Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chapter 4 Structural and Governance Issues

  • Chapter
The Use of CITES for Commercially-exploited Fish Species

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 35))

  • 515 Accesses

Abstract

The international governance of fisheries suffers from several structural deficiencies, in particular the lack of a clear framework as to the rights and obligations of states fishing on the high seas, the traditional problem of fragmentation, inadequate conservation and management measures as well as imperfect adoption procedures, and finally weak compliance and enforcement mechanisms. The analysis of these issues allows a presentation, a contrario, of the characteristics of appropriate governance, which will serve, in Chapter 5, to demonstrate the added value of using CITES.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See infra Chapter 5 D. II.

  2. 2.

    This definition is inspired by Institute on Governance, ‘Defining Governance’ http://iog.ca/about-us/defining-governance/ accessed 5 July 2015; FAO, ‘Fisheries governance’ http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/2014/en accessed 5 July 2015; and M. A. Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish: The Interaction between Regimes and International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 2011) 17. Hence, this part focuses on public institutions and rules but does not examine the individual and private sector, also included in the definition of governance provided for in Commission on Global Governance, Our global neighbourhood: the report of the Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press 1995) 2; on this, see M. P. Karns and K. A. Mingst, International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance (Lynne Rienner Publishers 2004) 4.

  3. 3.

    On the development of the mare liberum concept at the time of Grotius, see for example T. Scovazzi, ‘“Dici Quodammodo Potest Pisces Exhauriri”: Fishing in the Mare Liberum’ in R. Casado Raigón and G. Cataldi (eds), L’évolution et l’état actuel du droit international de la mer: Mélanges de droit de la mer offerts à Daniel Vignes (Bruylant 2009).

  4. 4.

    H. Grotius, The Freedom of the Sea or the Right Which Belongs to the Dutch to Take Part in the East Indies Trade: J. Brown Scott (ed) and R. Van Daman Magoffin (translation) (Elsevier/Oxford University Press 1609/1916), as presented in R. P. Anand, ‘Changing Concepts of Freedom of the Seas: A Historical Perspective’ in J. M. van Dyke, D. Zaelke and G. Hewison (eds), Freedom for the Seas in the 21 st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony (Island Press 1993) 75.

  5. 5.

    G. Hafner, ‘The Division of the Commons? The Myth of the Commons: Divide or Perish’ in H. P. Hestermeyer and others (eds), Law of the sea in dialogue (Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht vol 221, Springer 2011) 96.

  6. 6.

    P. A. Nickler, ‘A tragedy of the commons in coastal fisheries: contending prescriptions for conservation, and the case of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna’ (1998–1999) 26 Environmental Affairs Law Review 549, 552 (references omitted).

  7. 7.

    B. H. Thompson (Jr.), ‘Tragically difficult: the obstacles to governing the commons’ (2000) 30 Environmental Law 241, 247; M. Wijkman, ‘Managing the global commons’ (1982) 36 International Organization 511, 511.

  8. 8.

    ‘Convention on the High Seas’ 1958, 450 United Nations Treaty Series 11 article 2.

  9. 9.

    ‘Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas’ 1958, 559 United Nations Treaty Series 285 article 1(2). On earlier debates about needed limitations, such as in the Arbitration between the United States and the United Kingdom relating to the rights of jurisdiction of United States in the Bering’s sea and the preservation of fur seals, Award, 15 August 1893, 2007 XXVIII Reports of International Arbitral Awards 263, see P. Birnie, A. Boyle and C. Redgwell, International Law and the Environment (3rd edn Oxford University Press 2009) 707–708; A. Gros, La Convention sur la pêche et la conservation des ressources biologiques de la haute mer (Recueil des Cours vol 97, A. W. Sijthoff 1960) chapter I; P. C. Jessup, L’exploitation des richesses de la mer (Recueil des Cours vol 29, Librairie Hachette 1929) chapter V.

  10. 10.

    Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Judgment, 25 July 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974 3, 22 §50. The ICJ also said, at 31 §72, that the rule applicable was not that of ‘laissez-faire’ anymore; as it “has been replaced by a recognition of a duty to have due regards to the rights of other States and the needs of conservation for the benefit of all” (the same opinions were expressed, in Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Germany v. Iceland), Judgment, 25 July 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974 174 respectively at 191 §42 and 200 §64).

  11. 11.

    ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (UNCLOS) 1982, 1833 United Nations Treaty Series 397 article 118.

  12. 12.

    T. Henriksen, G. B. Hønneland and A. K. Sydnes, Law and Politics in Ocean Governance: The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and Regional Fisheries Management Regimes (Publications on Ocean Development, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 3.

  13. 13.

    On compliance mechanisms, sanctions and the use of the law of state responsibility in the field of fisheries, see infra Chapter 4 A. IV.

  14. 14.

    R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The law of the sea (3rd edn Juris Publishing – Manchester University Press 1999) 144–145; N. Oral, ‘Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Can International Law Meet the Challenge?’ in A. Strati, M. Gavouneli and N. Skourtos (eds), Unresolved Issues and New Challenges to the Law of the Sea: Time Before and Time After (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006) 90; Y. Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press 2012) 132–133.

  15. 15.

    H. Tuerk, ‘The Waning Freedom of the Seas’ in R. Casado Raigón and G. Cataldi (eds), L’évolution et l’état actuel du droit international de la mer: Mélanges de droit de la mer offerts à Daniel Vignes (Bruylant 2009) 918. Most fish stocks are indeed located in shallow waters closer to the coast (W. T. Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (Clarendon Press 1994) 26).

  16. 16.

    Tuerk (n 15) 918 (reference omitted).

  17. 17.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 49; N. Schrijver, Sovereignty Over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 1997) 207; Tuerk (n 15) 916.

  18. 18.

    Case of the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, 12 October 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984 246, 294 §94.

  19. 19.

    Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, 3 June 1985, I.C.J. Reports 1985 13, 33 §34.

  20. 20.

    See supra Chapter 3 A. II. 1.

  21. 21.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 16.

  22. 22.

    Tuerk (n 15) 932–933 (reference omitted); see also M. Gorina-Ysern, ‘World Ocean Public Trust: High Seas Fisheries After Grotius Towards a New Ocean Ethos?’ (2004) 34 Golden Gate University Law Review 645, 684.

  23. 23.

    See supra Chapter 3 A. II. 3. b) and 4.

  24. 24.

    R. Rayfuse and R. Warner, ‘Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-Sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century’ (2008) 23 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 399, 407.

  25. 25.

