Disputes where title over high-tide features or mainland territory is disputed are not uncommon in the international legal landscape. Two sets of overlapping claims are created in disputes in which the issues of dispute to title and disputed waters are combined: one set that pertains to the land territory as such, and the other to the maritime zones the land territory is entitled to. Sovereignty claims by States to a high-tide feature or land territory are almost invariably followed by making claims to the maritime zones that they are entitled to, thereby creating a second layer of overlapping claims that relate to the adjacent waters. But what are the rights and obligations of States in disputed waters located off disputed land territory? This chapter establishes the implications that follow from that there is a combination of the elements of sovereignty and the claiming of maritime zones from the same basepoints of a disputed land territory, for identifying the applicable legal framework in disputed waters off its coast. For example, the applicability of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) LOSC is limited in cases where claims are measured from the same disputed land territory, creating disputed waters in the process.

This chapter examines Article 6 1958 CSC and Articles 74(3) and 83(3) LOSC with a view towards ascertaining the extent to which these provisions set out a rule governing the conduct of unilateral activities in disputed EEZ and continental shelf areas. Article 6 1958 CSC, is the forerunner to the provision in the LOSC, is developed on the basis of equidistance: States are not entitled to extend their continental shelf beyond the equidistance boundary – that is, assuming there are no special circumstances. Articles 74(3)/83(3) LOSC lays down two obligations that are geared towards two different purposes: cooperation and abstention. The cooperative aspect is formed by the fact that States must seek provisional arrangements. The aspect of abstention is exemplified in that the States concerned must refrain from unilateral conduct that hampers or jeopardises EEZ/continental shelf delimitation. These two obligations arise conjointly in some, but not all, disputed EEZ/continental shelf areas. A dual function underlies the obligation not to hamper or jeopardise: first, it places limitations on the scope for coastal States to actively undertake unilateral acts; and, second, the obligation curtails the ways in which States can respond to activities undertaken in a disputed area.