Palau constitution violated the regime of EEZ in the UNCLOS. I have read this argument a few times in the past. This was also the reason why the US could not agree to an “anti-Nuclear” constitution in the 80s. Recently I have read “Constitution for sale” and found this argument again.
John Anglim (1990) Palau: Constitution for sale, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 22:1, 5-20, DOI: 10.1080/14672715.1990.10413127
It said :
"Finally, Palau's claim of sovereignty over a 200-mile maritime zone, in apparent contradiction of the 1982 Law of the Sea, could be used to prevent U.S. nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships and aircraft from transiting Palauan sea and air space (Article I, Section l )"
This is a technical argument of international law: "Sovereignty" and "Sovereign right" is a totally different concept. The coastal state has only a "Sovereign right" not "Sovereignty" for the EEZ.
‘Sovereignty’ and ‘Sovereign rights’ had different meanings under UNCLOS. The EEZ is not a territorial rights. This is what I explained with PNMS. So it could say that the roots of the problem of PNMS is the Section 1, Article 1 of Palau constitution.
Section 1. Palau shall have jurisdiction and sovereignty over its territory which shall consist of all of the islands of the Palauan archipelago, the internal waters, the territorial waters, extending to two hundred (200) nautical miles from a straight archipelagic baseline, the seabed, subsoil, water column, insular shelves, and airspace over land and water, unless otherwise limited by international treaty obligations assumed by Palau.
This leads to a serious wrong recognition of a EEZ, not only by Palau but by most of PICs including PIF. They recognize their EEZ as if it is their territory, the same as PRC. I have a strong concern of PIF and PICs use of “Pacific Continent” or “Blue Continent”.
This news article is for general reader with expert comments.