    K. M. Gjerde, ‘High Seas Fisheries Governance: Prospects and Challenges in the 21st Century’ in D. Vidas and P. J. Schei (eds), The World Ocean in Globalisation: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) 221.

  26. 26.

    E. J. Molenaar, ‘Participation, Allocation and Unregulated Fishing: The Practice of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (2003) 18 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 457, 460.

  27. 27.

    Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 407–408.

  28. 28.

    Hardin (n 1) 1244.

  29. 29.

    F. Orrego Vicuña, ‘Le droit de la pêche en haute mer: développement et conservation des ressources’ in Mélanges offerts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec (ed), La mer et son droit (Pedone 2003) 469.

  30. 30.

    ILC, Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law (54th session) 1 August 2002, A/CN.4/L.628 2 §6; A. Mahiou, Le droit international ou la dialectique de la rigueur et de la flexibilité: Cours général de droit international public (Recueil des Cours vol 337, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2008) 93–95.

  31. 31.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 58–59; Y. Tanaka, ‘The Changing Approaches to Conservation of Marine Living Resources in International Law’ (2011) 71 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 291, 295.

  32. 32.

    D. R. Rothwell and T. Stephens, The International Law of the Sea (Hart Publishing 2010) 303.

  33. 33.

    E. A. Kirk, ‘Maritime Zones and the Ecosystem Approach: A Mismatch?’ (1999) 8 RECIEL 67; on the ecosystem approach, see infra Chapter 4 B. III. 1. b).

  34. 34.

    L. Juda and R. H. Burroughs, ‘The prospects for comprehensive ocean management’ (1990) 14 Marine Policy 23, 32.

  35. 35.

    R. Bratspies, ‘Finessing King Neptune: Fisheries Management and the Limits of International Law’ (2001) 25 Harvard Environmental Law Review 213, 218.

  36. 36.

    G. Vigneron, ‘Compliance and International Environmental Agreements: A Case Study of the 1995 United Nations Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement’ (1997–1998) 10 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 581, 585.

  37. 37.

    ‘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’ (UNFSA) 1995, 2167 United Nations Treaty Series 3 article 7(2); T. L. McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (2005) 20 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 423, 437–438; P. Oerebech, K. Sigurjonsson and T. L. McDorman, ‘The 1995 United Nations Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement: Management, Enforcement and Dispute Settlement’ (1998) 13 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 119, 127–129. As to W. T. Burke (‘Compatibility and Precaution in the 1995 Straddling Stock Agreement’ in H. N. Scheiber (ed), Law of the Sea: The Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2000) 114), he considers compatibility as meaning that flag states fishing in the high seas are the ones who should ensure that their measures are compatible with the ones of coastal states.

  38. 38.

    Or has even increased, according to M. A. Orellana (‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (2004) 34 Golden Gate University Law Review 459, 460), because of the ambiguities of the UNFSA.

  39. 39.

    Gjerde, ‘High Seas Fisheries Governance: Prospects and Challenges in the 21st Century’ (n 25) 228.

  40. 40.

    E. J. Molenaar, ‘Port State Jurisdiction: Towards Comprehensive, Mandatory and Global Coverage’ (2007) 38 Ocean Development and International Law 225, 226; J. Swan, ‘Port State Measures to Combat IUU Fishing: International and Regional Developments’ (2006–2007) 7 Sustainable Development Law and Policy Review 38, 38.

  41. 41.

    UNGA, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 17 November 2004 – Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 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, and related instruments 17 January 2005, A/RES/59/25 §34; WCPFC Secretariat, ‘Transhipment: First meeting of the Technical and Compliance Committee of the WCPFC (5–9 December 2005)’ (WCPFC/TCC/17 Rev. 1, 22 November 2005) http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC-TCC1-17.pdf accessed 5 July 2015, §6–12; O. S. Stokke, ‘Trade Measures and the Combat of IUU Fishing: Institutional Interplay and Effective Governance in the Northeast Atlantic’ (2009) 33 Marine Policy 339, 341; Environmental Justice Foundation, ‘Transhipment at sea: The need for a Ban in West Africa’ (2013) http://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/ejf_transhipments_at_sea_web_0.pdf accessed 5 July 2015.

  42. 42.

    M. Lack, ‘Catching On?: Trade-related Measures as a Fisheries Management Tool’ (TRAFFIC International 2007) v.

  43. 43.

    R. Warner, Protecting the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 123–124.

  44. 44.

    R. Herr, ‘The International Regulation of Patagonian Toothfish: CCAMLR and High Seas Fisheries Management’ in O. S Stokke (ed), Governing High Seas Fisheries: The Interplay of Global and Regional Regimes (Oxford University Press 2001) 308; P. Sands and others, Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd edn Cambridge University Press 2012) 414–415.

  45. 45.

    ICTSD, ‘Fishing, International trade and Sustainable Development: Policy Discussion Paper’ Natural Resources, International Trade and Sustainable Development Studies (2006) http://www.ictsd.org/themes/environment/research/fisheries-international-trade-and-sustainable-development accessed 5 July 2015, 86–87. Applicability to only a part of a stock’s area is a major problem (J. Ziemer, Das gemeinsame Interesse an einer Regelung der Hochseefischerei: Dargestellt am Beispiel des Fish Stocks Agreement (Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel vol 128, Duncker & Humblot 2000) 79).

  46. 46.

    M. Lack, ‘Continuing CCAMLR’s Fight Against IUU Fishing for Toothfish’ (WWF Australia and TRAFFIC International 2008) 1–2.

  47. 47.

    A. Willock, ‘Uncharted Waters/Implementation Issues and Potential Benefits of Listing Toothfish in Appendix II of CITES’ (TRAFFIC 2002) 9.

  48. 48.

    D. Bialek, ‘Sink or Swim: Measures Under International Law for the Conservation of the Patagonian Toothfish in the Southern Ocean’ (2003) 34 Ocean Development and International Law 105, 126; D. S. Calley, Market Denial and International Fisheries Regulation: The Targeted and Effective Use of Trade Measures Against the Flag of Convenience Fishing Industry (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 153, 178; K. W. Riddle, ‘Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing: Is International Cooperation Contagious?’ (2006) 37 Ocean Development and International Law 265, 283.

  49. 49.

    J. Morishita, ‘What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?’ (2008) 32 Marine Policy 19, 21.

  50. 50.

    E. J. Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (2003) 6 Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 31, 45.

  51. 51.

    Morishita, ‘What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?’ (n 49) 21.

  52. 52.

    Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 482.

  53. 53.

    Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (n 50) 45; J. C. Kunich, ‘Losing Nemo: The Mass Extinction Now Threatening the World’s Ocean Hotspots’ (2005) 30 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 1, 31; A. Longhurst, Mismanagement of Marine Fisheries (Cambridge University Press 2010) 122–123; World Ocean Review, Living with the oceans (Maribus, Future Ocean 2010) 117.

  54. 54.

    R. T. Carson and others, ‘Fisheries Management Under Cyclical Population Dynamics’ (2009) 42 Environmental and Resource Economics 379, 380–381; Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (n 50) 45. El Niño is known to influence enormously the level of anchovetas (P. A. Larkin, ‘Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management’ (1996) 6 Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 139, 152).

  55. 55.

    K. Zemanek, The legal foundations of the international system: general course on public international law (Recueil des Cours vol 266, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1997) 62–65.

  56. 56.

    M. Giordano, ‘The Internationalization of Wildlife and Efforts Towards its Management: A Conceptual Framework and the Historic Record’ (2001–2002) 14 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 607, 616.

  57. 57.

    On the various but specialized institutions established by UNCLOS, see for example T. Treves, ‘The Law of the Sea “System” of Institutions’ (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 325, 325–340.

  58. 58.

    H. Corell, ‘Oversight of the Implementation of the Global Ocean Regime: The Role of the United Nations’ in D. Vidas and W. Ostreng (eds), Order for the oceans at the turn of the century (Kluwer Law International 1999) 338.

  59. 59.

    Ibid. 338, 340–341.

  60. 60.

    ‘Charter of the United Nations’ 1945, 1 United Nations Treaty Series xvi articles 10–14 show that UNGA Resolutions are recommendatory in nature; see M. J. Peterson, ‘General Assembly’ in T. G. Weiss and S. Daws (eds), The Oxford Handbook on The United Nations (Oxford University Press 2007) 103.

  61. 61.

    UNFSA, ‘Report of the resumed Review Conference on the 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’ 27 July 2010, A/CONF.210/2010/7 §57, 65, 109.

  62. 62.

    Ibid. §76–77, 86–87.

  63. 63.

    Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 2) 67–68; on the supervisory role of the FAO over RFMOs, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 4.

  64. 64.

    R. Wolfrum and N. Matz, Conflicts in international environmental law (Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, Springer 2003) 182; on UNEP’s more general coordinating role, see ibid. 181–191; N. Matz, Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge: Völkervertragsrechtliche und institutionelle Ansätze (Springer 2005) 220–229.

  65. 65.

    J. Harrison, Making the Law of the Sea: A Study in the Development of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 228.

  66. 66.

    Warner (n 43) 126.

  67. 67.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 704; M. Bowman, P. Davies and C. Redgwell, Lyster’s International Wildlife Law (2nd edn Cambridge University Press 2010) 122–123.

  68. 68.

    C. McLachlan, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(C) of the Vienna Convention’ (2005) 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 279, 283.

  69. 69.

    ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law’ Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (finalized by M. Koskenniemi) 13 April 2006, A/CN.4/L.682, 34 §55; G. Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (2003–2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 849, 850–851; N. Matz, ‘The Interaction between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in P. Ehlers, E. Mann-Borgese and R. Wolfrum (eds), Marine Issues: From a Scientific, Political and Legal Perspective (Kluwer Law International 2002) 203.

  70. 70.

    Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (n 69) 852.

  71. 71.

    Ibid. 855 (reference omitted).

  72. 72.

    Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 402–403.

  73. 73.

    A. Lindroos, ‘Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis’ (2005) 74 Nordic Journal of International Law 27, 32–33.

  74. 74.

    K. M. Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in D. Freestone, R. Barnes and D. Ong (eds), The Law of the Sea – Progress and Prospects (Oxford University Press 2006) 295; E. J. Molenaar, ‘Managing Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 89, 96.

  75. 75.

    D. Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ in D. Vidas and P. J. Schei (eds), The World Ocean in Globalisation: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) 103–104; Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 402. A management regime will enter into force on 19 July 2015 in the North Pacific (Multilateral Meeting on Management of High Seas Fisheries in the North Pacific Ocean, ‘North Pacific Fisheries Commission’ http://nwpbfo.nomaki.jp/index.html accessed 6 July 2015).

  76. 76.

    Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 403. Nevertheless, at the 2006 UNFSA Review Conference, the participants “encouraged States, as appropriate, to recognize that the general principles of the Agreement should also apply to fisheries for discrete fish stocks on the high seas” (D. A. Balton and H. R. Koehler, ‘Reviewing the United Nations Fish Stocks Treaty’ (2006–2007) 7 Sustainable Development Law and Policy Review 5, 7). A number of RFMOs have implicitly or explicitly included such stocks in their management (Molenaar, ‘Managing Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (n 74) 99–103).

  77. 77.

    Indeed, the only applicable rule for these species is UNCLOS (n 11) article 63(1); on this see for example R. R. Churchill, ‘The Management of Shared Fish Stocks: the Neglected ‘other’ Paragraph of Article 63 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’ in A. Strati, M. Gavouneli and N. Skourtos (eds), Unresolved Issues and New Challenges to the Law of the Sea: Time Before and Time After (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006).

  78. 78.

    Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 102.

  79. 79.

    Compare the absence of reference to bottom trawling in UNGA, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 12 December 2002 – 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 26 February 2003, A/RES/57/143 §8 and its insertion in Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 17 November 2004, A/RES/59/25 (n 41) §66–70.

  80. 80.

    A number of RFMOs (CCAMLR, GFCM, NAFO, NEAFC, SEAFO) have taken measures of some sort about deep-sea fishing (A. Jackson, ‘The Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean, 2001: an introduction’ (2002) 17 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 33, 38; Sands and others (n 44) 441).

  81. 81.

    T. Treves, ‘Do fisheries organisations and agreements provide an appropriate framework for sustainable management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas?’ (2009) 35 Océanis 71, 84. As many deep-sea species are caught using bottom trawling, it is worth mentioning the continued lack of a global instrument to deal with such destructive practice (Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 295; Warner (n 43) 16).

  82. 82.

    On the few existing measures, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 2. c). The FAO however highlighted “a good overall status of governance in aquaculture” at the national level (FAO, ‘The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture’ (Rome 2014) 89).

  83. 83.

    ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 69) 32 §52.

  84. 84.

    Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (n 69) 856.

  85. 85.

    Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 67) 62–64; on a presentation of the consequences in terms of treaties’ development of the change of focus, see Matz, Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (n 64) 77–83.

  86. 86.

    P. Stoett, ‘To trade or not to trade?: The African elephant and CITES’ (1996–1997) 52 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 567, 569 (italics omitted).

