Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 78

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 78
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 80 Helga Guðmundsdóttir 81 of shared fish stocks can be found in the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement.6 Other instruments and internationally recommended standards, albeit not binding, also concern the management of shared stocks.7 Guided by the law of the sea regime and the principles in the aforementioned instruments, States have often been able to successfully cooperate in the sustainable management of shared stocks. However, with changing migration patterns of fish stocks as a result of climate change and emerging disputes over transboundary stocks as a consequence, it has been argued that the current fisheries regime is inadequate to address this reality.8 This is not least a result of the fact that parties which have historically fished a particular stock may be particularly reluctant to admit new entrants to their fishery negotiations, regardless of whether the fish stock has changed its migration pattern and entered the fishery jurisdiction of additional States. Understandably, this can create friction as the previous fishing parties may be heavily invested in the fisheries of the particular stock, whereas the new entrants want to exercise their sovereign rights to participate in the fisheries within their respective jurisdiction. In my opinion, however, the current law of the sea regime has effective tools that can address this (somewhat new) reality. Although it is true that the management of transboundary stocks has received little special attention in the law of the sea regime and the writings of scholars,9 it must not be ignored that the general rights and obligations of a coastal State under the law of the sea are applicable to such stocks. In so far as a transboundary stock is also straddling, the special provisions in the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement also apply to that stock as a whole.10 These rights and obligations furthermore do not exist without constraint, and the drafters of the Convention devised a dispute settlement regime to which almost all disputes concerning these rights and obligations could be subjected. Indeed, this dispute settlement framework of the Convention was unprecedented, as one commentator (who just so happens to be this author’s father) put it: ‘The Convention is unique among the major law- making treaties in establishing, as an integral part of its provisions, a comprehensive system for the settlement of disputes [...]. That such a result was 6 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (adopted 4 August 1995, entered into force 11 December 2001), 2167 UNTS 3 (‘1995 Fish Stocks Agreement’). 7 This includes the precautionary approach, which is addressed in the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, and is also found in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. These non-binding principles are to be taken into account by the coastal State in the management and conservation of fish stocks in accordance with the Convention, article 61(3). 8 See e.g. ‘Climate change has fish moving faster than regulations can keep up’ (n 2). 9 See, however, Gudmundur Eiriksson, ‘The Case of Disagreement Between a Coastal State and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf' in Myron H. Nordquist, John Norton Moore, and Tomas Heidar (eds), Legal and Scientific Aspects of Continental Shelf Limit (Martinus Nijhoff 2004). 10 See 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, article 3. future fisheries disputes. I further suggest that by resorting to compulsory conciliation the parties to the mackerel dispute could bring this measure to the fore and not only resolve their own dispute, but also lead the way for future fisheries dispute resolution. In part 2 below, I will lay out the legal framework on the management of shared fish stocks, in particular the obligation to conserve such stocks. Part 3 describes the emergence of the dispute between the parties and the ways in which they are arguably failing to comply with the legal framework. Part 4 proposes compulsory conciliation as an available and important tool to resolve any fisheries dispute. By resorting to compulsory conciliation, I propose in my conclusions in Part 5 that parties locked in fisheries disputes can potentially change the course of their story from a classic tragedy of the commons to something with a happier ending. 2 Management of Shared Fish Stocks Act 1: Curtain opens to reveal the ideal framework of the management of shared stocks. The audience is introduced to this framework, which was agreed to by almost all States of the world in hopes of ensuring sustainable fisheries for the common good. Act 1 sets the stage for how our protagonists – the disputing parties – should be acting absent their short-term individual interests clouding their decisions. Although there is no uniform categorization of fish stocks, the term ‘shared stock’ has been understood by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (‘FAO’) to include, inter alia, a stock which crosses the boundaries of the EEZs of two or more coastal States (i.e., a transboundary stock) and a stock which straddles the EEZ of a coastal State and the high seas (i.e., a straddling stock). In many instances a stock may fall under both of these categories; as is the case with the mackerel stock in the North East Atlantic.4 The law of the sea regime has several provisions concerning the conservation and management of fish stocks, in particular in Part V of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘the Convention’)5 concerning the EEZ. In light of the majority of the world’s fish stocks being shared, the law of the sea regime recognizes that such stocks cannot be effectively managed without all parties involved in the fisheries cooperating to that effect. The Convention accordingly incorporates certain provisions aimed at achieving cooperation to ensure effective conservation and management of such stocks. Additionally, a basic legal framework that specifically concerns the conservation and management 4 ‘Shared Fish Stocks: An Overview’ (FAO) <www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5438e/y5438e05.htm> accessed 23 October 2021. 5 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994), 1833-1835 UNTS 3.
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212
Side 213
Side 214
Side 215
Side 216
Side 217
Side 218
Side 219
Side 220
Side 221
Side 222
Side 223
Side 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.