4 No. 69 JUSTICE they currently apply.11 There is a need to examine whether the maritime zones that are the subject of the agreement can be considered territory in which the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel apply and would no longer apply under the agreement. This article argues that the agreement does transfer part of Israel’s maritime zones to Lebanon. Israel’s position during the negotiations was that the boundary between Israel and Lebanon should follow “point 1” as submitted to the UN,12 while Lebanon argued for the boundary to follow “point 23.”13 The final agreement, from approximately 2.7 nautical miles (nm) (5 km) from the coast up to the boundary point with Cyprus,14 ultimately followed “point 23” in accordance with Lebanon’s claim.15 Hence, Israel waived its claim and agreed that most of the disputed area will be part of Lebanon’s maritime zones. Thus, there is a need to determine whether the disputed area can be considered as a territory in which the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel apply. The agreement delimits the territorial sea and the EEZ.16 The EEZ does not pose a problem, since it is not a territory under the sovereignty of Israel, but rather a zone where Israel has limited “sovereign rights” to explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources.17 In addition, Israel never applied its law, jurisdiction and administration in the EEZ. The only Israeli law that is relevant to maritime zones beyond the territorial sea is the Submarine Areas Law (5713-1953).18 The law only refers to the continental shelf (CS) and not to the EEZ.19 The language of the law does not indicate that Israel applies its laws and jurisdiction to the submarine areas; it only declares that Israel has such areas.20 Thus, transferring the disputed area from Israel’s EEZ to Lebanon’s EEZ does not require securing prior approval by referendum or through approval by 80 Knesset members. The agreement also transfers part of Israel’s territorial sea, between 2.7-12 nautical miles, to Lebanon.21 Unlike the EEZ, the territorial sea is under the sovereignty of the coastal state, here Israel. It is essentially an extension of the sovereignty over the land territory.22 However, Israel argued that the Basic Law: Referendum does not apply to the disputed maritime zone subject of the agreement, since there was no prior boundary between the parties and the 2011 deposit chart did not draw such a boundary, although this position addresses mostly the EEZ.23 While the basic law does not apply to the EEZ, as explained above, Israel’s arguments do not explain why it is not applicable to the territorial sea.24 The fact that most of the disputed area is part of the EEZ does not mean that Israel should ignore questions relating to the territorial sea. As discussed above, Israeli domestic law mostly does not specifically address Israel’s jurisdiction in its maritime zones. However, some scholars maintain that sovereignty means that an expressed statement that domestic laws apply in the territorial sea is not needed.25 Therefore, the territorial sea, which is under the sovereignty of the coastal states, is a territory in which Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration 7. Agreement between the Government of the Hellenic Republic and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between the two countries, 6 August 2020, UN Treaty Collection website, available at https://treaties.un.org/ doc/Publication/UNTS/No%20Volume/56237/Part/I56237-080000028058a22f.pdf 8. Agreement between the Republic of Cyprus and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone, 17 February 2003, DOALOS website, available at https://www.un.org/Depts/los/ LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/ EGY-CYP2003EZ.pdf 9. Agreement between the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone, 17 December 2010, DOALOS website, available at https://www.un.org/ Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/ TREATIES/cyp_isr_eez_2010.pdf 10. See also Yiallourides et al., supra note 5. 11. Basic Law: Referendum (unofficial translation), Knesset website, available at https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/ activity/Documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawReferendum. pdf 12. See Annex 1, figure 1. See also Israel deposit of charts to the UN 2011, available at https://www.un.org/Depts/ los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/isr_eez_ northernlimit2011.pdf; see also advisory opinion of Israeli Ministry of Justice, materials submitted for the Israeli government decision, concerning the agreement, supra note 5, p. 34. 13. See Annex 1, figure 1. See also advisory opinion of Israeli Ministry of Justice, materials submitted for the Israeli government decision concerning the agreement, supra note 5, p. 34; letter dated 20 June 2011 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon, 20 June 2011, DOALOS website, available at https://www.un.org/ Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/ communications/lbn_re_cyp_isr_agreement2010.pdf 14. See Annex 1, figure 2. See also advisory opinion of Israeli Ministry of Justice, materials submitted for the Israeli government decision concerning the agreement, supra note 5, pp. 37-38.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=