Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 81

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Page 81
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 82 Helga Guðmundsdóttir 83 resources in its respective EEZ is not seriously endangered.15 To understand how the coastal States have manifestly failed to meet their obligations, it is first necessary to examine their rights and obligations with regard to the maintenance of the living resources in their EEZs. 2.1.1 General Rights and Obligations of Coastal States with regard to the Maintenance of Living Resources The overall aim of the rights and obligations of the Convention is arguably to avoid the actualization of the tragedy of the commons. Prior to the entry into force of the Convention, the exclusive rights of coastal States over living resources were internationally recognized in only a narrow area, while fishing for living resources in the high seas area beyond was largely unregulated. The uncontrolled exploitation on the high seas necessarily also impacted the stocks within coastal States’ narrow national jurisdiction, prompting them to claim rights and jurisdiction over the fish stocks further from their coasts.16 These demands were accommodated by the recognition in the Convention of coastal States’ sovereign rights within a 200 nm EEZ to manage the exploitation of the stocks therein (effectively placing 90% of the world’s fish within coastal State jurisdiction).17 Since the impetus for this system was the desire to curb the overexploitation of stocks – i.e., to avoid the tragedy of the commons –, these sovereign rights unsurprisingly come with clear obligations to conserve the stocks. The rights and obligations of coastal States in the EEZ are set out in Part V of the Convention. According to article 55 these include the sovereign right to exploit the living resources within the EEZ, as also affirmed in article 56. In exercising its rights the coastal State is nonetheless bound by the obligation to take measures to conserve and manage the fish stock in its EEZ in accordance with article 61. (A) The obligation to conserve the fish stock in the EEZ Article 61 lays out a number of obligations that the coastal State must fulfil in order to ensure the conservation of a stock. It must set a total allowable catch (“TAC”) and it must, taking into account the best scientific information available to it, take measures that ensure the conservation of the stock, including measures that: (i) ensure that a fish stock’s population stays at a level which can produce what is referred to as the maximum sustainable yield (‘MSY’);18 (ii) take account of 15 Convention, article 297(3)(b)(i). 16 A. V. Lowe and R.R. Churchill, The Law of the Sea (2nd ed., Manchester University Press 1999) 161. 17 Ibid 282 18 A fish stock will typically remain at its maximum size until it is fished, at which point it will decrease and subsequently increase rapidly to reach its former level. The MSY sets the parameter at which the greatest amount of a particular fish stock may be fished without depleting the entire stock, resulting in sustainable fisheries in the long-term. The stock will then remain at the maximum level despite fisheries year after year. Ibid, at 282. The MSY as determined by the coastal State is also qualified by certain attained represented a reversal of the trend then prevailing in international negotiations.’11 Thus, failing settlement of a fisheries dispute by methods agreed by the parties, they have the meaningful option of subjecting the dispute to the procedure of compulsory conciliation set out in the article 297(3)(b)(i) of the Convention. Indeed, this somewhat overlooked procedure, which has only been invoked in one (maritime boundary) dispute to date,12 could prove to be the tool necessary to resolve future fisheries disputes arising from changed migration patterns of fish stocks. 2.1 The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was the result of a process which started in 1973 with the convening of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (‘the Conference’). During this nine-year process, representatives of more than 160 States came together and negotiated the treaty which governs the management of 70% of the world’s surface and immense State interests.13 The Convention, furthermore, established a coastal State’s right to an EEZ of 200 nautical miles (“nm”) in which it has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources. The five main parties to the mackerel dispute, the EU, Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, are all bound by the Convention.14 Compulsory conciliation can be initiated under the Convention in a fisheries dispute provided certain criteria are fulfilled. Namely, compulsory conciliation may be initiated where a dispute arises as a result of the alleged manifest failure of a coastal State to comply with its obligations to ensure that the maintenance of the living 11 Gudmundur Eiriksson, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Brill 2000) 11. 12 See Timor Sea Conciliation (Timor-Leste v. Australia), PCA, Case 2016-10. The outcome of the conciliation has been lauded as a success, with one commentator writing: ‘[The] Timor-Leste-Australia conciliation has set a very positive precedent of using conciliation to settle interstate maritime disputes. The case shows the functionality of UNCLOS conciliation, as it was able to resolve a decades-long and highly complex dispute in such an efficient manner.’ See Hao Duy Phan, ‘Australia and Timor-Leste’s Landmark Maritime Boundary Conciliation Process’ (2018), The Diplomat. 13 ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Historical Perspective’ (United Nations), <www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm> accessed 23 October 2021. 14 The Faroe Islands and Greenland, as self-governing territories under the Kingdom of Denmark, are bound by the Convention through Denmark. As Denmark is a member of the EU, its competence with regard to fisheries is largely substituted for that of the EU’s through the Common Fishery Policy. However, in Denmark’s declaration upon accession to the Convention it stated that this transferral of competence to the EU does not extend to matters pertaining to the Faroe Islands or Greenland. The EU is a Party to the Convention also in its own right under article 305(1)(f) and Annex IX which affirm that the Convention is open for signature by international organizations. Under article 2(2), the Convention applies mutatis mutandis to these entities, and the term ‘States Parties’ in the Convention refers to these entities as well. Moreover, the United Kingdom is also a State Party and would, post- Brexit, presumably become an independent party to the dispute. See 1833 UNTS.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.