Article 300 of the 1982 UNCLOS³ provides that States Parties "shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in this convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right⁴." This provision, enunciating the principle of non-abuse of rights, emerged toward the end of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea negotiations at (UNCLOS III) out of two previously tabled informal proposals. One was the proposal by Mexico to the effect that all States should exercise their rights and jurisdictions recognized in the Convention in such a manner as not to unnecessarily or arbitrarily harm the rights of other States or the interests of the international community.

　

 This text was accepted by consensus in a smaller negotiation group. Subsequently, the United States submitted another text, providing simply that States should not abuse the rights or misuse the powers recognized in the Convention. On the basis of these texts, the Informal Plenary adopted the text of Article 300 at the resumed eighth session in 1980, on the understanding that the abuse of rights was in relation to those of other States, and that Articles 300, 301 (Peaceful uses of the seas) and 302 (Disclosure of information) would go in as a single package⁵. According to an authoritative commentary on the Convention, this "presumably means the abuse of a State's own rights to the disadvantage of another State or States⁶". The fact that the reference to the interests of the international community that had been included in the Mexican proposal was omitted from the final text would also support this interpretation. The application of Article 300 is thus limited to relations between States Parties to the Convention and concerns the unnecessary or arbitrary exercise of rights, jurisdiction and freedoms or the abuse or the misuse of powers by such a State Party⁷.

　

 Generally in international law, abuse of rights refers to the exercising by a State of a right " either in a way which impedes the enjoyment by other States of their own rights or for an end different from that for which the right was created, to the injury of another State⁸." More concretely, it has been pointed out that such an abuse may arise in three distinct legal situations. First, a State is hindered in the enjoyment of its won rights, and, as a consequence, suffers injury. Second, a right is exercised intentionally for an end which is different from that for which the right has been created, with the result that injury is caused. And third, a State exercises its rights in an arbitrary manner, causing injury to other States but without clearly violating their rights⁹.

　

 International law, on the whole, prohibits the abuse of rights¹⁰, and this principle of non-abuse of rights is often found in treaties, including the 1982 UNCLOS. The three situations mentioned above are all relevant to the context of the various uses of the EEZ. For example, a State may use a certain area for navigation by military vessels which cause injury to the fishing or environmental interests of the coastal State, either violating, or even without violating, the latter's rights. There could also be situations in which certain activity in the name of MSR is undertaken for non-MSR purposes, injuring the security interests of the coastal State. In any case, the fundamental element in the application of the non-abuse of rights principle is the existence of injury resulting from such an abuse¹¹. After the EP-3 incident in April 2001, in addition to the violation of Article 58 of the 1982 UNCLOS, China accused the US of exceeding the "overflight freedom" principle and abusing that principle¹².

　

 The EEZ is defined by combining Articles 55, 57, and 74 (1), to whit, "the exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea-"; "the exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured"; and "the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution". However, many EEZ boundaries in Asia remain unresolved. Thus in the spirit of the Guidelines and Article 74(3)i.e., "pending agreement- the States concerned in a spirit of understanding and co-operation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement", States should refrain from enforcing their rights and fulfilling their obligations in areas claimed by other States.

　

 This is the official definition given by the International Hydrographic Dictionary published by the International Hydrographic Bureau¹³. Hydrographic surveys are mainly conducted by ships although aircraft may also conduct them using light detection and ranging (LIDAR) equipment¹⁴. Conceivably submarines could also undertake hydrographic surveys.

　

 The basic requirements of hydrographic surveying are the abilities to take depth soundings and to accurately fix the position of the surveying platform¹⁵. Hydrographic surveys to ensure the safety of navigation are usually extremely detailed with lines of sounding as close as 100 feet apart in shallow waters and further apart in deeper waters. The waters might also be swept by side-scan sonar to ensure there are no undetected dangers between the lines of sounding. Modern oceanographic and hydrographic survey ships are fitted with multi-beam, wide-angle precision sonar systems that make it possible to continuously chart a broad strip of ocean floor.

　

 With the introduction of the Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS) in 1994 and the later Differential GPS (DGPS), survey ships became independent of the need for shore stations in the vicinity of the survey area. Until the advent of the GPS and DGPS, it was extremely difficult for hydrographic surveys to be conducted without the support of the adjacent coastal State(s) because shore control was essential for accurate position fixing and this required the establishment of shore stations. Thus the introduction of GPS enabled States to undertake hydrographic surveys in other State's EEZ without the consent or even the knowledge of the coastal State, making them controversial.

　

 Hydrographic surveying is invariably a clear and distinct activity that, despite its use of equipment similar to that used in oceanographic research, is not easily confused with marine scientific research. It is fairly obvious when a ship is conducting a hydrographic survey. It will be underway and following a regular pattern of sounding lines, whereas a ship undertaking other activities, including oceanographic research and military surveys, may be more random in its movements, stopping on occasions to conduct experiments or to take bottom samples. Generally all national hydrographic services are operated and funded by governments and in many cases these services are located within the nation's navy, although civilian crews may man the hydrographic ships.