Search Results

Moritaka Hayashi

Abstract

This article considers the gaps in the existing legal regime on deep-sea fisheries and explores a more effective global governance system. It is proposed that a new global agreement, modeled on the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, be negotiated covering deep-sea stocks as well as other high seas resources, so that all fisheries on the high seas may be covered. The proposed agreement would complete the gaps in high seas fisheries regime and serve as an effective link between the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and regional fisheries bodies. As a short-term measure, FAO should prepare a set of guidelines covering all types of deep-sea fisheries, including shared and transboundary stocks as well as discrete high seas stocks. In addition, FAO's Committee on Fisheries should be strengthened in its global governance role, including co-ordination of all regional fisheries bodies

Moritaka Hayashi

Abstract

Despite efforts made by governments and international organizations like IMO to tighten regulatory measures, substandard ships and shipping-related practices continue to flourish. Serious ship accidents continue to occur and reports on abuse of seafarers are on the rise as the industry becomes more and more competitive and crews become increasingly multinational. The independent four-member International Commission on Shipping has conducted an in-depth study of the current practices of governments and shipping industry in the light of existing international rules and standards, and presented its findings with a number of recommendations to improve the situation. This article summarises the highlights of the Commission's report focusing mainly on those issues which are related to legal and institutional aspects.

Moritaka Hayashi

Moritaka Hayashi

Moritaka Hayashi

Abstract

One disturbing element in an overall stable order built on the Law of the Sea Convention is the disagreement between some States over the use of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a coastal State by another State for military purposes. While it appears to be generally accepted that military activities in the EEZ of another State are part of “the freedoms . . . of navigation and overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms . . .” under Article 58(1), some States, notably China, hold an opposing view. The disagreement has led to several incidents involving forceful disturbance of activities of United States military vessels and aircraft in and above the EEZ of China. There is an urgent need for the States concerned and the international community to find a common understanding on the issue or some kind of practical arrangement for avoiding further serious incidents.