On April 7, the U.S.’s seventh Fleet Destroyer, the USS John Paul Jones, conducted a ‘Freedom of Navigation Operation’ one hundred thirty transport miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands within India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Not solely was this exercise conducted while not requesting India’s consent, but the U.S. seventh Fleet noted in its release that India’s demand of previous consent is “inconsistent with international law”. In its response, Bharat declared that the global organization Convention on the Law of the ocean (UNCLOS) “does not authorize different States to hold move into the Exclusive Economic Zone and on the ocean bottom, military exercises or maneuvers, specifically those involving the employment of weapons or explosives, while not the consent of the coastal state”. as a result of the various positions of the 2 countries, legal queries emerge here. The question is, will countries do military exercises in another country’s EEZ and if affirmative, subject to what conditions?  Understanding the law UNCLOS binds all its signatories and customary jurisprudence binds all states, subject to exceptions just like the philosophical system of persistent protester. Most of the provisions of the UNCLOS square measure the results of codifications of the present rules of customary jurisprudence. Bharat may be a party to the UNCLOS whereas the U.S. is not. As per the UNCLOS, EEZ is a section adjacent to the water of a coastal state wherever the sovereign coastal state has rights and duties regarding management of natural resources; institution and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; marine scientific research; and protection of the marine surroundings. this distinction in legal interpretation brings into the image Articles fifty eight and eighty seven of the UNCLOS. Article fifty eight (1) provides that within the EEZ, all States, whether or not coastal or inland, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms stated in Article eighty seven of navigation and flight and of the birth of submarine cables and pipelines also as different internationally lawful uses of the ocean. Article eighty seven provides for freedom of the high seas underneath that all states have the liberty of navigation. However, the liberty of navigation is subject to the conditions ordered down underneath the UNCLOS and different rules of jurisprudence. additionally thereto, Article fifty eight (3) stipulates another qualification: “In sweat their rights and activity their duties underneath this Convention within the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due relevancy the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall suits the laws and rules adopted by the coastal State...” The relevant Indian law during this regard is that the water, ocean bottom, Exclusive Economic Zone and different Maritime Zones of Bharat Act, 1976. Section seven sub­section nine of this Act acknowledges the liberty of navigation of the ships of all States however makes them subject to the exercise of rights by Bharat at intervals the zone.  The declaration by {india|India|Republic of Bharat|Bharat|Asian country|Asian nation} in 1995 additionally states that India “understands that the provisions of the Convention don't authorize different States to hold move into the exclusive economic zone and on the ocean bottom military exercises or manoeuvres, specifically those involving the employment of weapons or explosives, while not the consent of the coastal State”. AN adjunct question that emerges is that the legal impact of such declarations. Article 310 of the UNCLOS will allow states to create declarations so as to clarify the link between the Convention and their own laws, however such declarations mustn't “purport to exclude or to switch the legal impact of the provisions of this Convention in their application to it State”. Negotiating considerations On a conjoined reading of Articles fifty eight, 87 and 310, it will be argued that freedom of navigation can't be scan in AN absolute and isolated manner. Given the character of EEZ and also the activities that a coastal state conducts in its EEZ, non­consensual military activities that hinder the lawful enjoyment of such rights needn't be permissible. Also, a coastal state is of course involved regarding military exercises and manoeuvres sitting a risk to its coastal communities, its installations or artificial islands, also because the marine surroundings. Thus, any state that needs to conduct such exercises should do thus solely in consultation with the coastal state since the coastal state is that the best decide of its EEZ. each Bharat and also the U.S. ought to hash out such considerations for the upkeep of international peace and security. Riding roughshod over international obligations premised either in AN incorrect interpretation of the law or the scope of its application won't solely threaten friendly relations however additionally undermine the progress created towards codification and development of jurisprudence in a section like the law of the ocean, that is especially advanced