  87. 87.

    C. L. Krieps, ‘Sustainable use of endangered species under CITES: is it a sustainable alternatives’ (1996) 17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 461, 476.

  88. 88.

    CITES Resolution Conf. 8.3 (Rev. CoP13) – Recognition of the benefits of trade in wildlife 1992 preamble.

  89. 89.

    D. S. Favre, ‘Debate within the CITES Community: What Direction for the Future?’ (1993) 33 Natural Resources Journal 875, 914.

  90. 90.

    World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, (usually referred to as the Brundtland Report) (Oxford University Press 1987) 348 annex 1 Summary of Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development Adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law §3; Sands and others (n 44) 207.

  91. 91.

    IUCN (World Conservation Union), UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living (1991) 211.

  92. 92.

    J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, ‘The Use and Conservation of Wildlife’ in J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford (eds), Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation (The Chicago University Press 1991) 3–4.

  93. 93.

    Favre, ‘Debate within the CITES Community: What Direction for the Future?’ (n 89) 880. Sometimes the reasoning goes even further, with the concept of entitlement, of a right to life for certain animals (A. D’Amato and S. K. Chopra, ‘Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life’ (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law 21).

  94. 94.

    S. Young, ‘Contemporary Issues of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Debate Over Sustainable Use’ (2003) 14 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 167, 182.

  95. 95.

    Krieps (n 87) 476 (reference omitted).

  96. 96.

    D’Amato and Chopra (n 93) 45.

  97. 97.

    On the argument of protectionists in favor of a right to life of whales, see H. N. Scheiber, ‘Historical Memory, Cultural Claims, and Environmental Ethics: The Jurisprudence of Whaling Regulation’ in H. N. Scheiber (ed), Law of the Sea: The Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2000) 139–140.

  98. 98.

    C. P. Carlarne, ‘Saving the Whales in the New Millennium: International Institutions, Recent Developments and the Future of International Whaling Policies’ (2005–2006) 24 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 1, 36 n 221, quoting John Vidal, ‘Weeping and Whaling’, Guardian, 7 May 1993 (quoting Gro Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway); J. Morishita, ‘Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix’ (2006) 30 Marine Policy 802, 806; Scheiber (n 97) 139–140.

  99. 99.

    D. J. Dankel, D. W. Skagen and Ø. Ulltang, ‘Fisheries management in practice: review of 13 commercially important fish stocks’ (2008) 18 Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 201, 202.

  100. 100.

    R. Hilborn, ‘Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives’ (2007) 31 Marine Policy 153, 153.

  101. 101.

    K. L. Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (2000) 1 Fish and Fisheries 3, 7; P. Vincent, Droit de la mer (Larcier 2008) 225.

  102. 102.

    Hilborn, ‘Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives’ (n 100) 155.

  103. 103.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 5–6.

  104. 104.

    M. A. Young, ‘Protecting Endangered Marine Species: Collaboration Between the Food and Agriculture Organization and the CITES Regime’ (2010) 11 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1, 38.

  105. 105.

    S. Beslier, ‘Pêche et biodiversité marine: complémentarité ou concurrence au sein de l’ordre juridique international? Le cas du thon rouge’ (Paris November 2010) Idées pour le débat n°9, 6.

  106. 106.

    This was for example noticed during the negotiations of the CITES-FAO MoU (Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 2) 174).

  107. 107.

    Whether it qualifies as an epistemic community (defined as “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area” (P. M. Haas, ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination’ (1992) 46 International Organization 1, 3; see also S. B. Kaye, International Fisheries Management (Kluwer Law International 2001) 31–39)) or is simply the consequence of a particular institutional culture is less clear.

  108. 108.

    FAO, ‘State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture’ (Rome 2004) 86.

  109. 109.

    Some concerns were voiced regarding the danger caused to the cohesion of international law by a proliferation of courts, but these fears were not unanimously shared (see a presentation of views in D. L. Morgan, ‘Implications of the Proliferation of International Legal Fora: The Example of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases’ (2002) 43 Harvard International Law Journal 541, 543–544).

  110. 110.

    T. Treves, ‘Le Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer dans la pléiade des juridictions internationales’ in O. Delas and others (eds), Les juridictions internationales: complémentarité ou concurrence (Bruylant 2005) 11.

  111. 111.

    Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (n 69) 857.

  112. 112.

    M. A. Orellana, ‘The Swordfish Dispute between the EU and Chile at the ITLOS and the WTO’ (2002) 71 Nordic Journal of International Law 55; R. Rayfuse, ‘The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under The Law of the Sea Convention’ (2005) 36 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 683, 702–703.

  113. 113.

    On the basis of GATT, Chile should probably have authorized access to its ports, but on the basis of UNCLOS, as the coastal state, it was entitled to exercise sovereignty over its ports for purposes of conservation (Orellana, ‘The Swordfish Dispute between the EU and Chile at the ITLOS and the WTO’ (n 112) 65; R. Salama, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Procedural Issues Arising in Law of the Sea Disputes’ (2005) 19 Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal 24, 25, 31; Treves, ‘Le Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer dans la pléiade des juridictions internationales’ (n 110) 22–23).

  114. 114.

    Salama (n 113) 32; on a comparison of the two dispute settlement mechanisms, see for example R. J. McLaughlin, ‘Settling Trade-Related Disputes Over the Protection of Marine Living Resources: UNCLOS or the WTO?’ (1997–1998) 10 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 29, 47–51.

  115. 115.

    Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (n 69) 858. Others highlight the potential for cross-fertilization and its positive impact on the development of international law (T. Treves, ‘Cross-fertilization between different international courts and tribunals: the Mangouras case’ in H. P. Hestermeyer and others (eds), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) in particular between the European Court of Human Rights and ITLOS (1788–1791)).

  116. 116.

    UNCLOS (n 11) articles 288(1), 290(5); Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, 27 August 1999, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) cases n°3 & 4 §62; B. Kwiatkowska, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) Cases’ (2000) 15 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1, 18–21.

  117. 117.

    CCSBT (‘Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna’ (CCSBT Convention) 1993, 1819 United Nations Treaty Series 360 article 16.

  118. 118.

    Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan, Australia v. Japan), Arbitral Award, 4 August 2000, Arbitral Tribunal, (2006) XXIII Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1 §53–59, 72; Salama (n 113) 36–37.

  119. 119.

    Morgan (n 109) 550; Salama (n 113) 36–37; see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 3.

  120. 120.

    A. Boyle, ‘Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction’ (1997) 46 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 37, 42–44; J. G. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (5th edn Cambridge University Press 2011) 191.

  121. 121.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 297(3); see supra Chapter 3 A. I. 2. and infra Chapter 4 A. IV. 3. a).

  122. 122.

    UNCLOS (n 11) part XV section 2.

  123. 123.

    Ibid. article 297(3)(b)(c); Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 400–402.

  124. 124.

    R. R. Churchill, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?’ (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 383, 390.

  125. 125.

    Boyle, ‘Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction’ (n 120) 42.

  126. 126.

    Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (n 69) 857; Morgan (n 109) 548.

  127. 127.

    ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 69) 247 §489; Morgan (n 109) 544.

  128. 128.

    Morgan (n 109) 543; for example Judge Oda, Judge Schwebel and Judge Guillaume, as presented in Rayfuse, ‘The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under The Law of the Sea Convention’ (n 112) 686 or in H. Caminos, ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and its Alleged Threat to the Unity of International Law’ in R. Casado Raigón and G. Cataldi (eds), L’évolution et l’état actuel du droit international de la mer: Mélanges de droit de la mer offerts à Daniel Vignes (Bruylant 2009) 75–76.

  129. 129.

    It has nevertheless happened that international courts interpret general international law differently. On the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)/ICJ interpretations of ‘effective control’ (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986 14, 64–65 §115; Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Judgment, 15 July 1999, ICTY IT-94-1-A 205–207 §585–586), see ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 69) 31–32 §49–51.

  130. 130.

    Boyle, ‘Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction’ (n 120) 41; Rayfuse, ‘The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under The Law of the Sea Convention’ (n 112) 710; S. Rosenne, ‘Establishing the ITLOS’ (1995) 89 American Journal of International Law 806, 814; A. Yankov, ‘The International Tribunal for the law of the Sea: Its Place Within the Dispute Settlement System of the UN Law of the Sea Convention’ (1997) 37 Indiana Journal of International Law 356, 364.

  131. 131.

    J. I. Charney, Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals? (Recueil des Cours vol 271, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1998) 101–382 in particular 319–321, also presented in Caminos (n 128) 77.

  132. 132.

    Caminos (n 128) 79; R. Higgins, ‘Respecting Sovereign States and Running a Tight Courtroom’ (2001) 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 121, 122.

  133. 133.

    In particular the references made in its The M/V “Saiga” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment, 1 July 1999, ITLOS case n°2 §120, 133, 170 to the Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland), Judgment, 25 May 1926, Series A Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice 1926 4; to the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Judgment, 13 September 1928, Series A Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice 1928 4; and to the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 25 September 1997, I.C.J. Reports 1997 7; see Treves, ‘Le Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer dans la pléiade des juridictions internationales’ (n 110) 27 n 38.

  134. 134.

    B. Sepúlveda-Amor, ‘Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the development of the international law of the sea’ (2010) 1 Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 5, 6.

  135. 135.

    Treves, ‘Le Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer dans la pléiade des juridictions internationales’ (n 110) 28.

  136. 136.

    In Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment, 14 March 2012, ITLOS case n°16, reference was made for example at paragraph 90 to Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrein (Qatar v Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1 July 1994, I.C.J. Reports 1994 112, 120 §23 in relation to the variety of forms an international agreement can take; at paragraph 264 to Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, 3 February 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009 61, 108 §137 in relation to the determination of basepoints; and at paragraphs 294–295 to the North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, 20 February 1969, I.C.J. Reports 1969 3, 17 §8 and 49 §89 in relation to the issues linked to concave/convex coasts.

  137. 137.

    In Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) (n 136) §240, the Tribunal decided to apply the three-stage method which was also used, for example in Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) (n 136); see I. Papanicolopulu, ‘From the North Sea to the Bay of Bengal: Maritime Delimitation at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (23 March 2012) http://www.ejiltalk.org/from-the-north-sea-to-the-bay-of-bengal-maritime-delimitation-at-the-international-tribunal-for-the-law-of-the-sea/ accessed 5 July 2015.

  138. 138.

    Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) (n 136) §184, 226, 240.

  139. 139.

    Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 421.

  140. 140.

    M. Ivanova and J. Roy, ‘The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Pros and Cons of Multiplicity’ http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/251 accessed 5 July 2015, 3.

  141. 141.

    Ibid. 3–5.

  142. 142.

    Larkin (n 54) 142.

  143. 143.

    C. Frid, ‘The role of marine science in participatory fisheries governance’ in T. S. Gray (ed), Participation in Fisheries Governance (Springer 2005) 233.

  144. 144.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 28–29; Longhurst (n 53) 70. Of the 1500 stocks commercially exploited, comprehensive knowledge about abundance exists only for about 500 (World Ocean Review, The Future of Fish – The Fisheries of the Future (Maribus, Future Ocean 2013) 43).

  145. 145.

    G. Lugten, ‘The role of international fishery organizations and other bodies in the conservation and management of living aquatic resources’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1054 (Rome 2010) 24–25.

  146. 146.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 28; Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 486–487.

  147. 147.

    Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (n 50) 46; on RFMOs’ opinions on the question, see Lugten (n 145) 9.

  148. 148.

    Dankel, Skagen and Ulltang (n 99) 203.

  149. 149.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 26–27; Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 6.

  150. 150.

    S. M. Garcia and K. L. Cochrane, ‘Ecosystem approach to fisheries: a review of implementation guidelines’ (2005) 62 ICES Journal of Marine Science 311, 312.

  151. 151.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 6; K. L. Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (1999) 56 ICES Journal of Marine Science 917, 917.

  152. 152.

    Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (n 151) 919; R. I. C. C. Francis and R. Shotton, “Risk’ in fisheries management: a review’ (1997) 54 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture Science 1699, 1701–1702.

  153. 153.

    Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 483.

  154. 154.

    Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 100.

  155. 155.

    G. Hubold, ‘Fishery and Sustainability’ in P. Ehlers, E. Mann-Borgese and R. Wolfrum (eds), Marine Issues: From a Scientific, Political and Legal Perspective (Kluwer Law International 2002) 191; World Ocean Review, The Future of Fish – The Fisheries of the Future 2013 (n 144) 42–43.

  156. 156.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 6.

  157. 157.

    Larkin (n 54) 145; R. Watson, U. R. Sumaila and D. Zeller, ‘How much fish is being extracted from the oceans and what is it worth?’ in V. Christensen and J. MacLean (eds), Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2011) 57–60.

  158. 158.

    Longhurst (n 53) 161–163, 169.

  159. 159.

    Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 290; on the similar problems in estimating the importance of flags of convenience in fishing, see Calley (n 48) 50.

