The core function of UNCLOS is to provide a legal order for the oceans and their peaceful uses. This includes providing a legal framework for upholding law and order at sea, as this is a precondition for peaceful use. Part One of this volume deals with different perspectives of upholding law and order at sea; and Chapter 2 creates a backdrop for the following chapters dealing with these various issues. The chapter presents some perspectives on the system of law and order at sea and sets the following chapters in context with themes such as the scope of UNCLOS and its limitations, the adaptability of the convention to new developments, the role of the zonal system created under the convention and the influence of state practice on the system of upholding law and order at sea. By doing so, Chapter 2 also creates a line to the following parts of this volume; and some of the perspectives raised in Chapter 2 will be revisited in the final part (Part Four) of this volume, dealing with UNCLOS as a system of regulation and connected methodologies.
The capacity to act as a port state in international law is best described by the specific powers exercised over foreign ships, namely inspection, detention, expulsion or request of any type of information prior to the entry into the port. Many of these powers are explicitly attributed to the state in multilateral instruments, whereby the flag state consents to having its ships subject to the jurisdiction of the port state. Notwithstanding the consensus around the complementary nature of port state jurisdiction with respect to certain obligations of the flag state, the port state is not limited to fulfilling a secondary role. This is especially visible in the prevention, reduction and control of ship-source pollution, where some port states have not hesitated in acting regardless of an expressed consent by the flag state to the rule or standard being applied with the support of port powers. Not only do port states use more stringent enforcement powers to ensure that international treaties are effective, but they also prescribe novel rules and standards upon any foreign ship that approaches the port, often as a means of breaking an international negotiation deadlock. This study discusses the international legal basis for such unilateral jurisdiction by analyzing the principles of state jurisdiction under the dichotomy parochial/cosmopolitan. By interpreting the stated and implicit purposes of port state actions under that dichotomy, this study proposes that states are finding a legal ground to act based on certain legal functions they fulfill in the international legal order. This argument puts into perspective the assumed self-sufficiency of territoriality and shows how unilateralism may also serve to seek to set universally applicable norms.