This Guideline goes to the heart of the dichotomy of the two "due regards" in Articles 56 and 58. A coastal State view follows¹¹¹. Although the Convention did not clearly explain the term "due regard," the wording of Articles 56 and 58 that follows "due regard" is of significance. The former provides that the coastal State should have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and "shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention", while Article 58 (3) stipulates that other States should have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and "shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part".

　

 The two "due regards" do not mean that when conflicts arise between the coastal State exercising its rights and another State exercising its freedoms, the two parties have equal rights. This can be seen from the different 'qualities' and 'quantities' (nature and extent) of the rights and the freedoms of the two "due regards".

　

 The relevant terms used in the provisions of the 1982 UNCLOS indicate that the sovereign rights enjoyed by the coastal States are superior. The term "sovereign rights" first appeared in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, and was used to refer to the rights of the coastal States over their continental shelf. These rights are sovereign, natural, comprehensive and superior to the rights of other States. However, in the balance created by the EEZ regime, the sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction enjoyed by the coastal State are restricted by the 1982 UNCLOS and other rules of general international law. But these restrictions do not necessarily degrade the superiority of the rights of the coastal States. Therefore, the 1982 UNCLOS obliges the coastal States and other States to "act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention", but requires other States to "comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal States in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law...".

　

 Thus when conflicts arise between the exercise of the exclusive rights by the coastal State and the enjoyment of freedom of navigation by other States, priority should be given to the coastal States in the resolution of the conflict of rights. In its EEZ, the coastal State enjoys sovereign rights of ownership, exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of its natural resources, exclusive jurisdiction over the protection and preservation of the marine environment, MSR, and the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures.

　

 While there may be honest differences as to the primacy of the obligation of the foreign State to pay due regard to the Coastal States' rights in its EEZ, foreign States should not impede the efforts of the coastal States to conduct surveillance with respect to their rights and duties under Part V.

　

 This Guideline states the obvious, i.e., that under the freedoms of navigation and overflight foreign States can and do conduct surveillance in other State's EEZs. However, it qualifies that right by suggesting that the surveillance should be for 'peaceful purposes' as defined in the Guidelines, and that it should not prejudice the jurisdictional rights and responsibilities of the Coastal State. This is broader language than used in Guideline IVa, i.e., a Coastal State's right to conduct surveillance should not [be] impede [d]. However, it is exhortatory in the spirit of avoiding the appearance of hostile intent. Note that surveillance is defined in these Guidelines as observation, implying passive information collection. Guideline Articles Vb and VIa deal with "active and intrusive" information gathering.

　

 Many may consider this exhortation unrealistic and it may well be. But this Guideline assumes that there is no hostile intent in the undertaking of surveillance and that the information collected can not be used to undermine the security of the coastal State. And if the information collected concerns the activities of a third party in the coastal State's EEZ, sharing it would be a confidence-building measure. Indeed, this Guideline encourages the building of trust, whereas non-compliance would create suspicion and distrust.