33 C.F.R. § 2.32

High seas

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) For purposes of special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States as defined in 18 U.S.C. 7, high seas means all waters seaward of the territorial sea baseline.

(b) For the purposes of section 2 of the Act of February 19, 1895, as amended (33 U.S.C. 151) and the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 U.S.C. Chapter 34), high seas means the waters seaward of any lines established under these statutes, including the lines described in part 80 of this chapter and 46 CFR part 7.

(c) For the purposes of 14 U.S.C. 522, 14 U.S.C. 545, 33 U.S.C. 409, and 33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq., high seas includes the exclusive economic zones of the United States and other nations, as well as those waters that are seaward of territorial seas of the United States and other nations.

(d) Under customary international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and without prejudice to high seas freedoms that may be exercised within exclusive economic zones pursuant to article 58 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and unless the context clearly requires otherwise (e.g., The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969, including annexes thereto), high seas means all waters that are not the exclusive economic zone (as defined in § 2.30), territorial sea (as defined in § 2.22), or internal waters of the United States or any other nation.

[USCG-2001-9044, 68 FR 42598, July 18, 2003, as amended by USCG-2007-27887, 72 FR 45902, Aug. 16, 2007; USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58275, Sept. 18, 2020;]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: United States v. Jhonathan Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Jhonathan Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “16 Despite the above, the Appellants argue that 33 C.F.R. § 2.32 (d) confirms that the EEZ is not part of the “high seas.”
United States v. Matos-Luchi, 627 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 89 (a) (2006); 33 C.F.R. § 2.32 (c) (2009), although within the Dominican Republic's exclusive economic zone, id.”
Rickey Thompson v. United States, 608 F. App'x 726 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 33 C.F.R. § 2.32 (a) (emphasis added). The territorial sea baseline is ordinarily the mean low water line along the United States’s coast.”
United States v. Prado, 143 F. Supp. 3d 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “See 33 C.F.R. § 2.32 (d). The Court need not reach this question, however, because defendants were interdicted beyond even an EEZ.”
United States v. Jose Miguel Rosario-Rojas (11th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “16 Despite the above, the Appellants argue that 33 C.F.R. § 2.32 (d) confirms that the EEZ is not part of the “high seas.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.