This book is the first comprehensive examination of state practice relating to enforcement by non-flag states of the high seas conservation and management measures adopted by Regional Fisheries Organisations. Moving beyond the issue of the implementation of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, it demonstrates an emerging exception, in customary international law, to the rule of primacy of flag state jurisdiction in the high seas fisheries context and delineates the parameters in which this emerging exception allowing for non-flag jurisdiction may be exercised. This book contains extensive factual descriptions of state practice as well as comprehensive legal analyses of that practice.
Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) have adopted a range of measures aimed at promoting compliance with the conservation and management measures they adopt and at deterring IUU fishing. However, enforcement of those measures continues to be problematic. This article reviews current compliance and enforcement measures, and discusses their shortcomings. It then examines the legal basis for the adoption by RFMOs of an expanded range of measures aimed at strengthening their enforcement capability and provides practical suggestions as to the possible content of those new measures. Particular attention is paid to the modus operandi of international co-operation and the emerging practice of non-flag state enforcement.
As a post-LOSC legal development, the precautionary principle is nowhere enunciated in the Law of the Sea Convention. Nevertheless, in the thirty years since the LOSC’s adoption, the significance of the precautionary principle for marine environmental protection in general and marine resource conservation in particular has been recognised. The language of precaution, the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach have entered the lexicon of the law of the sea, permeating the international community’s efforts to manage and conserve marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The challenge remains, however, of crafting and implementing management and governance regimes capable of achieving the objectives of precautionary management and turning the rhetoric of precaution into a reality.
Reliance on exclusive flag state jurisdiction has proved ineffective in enforcing high seas fisheries agreements. The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement provides for other methods of enforcement to be developed with regional fisheries organisations and arrangements to enhance and supplement flag state enforcement. One particular method referred to is that of boarding and inspection. Prior to 1995 the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources was one of the few agreements providing for establishment of a boarding and inspection scheme. This article examines the development and implementation of the CCAMLR system. It critically appraises the system and provides suggestions for improvement. In doing so, the article attempts to demonstrate the precedential value of the CCAMLR experience to programmes established or under consideration by other high seas fisheries organisations and arrangements
In May 2008 the five Arctic coastal states adopted the Ilullisat Declaration in which they asserted their role as stewards, for the international community, of the Arctic Ocean ecosystem. This paper discusses the legal basis for their claim to stewardship with particular reference to the high seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean, and their assertion that no need exists for a new comprehensive legal regime in respect of those high seas waters. It is argued that while the high seas regime of the Arctic may be extensive, it is not comprehensive. Thus, the legitimacy of the claim to stewardship rests on the willingness and ability of the Arctic coastal states to work to fill the lacunae and address the shortcomings in the legal regime for the high seas of the central Arctic Ocean.