a foreign vessel beyond its territorial sea if that vessel has violated the State’s laws or regulations within internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, or contiguous zone.
Step 2: Conditions for hot pursuit.
- Pursuit must begin when the vessel is within the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, or contiguous zone of the pursuing State.
- The pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted.
- It ends when the pursued vessel enters the territorial waters of its own State or a third State.
Step 3: Applying to options.
(A) Matches Article 111 — violation within the coastal State’s waters allows pursuit onto the high seas.
(B) Incorrect — references UNCLOS provisions in general, not the specific law violation requirement.
(C) Incorrect — pursuit cannot continue into another State’s sovereign waters.
(D) Incorrect — Article 111 does not permit pursuit into a third State’s waters.
\[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 10

This question is about correctly stating what the right of "hot pursuit" under Article 111 UNCLOS actually permits.

1. A vessel violating a foreign State's laws within that State's sovereign or territorial waters may be pursued onto the high seas: This matches the doctrine precisely, hot pursuit begins while the vessel is within the coastal State's own waters and, if continuous and unbroken, may carry onto the high seas where the vessel can be stopped and arrested.
2. A vessel violating UNCLOS provisions within that State's waters may be pursued onto the high seas: This substitutes "the provisions of UNCLOS" for "the laws of a foreign State". Article 111 is triggered by violation of the coastal State's own laws and regulations, not simply any breach of the Convention itself, so this option misstates the trigger.
3. A vessel violating a foreign State's laws within that State's waters may be pursued onto the foreign State's own waters: This does not make sense as a description of pursuit, since the vessel is already within that State's waters when the violation occurs. Hot pursuit is about extending enforcement outward onto the high seas, not pursuing a vessel into the pursuing State's own waters.
4. A vessel violating a foreign State's laws within that State's waters may be pursued onto a third State's waters: Hot pursuit terminates the moment the pursued vessel enters the territorial waters of its own State or of any third State. So pursuit can never continue into a third State's waters, which is the opposite of what Article 111 allows.

The doctrine of hot pursuit is specifically about extending a coastal State's enforcement jurisdiction from its own waters onto the high seas, and it stops the instant the vessel reaches any other State's territorial sea.

So, the correct answer is a vessel, if it has committed a violation of the laws of a foreign State while in that State's sovereign or territorial waters, may be pursued onto the high seas.

Answer 11

Step 1: Context of the case.
This landmark case arose from the Enrica Lexie incident (2012), where two Indian fishermen were killed by Italian marines off the coast of Kerala. The jurisdictional dispute centred on whether India could try the marines under its laws, given the incident took place in the contiguous zone.
Step 2: The Supreme Court’s observation.
In its judgment, the Court stated: “Sovereignty is not ‘given’, it is asserted”, underscoring that India’s assertion of jurisdiction over the contiguous zone and EEZ stems from international law rights (UNCLOS) and domestic legislation (Maritime Zones Act).
Step 3: Eliminating other options.
(A) Mariya Anton Vijay — deals with arrest warrants in foreign waters.
(B) Great Eastern Shipping — deals with tax and maritime trade jurisdiction.
(D) Sabeeha Faikage — concerns passport and citizenship issues.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 12

The question asks which Supreme Court judgment contains the observation that "sovereignty is not 'given', but it is only asserted".

1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294: This case concerns matters of criminal procedure and does not involve the maritime sovereignty question underlying the quoted observation.
2. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 3 SCC 354: This decision addresses questions around shipping and state taxation, not the assertion of maritime sovereignty in the sense discussed here.
3. Republic of Italy through Ambassador v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721: This is the judgment arising out of the Enrica Lexie incident, where two Indian fishermen were killed by Italian marines off the Kerala coast. In deciding whether India could exercise jurisdiction in its contiguous zone, the Court made the specific observation that sovereignty over such maritime zones is asserted through the exercise of rights under international law and domestic legislation, rather than being granted by anyone.
4. Sabeeha Faikage v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 262: This case deals with passport and citizenship related issues and has no connection to the maritime sovereignty discussion in the question.

Only the Republic of Italy judgment engages with the question of how a State's sovereignty over its contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone comes into being, which is where the quoted observation appears.

So, the correct answer is Republic of Italy through Ambassador v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721.