The Effectiveness of the Decision-Making Machinery of CCAMLR: An Assessment
Ever since negotiations began on the regime for the management of living resources in the Southern Ocean1, the issue of conservation strategies versus harvesting goals has been underlying all discussions on the effectiveness of CCAMLR2. At an early stage the question was raised of whether the proposed convention was intended as a conservation regime or as a fisheries arrangement of the kind which is common in the world. The objectives set out in Article II of the Convention settled the matter for the time being as the ecosystem approach and multi-species regulations3 were generally hailed as both innovating in the international law of fisheries and satisfactory from the point of view of conservation aims pursued by some governments and a number of environmental organizations.
KeywordsSouthern Ocean Conservation Measure Supra Note Scientific Committee Ecosystem Approach
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.For the negotiation process of CCAMLR see generally Barbara Mitchell and Richard Sandbrook, The Management of the Southern Ocean, 1980; Daniel Vignes, “La Conservation de la faune et de la flore marines de l’Antarctique”, Annuaire Francais de Droit International 1980, 741–772; David M. Edwards and John A. Heap, “Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources: a Commentary”, Polar Record, Vol. 20, 1981, 353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Judith G. Gardam, “Management Regimes for Antarctic Marine Living Resources — An Australian Perspective”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 15, 1985, 279–312.Google Scholar
- 17.For recent discussions on the application of the Law of the Sea to Antarctica, see generally Bernard H. Oxman, “Antarctica and the Law of the Sea”, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 19, 1986, 211–247Google Scholar
- 19.For a criticism of the open access system in Antarctica, see Gulland, loc. cit., supra note 17, at 117; and M.W. Holdgate, “Regulated Development and Conservation of Antarctic Resources”, in Triggs, op. cit., supra note 17, 128–142, at 129. For a discussion on the marine living resources of Antarctica see also generally, Dayton L. Alverson, “Tug-of-War for the Antarctic Krill”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 8, 1980, 171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar