The bridge on the strait of messina: “Lowering” the right of innocent passage?

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 411-419

  Spadi, Fabio ^a  

^a SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT ANNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966561736     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/50.2.411     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. For a detailed description R. H. Kennedy, “Brève étude géographique et hydro-graphique des détroits qui constituent des voies de passage internationales”, Conférence des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, 1 Documents préparatoires (1958), Doc. A/Conf.13/6, pp.136–137.
2. Articles 34–36 of UNCLOS. On the “international” aspects of the Strait see M. Gestri, “Libertà di navigazione e prevenzione dell'inquinamento: II caso dello Stretto di Messina”, LXIX Rivista di diritto internazionale (1986), pp.280–306, in particular p.285.
3. Gestri, Rivista di diritto internazionale, p. 287
4. T. Treves, Il diritto del mare e l'Italia (Giuffrè Editore, Milano, 1995) pp.54–55
5. J. A. de Yturriaga, Straits Used for International Navigation–A Spanish Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1991) p.13.
6. L. M. Alexander, “Exceptions to the Transit Passage Regime: Straits with Routes of ‘Similar Convenience’”, 18 Ocean Development and International Law (1987), pp.484–486.
7. The idea of a bridge or system of bridges over the Strait seems to have been contemplated even by Emperor Charlemagne back in the IX Century. L. La Spina, “Il Ponte sullo Stretto lungo un'illusione”, La Stampa, 18 Sept. 1999, p.11.
8. The Law provided for the Company shares to be allotted as follows: 51% to the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (IRI–Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale), 12.25% to the Italian State Railways (FS–Ferrovie dello Stato), 12.25% to the National Roads Authority (ANAS–Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade), 12.25% to Calabria's regional government, 12.25% to the Sicilian regional government.
9. For a detailed history of the Project, see the official website of the Stretto di Messina S.p.A., at .
10. E. d'Errico, “Ponte sullo Stretto, c'è il sì degli esperti”, Corriere della Sera, 27 Nov. 2000, p.24.
11. G. Pogliotti, “Rapporto degli advisers: il ponte sullo stretto costerà 9–10 mld”, Il Sole 24 Ore, 13 Jan. 2001, p.10.
12. M. Koskenniemi, “Case Concerning Passage through the Great Belt”, 27 Ocean Development and International Law (1996), pp.264–265
13. for an earlier version in French see Koskenniemi, “L'affaire du passage par le Grand-Belt”, XXXVIII Annuaire Français de Droit International (1992), pp.905–947.
14. Koskenniemi, Annuaire Français de Droit International, pp.255–289.
15. The ICJ, which refused to indicate provisional measures as requested by Finland–Passage Through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), I.C.J. Rep. 1991, pp.12–21–never came to a decision on the merits as Denmark and Finland concluded a separate agreement which resolved the issue.
16. I.C.J. Rep. 1992, pp.348–349.
17. Among others, the main relevant instrument of international law, peculiar to the Straits, was and still is the Treaty on the Redemption of the Sound Dues (Copenhagen, 14 March 1857). Text (in French, official language) in G. F. de Martens, 16 Nouveau recueil général des traités et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international, 2nd Series (Dieterich, Gottingue, 1891), pp.345ff. Similarly important were bilateral treaties concluded with the powers that had not participated in the Copenhagen multilateral convention. Counter-memorial submitted by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, para.661, available at . These treaties make the Danish Straits one of those international waterways subject to Article 35 UNCLOS: “Nothing in this Part affects: … (c) the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits”.
18. Koskenniemi, Nouveau recueil général des traités et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international, p.281
19. Nouveau recueil général des traités et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international.
20. Paras.676–677, Counter-memorial submitted by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, Nouveau recueil général des traités et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international.
21. The Decree (8 May 1985) prohibited the passage of all ships over 50,000 tonnes transporting oil or other noxious substances, as defined by the treaties which currently bind Italy. 110 Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 11 May 1985.
22. B. B. Jia, The Regime of Straits in International Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998), p.181. The note was addressed to the U.S.
23. The protest had been made in relation to an earlier Decree (see infra n.37) but was couched in terms so general as to be relevant for the later Decree as well.
24. J. A. Roach & R. W. Smith, Excessive Maritime Claims (Naval War College, Newport R.I., 1994), pp.197–200
25. T. Treves, “Codification du droit international et pratique des états dans le droit de la mer”, 223 Recueil des Cours (1990), pp.134–135.
26. Gestri, Recueil des Cours, pp.292–297
27. G. Cataldi, Il passaggio inoffensivo delle navi straniere attraverso il mare territoriale (Giuffrè Editore, Milano, 1990), pp.102–103.
28. Law No. 1158 (Il passaggio inoffensivo delle navi straniere attraverso il mare territoriale) defined the creation of a permanent road and railway linkage between Sicily and the Mainland to be an infrastructure “of national interest”.
29. Technically speaking, the submerged or underground alternatives were considered feasible. Il passaggio inoffensivo delle navi straniere attraverso il mare territoriale.
30. On the significance of this point L. Lucchini & M. Vœlckel, Droit de la mer (Pédone, Paris, 1996), p.370.
31. Doc. NAV 35/Inf. 4, 10 Oct. 1988. Doc. MSC 57/INF.2, 10 Oct. 1988.
32. “IMO Has 158 Member States”, IMO Briefing, 21 March 2000. However, at the time of the adoption of the Report of the Sub-Committee, the members were “only” 135. Many of the new entrants have resulted form the dissolution of previous States (USSR, Yugoslavia). Data available on .
33. Koskenniemi, IMO Briefing, pp.268–269.
34. Kennedy, IMO Briefing, p.137.
35. IMO Briefing. Among the new members, many have a Mediterranean-Black Sea profile, thus are probably likely to use the Strait more frequently: Croatia (1992), Albania (1993), Bosnia & Herzegovina (1993), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1993), Georgia (1993), Slovenia (1993), Ukraine (1994).
36. Koskenniemi, IMO Briefing, p.269.
37. Opinions in the Italian political spectrum and indeed within the Government are not unanimous. A. Baccaro, “Sì al Ponte di Messina. Mattioli e Wwf contro”, Corriere della Sera, 28 Nov. 2000, p.13
38. R. Giovannini, “Messina, un ponte da 10.800 miliardi”, La Stampa, 24 Jan. 2001, p.10
39. S. Rizzo, “Messina, 11 anni per il ponte”, Corriere della Sera, 24 Jan. 2001, p.19.
40. Available on . See also Corriere della Sera
41. Pogliotti, Corriere della Sera.
42. Giovanni, Corriere della Sera
43. Rizzo, Corriere della Sera.
44. It is quite significant that the closure of the Strait to 50,000 tonne tankers and the temporary interdiction for 10,000 tonne tankers (Ministerial Decree, 27 March 1985; 76 Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, 29 March 1985) seemingly attracted only the U.S. protest.
45. Treves, “Codification …”, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana., p.135.