  160. 160.

    Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 42) 4; Longhurst (n 53) 175.

  161. 161.

    Longhurst (n 53) 177.

  162. 162.

    W. T. Burke, ‘Unregulated High Seas Fishing and Ocean Governance’ in J. M. van Dyke, D. Zaelke and G. Hewison (eds), Freedom for the Seas in the 21 st Century: Ocean Governance and Environmental Harmony (Island Press 1993) 244.

  163. 163.

    T. Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (2012) 36 Marine Policy 132.

  164. 164.

    Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (n 151) 919.

  165. 165.

    Frid (n 143) 234; C. Frid, O. Paramor and C. Scott, ‘Ecosystem-based fisheries management: progress in the NE Atlantic’ (2005) 29 Marine Policy 461, 463.

  166. 166.

    Frid (n 143) 244.

  167. 167.

    Longhurst (n 53) 73–74.

  168. 168.

    Ibid. 10–11.

  169. 169.

    Ibid. 79–80.

  170. 170.

    Ibid. 148–149.

  171. 171.

    Ibid. 75.

  172. 172.

    Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (n 151) 921.

  173. 173.

    D. Pauly, ‘Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries’ (1995) 10 TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 430; J. Jackson and J. Jacquet, ‘The shifting baselines syndrome: perception, deception, and the future of our oceans’ in V. Christensen and J. MacLean (eds), Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2011).

  174. 174.

    Longhurst (n 53) 124.

  175. 175.

    For example this has allegedly happened in relation to the TACs recommended for South Africa (Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 12, on K. L. Cochrane and others, ‘Management procedures in a fishery based on highly variable stocks and with conflicting objectives: experiences in the South African pelagic fishery’ (1998) 8 Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 177); or in Canada with regard to Atlantic cod (J. A. Hutchings, C. Walters and Haedrich R. L. ‘Is scientific enquiry incompatible with government information control?’ (1997) 54 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1198).

  176. 176.

    Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (n 151) 921, quoting C. Walters and J.-J. Maguire, ‘Lessons for stock assessment from the northern cod collapse’ (1996) 6 Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 125, 135.

  177. 177.

    Longhurst (n 53) 142, 147.

  178. 178.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 12; E. Masood, ‘Scientific Caution blunts efforts to conserve fish stocks’ (1996) 379 Nature 481, 481.

  179. 179.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 9.

  180. 180.

    W. E. Schrank, ‘Is there any hope for fisheries management?’ (2007) 31 Marine Policy 299, 304.

  181. 181.

    J. Montgomery and L. Carter, ‘Marine Science in the Past 25 Years: Main Findings and Trends’ in D. Vidas and P. J. Schei (eds), The World Ocean in Globalisation: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) 47.

  182. 182.

    Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 284–285; Montgomery and Carter (n 181) 47–48.

  183. 183.

    S. Fordham and C. Dolan, ‘A Case Study in International Shark Conservation: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Spiny Dogfish’ (2004) 34 Golden Gate University Law Review 531, 540.

  184. 184.

    R. R. Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (1998) 37 Fisheries Research 225, 226.

  185. 185.

    Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (n 151) 917; Frid (n 143) 238.

  186. 186.

    Respectively for the EEZ and the high seas UNCLOS (n 11) articles 61(2), 119; see Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 56; Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 123.

  187. 187.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 5(b).

  188. 188.

    Some RFMOs have weaker wording than others: GFCM and NAFO refer to the need to ‘take into account’ respectively the best scientific evidence available and scientific information and advice (‘Agreement for the establishment of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean’ (GFCM Agreement) 1949, 126 United Nations Treaty Series 237 article III(2); ‘Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries’ (NAFO Convention) 1978, 1135 United Nations Treaty Series 369 article XI(2)) while CCAMLR “shall formulate, adopt and revise conservation measures on the basis of the best scientific evidence available” (‘Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources’ (CCAMLR Convention) 1980, 1329 United Nations Treaty Series 47 article IX(1)(f)); IATTC shall “adopt measures that are based on the best scientific evidence available” (‘Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Established by the 1949 Convention Between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica’ (Antigua Convention) 2003 article VII(1)(c)); IOTC has “to adopt […] on the basis of scientific evidence, conservation and management measures” (‘Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission’ (IOTC Agreement) 1993, 1927 United Nations Treaty Series 329 article V(2)(c)); NEAFC shall “ensure that such recommendations are based on the best scientific advice” (‘Convention on the Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries’ (NEAFC Convention) 1980, 1285 United Nations Treaty Series 129 (revised 2006, ‘New Convention’ http://www.neafc.org/system/files/Text-of-NEAFC-Convention-04.pdf accessed 4 July 2015)) article 4(2)(a)); SEAFO “shall […] adopt measures, based on the best scientific evidence available” (‘Convention on the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South East Atlantic Ocean’ (SEAFO Convention) 2001, 2221 United Nations Treaty Series 189 article 3(a)); SIOFA’s measures “shall be adopted on the basis of the best scientific evidence available to ensure the long-term conservation of fishery resources” (‘Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement’ (SIOFA Agreement) 2006 article 4(a)); SPRFMO’s “decisions shall be based on the best scientific and technical information available” (‘Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean’ (SPRFMO Convention) 2009 article 3(1)(a)); and WCPFC “shall […] ensure that […] measures are based on the best scientific evidence available” (‘Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean’ (WCPFC Convention) 2000, 2275 United Nations Treaty Series 43 article 5(b)). See also McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 434–435.

  189. 189.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 56, 115–116.

  190. 190.

    Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 67) 146.

  191. 191.

    Anonymous, ‘Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT’ (Madrid 2009), Executive summary; Monaco, ‘CoP15 Inf. 12 – Supplementary information on the proposal to include Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus Thynnus Linnaeus 1758) on Appendix I of CITES in accordance with article II 1 of the Convention’ (13–25 March 2010) 5–6; S. Lieberman, ‘Science versus Politics: Tales from CITES’ (Elisabeth Mann Borgese Lecture, 2010) http://internationaloceaninstitute.dal.ca/EMBlecturetext_2010.pdf accessed 5 July 2015, 5.

  192. 192.

    G. van Bohemen, ‘High Seas Fisheries Management: Reflections on Experience with Regional Fisheries Management Organisations in the South Pacific’ in D. Vidas and P. J. Schei (eds), The World Ocean in Globalisation: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) 234.

  193. 193.

    S. Ásmundsson, ‘Whaling’ in M. H. Nordquist and others (eds), Law, Science & Ocean Management (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007) 459, 461, 467.

