Belligerent activities in neutral exclusive economic zones: Balancing war and neutrality in contemporary naval warfare

Abstract The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is one of the most significant innovations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a functional maritime zone rather than sovereign territory, it allocates sovereign rights and jurisdiction over natural resources and certain economic activities to coastal States, while preserving some high seas freedoms for all States. Among these freedoms, the conduct of foreign naval operations in the EEZs remains one of the most contested issues in peacetime, with some coastal States objecting while others accept such operations as lawful. These tensions are likely to intensify during international armed conflict, as naval hostilities could threaten neutral States’ vital interests, including fishing, shipping and the laying of submarine cables. Central to this tension is whether belligerents remain bound by the “due regard” obligation when operating in neutral EEZs during armed conflict. By applying a decolonial lens, this article reframes due regard not as a mere peacetime provision to be discarded during armed conflict, but as a hard-won decolonial achievement that must be preserved to redress a global balance of power previously tilted toward imperial interests. Dismissing this obligation disregards the power asymmetries and colonial context in which the relevant rules were made. Belligerent-leaning interpretations that characterize due regard as lex ferenda for lack of State practice overlook structural asymmetries in whose practice counts toward lex lata and risk overstating the legal significance of State silence. Broader and more inclusive State engagement is therefore necessary to ensure that the development of the law of naval warfare reflects the interests of all States, not only those of dominant naval powers.