The loosely phrased, and undefined, ‘exclusive flag state jurisdiction’ principle of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention Article 92, has arguably proved to be a red herring for states and academia, in its being raised as a limiting factor to extra-territorial prescription by non-flag states. This has extended to port state jurisdiction discussions, and was raised by analogy for aircraft, before the European Court of Justice, in relation to the limits of jurisdiction over high seas overflight. This paper argues for a limited scope to the term ‘jurisdiction’ in Article 92. It concludes that far from being a limiting factor, the principle of flag state exclusivity is solely concerned with the enforcement jurisdiction of states on the high seas. The increasing use of port state prescriptive jurisdiction, particularly those practices with extra-territorial effect, provides further evidence that this is the correct interpretation.

中文翻译：

---

船旗国的专属管辖权：对主动港口国的限制？

《联合国海洋法公约》第 92 条措辞松散且未定义的“船旗国专属管辖权”原则，可以说是各国和学术界的红鲱鱼，将其作为限制因素提出来非船旗国的领土规定。这已经扩展到港口国管辖权的讨论，并在欧洲法院就公海飞越的管辖权限制以飞机类比提出。本文主张限制第 92 条中“管辖权”一词的范围。它得出的结论是，船旗国排他性原则远非限制因素，仅与各国在公海的执行管辖权有关。越来越多地使用港口国规定性管辖权，