  194. 194.

    See supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  195. 195.

    Oerebech, Sigurjonsson and McDorman (n 37) 125–126.

  196. 196.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 227.

  197. 197.

    NEAFC Convention (n 188) article 12(2); Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 105.

  198. 198.

    Ziemer (n 45) 78–79.

  199. 199.

    ‘Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (VCLT) 1969, 1155 United Nations Treaty Series 331 article 34.

  200. 200.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 229 (parentheses omitted); see also A. Gillespie, Conservation, biodiversity and international law (Edward Elgar 2011) 445–447.

  201. 201.

    See supra Chapter 3 B. II. 3.

  202. 202.

    See an explicit example thereof in the NEAFC Fishing Licence Guide http://neafc.org/fishinglicence accessed 5 July 2015.

  203. 203.

    Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 246–247.

  204. 204.

    See supra Chapter 3 A. II. 3. b) and 4.

  205. 205.

    M. Hayashi, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Non-Members’ in T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum (eds), Law of the sea, environmental law and settlement of disputes: Liber amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Nijhoff 2007) 751–752; Warner (n 43) 126.

  206. 206.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 229–230.

  207. 207.

    O. S. Stokke, ‘Governance of High Seas Fisheries: The Role of Regime Linkages’ in D. Vidas and W. Ostreng (eds), Order for the oceans at the turn of the century (Kluwer Law International 1999) 165.

  208. 208.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 11; Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 19–20; on conditions of entry into RFMOs, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  209. 209.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 21–22.

  210. 210.

    NEAFC Convention (n 188) article 20(4); Molenaar, ‘Participation, Allocation and Unregulated Fishing: The Practice of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (n 26) 465.

  211. 211.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 103–104.

  212. 212.

    Stokke, ‘Governance of High Seas Fisheries: The Role of Regime Linkages’ (n 207) 159 (italics in the original text).

  213. 213.

    Schrank (n 180) 303; Stokke, ‘Governance of High Seas Fisheries: The Role of Regime Linkages’ (n 207) 160.

  214. 214.

    Schrank (n 180) 301. The MSY is traditionally based on TACs decided at the upper limit of estimated sustainability, leaving no margin for unforeseen natural cycles, which are proven to exist – this concept has however evolved, see supra footnote 65 of chapter 3.

  215. 215.

    Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (n 163) 139.

  216. 216.

    Stokke, ‘Governance of High Seas Fisheries: The Role of Regime Linkages’ (n 207) 159 (italics omitted); see also California Environmental Associates, ‘Charting a Course to Sustainable Fisheries’ (16 January 2012) http://www.chartingacourse.org/downloads/ accessed 4 July 2015, 24.

  217. 217.

    Definition inspired by the ‘international enforcement’ to which R. Reeve (Policing International Trade in Endangered Species (Earthscan 2002) 17) makes reference.

  218. 218.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 308–310, 345–346.

  219. 219.

    Ibid. 303.

  220. 220.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 73.

  221. 221.

    The “Volga” Case (Russian Federation v. Australia), Judgment on prompt release, 23 December 2002, ITLOS case n°11 §68–69, 80; D. R. Rothwell and T. Stephens, ‘Illegal Southern Ocean Fishing and Prompt Release: Balancing Coastal and Flag State Rights and Interests’ (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 171, 182–184.

  222. 222.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 305–309.

  223. 223.

    Ibid. 322–328.

  224. 224.

    S. Flothmann and others, ‘Closing Loopholes: Getting Illegal Fishing Under Control’ (2010) 328 Science 1235, 1236.

  225. 225.

    S. Beslier, ‘The exercise of jurisdiction over vessels: new developments in the sector of fisheries’ in E. Franckx and P. Gautier (eds), The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: New Developments in the Fields of Pollution, Fisheries, Crimes at Sea and Trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Bruylant 2010) 48–50; Calley (n 48) chapter two (in particular he lists some of the main flags of convenience states at 21); Gillespie, Conservation, biodiversity and international law (n 200) 448; H. Slim, ‘Les pavillons de complaisance’ (Le pavillon – Colloque international, Institut Océanographique de Paris, 2–3 March 2007 (Pedone 2008)) 100–103; J. Swan, ‘Fishing Vessels operating under open registers and the exercise of flag State responsibilities: Information and options’ FAO Fisheries Circular 980 (Rome 2002) 2–4; Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 242; D. Warner-Kramer, ‘Control Begins at Home: Tackling Flags of Convenience and IUU Fishing’ (2004) 34 Golden Gate University Law Review 497, 497–498; Watson, Sumaila and Zeller (n 157) 64; A. Yankov, ‘Reflagging of fishing vessels: a critical assessment of its impact on the enforcement of fishing regulations and the responses thereto’ in P. Ehlers, E. Mann-Borgese and R. Wolfrum (eds), Marine Issues: From a Scientific, Political and Legal Perspective (Kluwer Law International 2002) 195.

    The wordings flag of convenience and flag of non-compliance (the latter having been coined in ‘Flags of non-compliance’ CCAMLR Resolution 19/XXI, 2002) are differentiated by some commentators in that the latter does not have an open registry but is known to be deficient in controlling its vessels, respecting CMMs and/or fighting IUU fishing (Calley (n 48) 17; T. Lobach, ‘Port State control of foreign fishing vessels’ FAO Fisheries Circular 987 (Rome 2003) 8; Environmental Justice Foundation, ‘Lowering the Flag – Ending the use of Flags of Convenience by Pirate Fishing Vessels’ Vessels’ (2009) http://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/Lowering%20the%20flag.pdf accessed 6 July 2015, 11).

  226. 226.

    Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 243–244; Warner-Kramer (n 225) 501.

  227. 227.

    Calley (n 48) 11. This problem was already identified in the early twentieth century with regard to the regulation of whaling (Jessup (n 9) 502).

  228. 228.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 339.

  229. 229.

    See infra Chapter 4 A. IV. 2. b).

  230. 230.

    Calley (n 48) 80–82; D. Guilfoyle, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 2009) 168–169.

  231. 231.

    B. Le Gallic and A. Cox, ‘An economic analysis of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: Key drivers and possible solutions’ (2006) 30 Marine Policy 689, 690–691; U. R. Sumaila, J. Adler and H. Keith, ‘Global scope and economics of illegal fishing’ (2006) 30 Marine Policy 696, 697–701.

  232. 232.

    E. M. McOmber, ‘Problems in Enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species’ (2001–2002) 27 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 673, 699; S. Patel, ‘The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Last Unicorn’ (1995–1996) 18 Houston Journal of International Law 157, 178–180. Only few countries have similar procedures available (Riddle (n 48) 272).

  233. 233.

    For GFCM for example, see Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 42) 13–14; Lugten (n 145) 8.

  234. 234.

    The obligations are indeed included in several instruments to which not all states are parties. They were usefully compiled in Consultative Group on Flag State Implementation, ‘Report of the Secretary General’, 5 March 2004, A/59/63.

  235. 235.

    Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS case n°21 60–61. For more on this advisory opinion, see infra Chapter 4 A. IV. 3. c) aa).

  236. 236.

    The M/V “Saiga” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) (n 133) §83; P. Gautier, ‘Comments on flag state’s responsibility, enforcement measures against IUU fishing activities, and the settlement of disputes’ in E. Franckx and P. Gautier (eds), The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: New Developments in the Fields of Pollution, Fisheries, Crimes at Sea and Trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Bruylant 2010) 83–84; UNGA, ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Consultative Meeting of Senior Representatives of International Organizations on the “Genuine Link”’ 17 July 2006, A/61/160, 5–6 §10–11; D. König, ‘Flags of Convenience’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §9–10. On the evolution of the requirement of genuine link, see Calley (n 48) 84–101; D. König, ‘Flag of Ships’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §6–15.

  237. 237.

    Beslier, ‘The exercise of jurisdiction over vessels: new developments in the sector of fisheries’ (n 225) 52. Such discussion was undertaken at the FAO following the invitation of the UNGA to do so (UNGA, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2007 – Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 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, and related instruments 28 February 2008, A/RES/62/177 §41).

  238. 238.

    First mentioned in Committee on Fisheries, ‘Report of the Twenty-seventh Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 5–9 March 2007)’ FAO Fisheries Report 830 (Rome 2007) 11 §71; Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 117–118.

  239. 239.

    FAO, ‘Adopted Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance’, 8 February 2013 ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/tc-fsp/2013/VolGuidelines_adopted.pdf accessed 5 July 2015; Committee on Fisheries, ‘The Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures and other Instruments Combating IUU Fishing’, presented at the Thirty-first Session (Rome, 9–13 June 2014) COFI/2014/4.2/Rev.1; Committee on Fisheries, ‘Report of the 31st Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 9–13 June 2014)’ C 2015/23, 9–10 §37.

  240. 240.

    In terms of comparison, it is worth noting that the IMO has established a Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme which will become compulsory as of 2015 (‘Further development of the voluntary IMO member state audit scheme (adopted on 25 November 2009)’ 18 January 2010, Resolution A.1018(26) (IMO)). This scheme verifies compliance with a set number of IMO instruments. See IMO, ‘Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme’ http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=841 accessed 6 July 2015; L. D. Barchue, ‘Making a case for the Voluntary IMO Member State Audit Scheme: Paper delivered at a seminar on ‘Auditing Flag States: New Directions for Smaller States’ in Malmö, World Maritime University’ (2005) http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Implementation/Documents/Voluntary.pdf accessed 6 July 2015; M. Lemke, Erfüllungsdefizite des Flaggenstaats (Nomos 2011).

  241. 241.

    FAO Agreement on Port State Measures and other Instruments Combating IUU Fishing’ (n 239) 10 §30; UNCLOS (n 11) article 94; ‘FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas: Compliance Agreement’ (Compliance Agreement) 1993, 2221 United Nations Treaty Series 91 article 3(3); FAO, ‘Implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing’ FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 9 (Rome 2002) 20–21.

  242. 242.

    ILC, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries 2001, article 1.

  243. 243.

    Ibid. article 2.

  244. 244.

    See supra Chapter 3 A. I. 1.-2.

  245. 245.

    Y. Takei, ‘Assessing Flag State Performance in Legal Terms: Clarifications of the Margin of Discretion’ (2013) 28 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 97, 130. ITLOS made a statement to that effect (Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), Advisory Opinion (n 235) 61–62 reply to second question).

  246. 246.

    European Union, ‘Written Statement: Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission’ (29 November 2013) 18 §56; Takei (n 245) 131–132. ITLOS also clarified that point (Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), Advisory Opinion (n 235) 61–62 reply to second question).

  247. 247.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 42 §2.

  248. 248.

    Ibid. article 42 reads as:

    “A State is entitled as an injured State to invoke the responsibility of another State if the obligation breached is owed to: (a) that State individually; or (b) a group of States including that State, or the international community as a whole, and the breach of the obligation: (i) specially affects that State; or (ii) is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the other States to which the obligation is owed with respect to the further performance of the obligation.”

  249. 249.

    A. Serdy, ‘Accounting for Catch in Internationally Managed Fisheries: What Role for State Responsibility?’ (2010) 15 Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 23, 31.

  250. 250.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 42 §13.

  251. 251.

    Serdy, ‘Accounting for Catch in Internationally Managed Fisheries: What Role for State Responsibility?’ (n 249) 32.

  252. 252.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) article 48 reads as:

    “1. Any State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State in accordance with paragraph 2 if: (a) the obligation breached is owed to a group of States including that State, and is established for the protection of a collective interest of the group; or (b) the obligation breached is owed to the international community as a whole.”

  253. 253.

    Serdy, ‘Accounting for Catch in Internationally Managed Fisheries: What Role for State Responsibility?’ (n 249) 35.

  254. 254.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) article 48(2).

  255. 255.

    Ibid. article 31.

  256. 256.

    Ibid. article 48(2)(b); G. Gaja, ‘Obligations and Rights Erga Omnes in International Law: Preparatory Work’ (2005) 71-I Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 117, 137.

  257. 257.

    Gaja (n 256) 138.

  258. 258.

    Serdy, ‘Accounting for Catch in Internationally Managed Fisheries: What Role for State Responsibility?’ (n 249) 38–39.

  259. 259.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) article 35.

  260. 260.

    R. Rayfuse, ‘Countermeasures and High Seas Fisheries Enforcement’ (2004) 51 Netherlands International Law Review 41, 43.

  261. 261.

    Guilfoyle (n 230) 164–168.

  262. 262.

    The use of countermeasures by a non-injured state would go beyond the options explicitly envisioned in the Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242). The previous draft which included countermeasures by non-injured states was criticized by a large number of states, leading to the deletion of this provision and the insertion of a simple saving clause (Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) article 54; J. R. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th edn Oxford University Press 2012) 588).

  263. 263.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 53 (reference omitted).

  264. 264.

    The Institut de Droit International (Resolution on the Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law 2005, Session de Krakow article 5(c)) reached the conclusion that countermeasures are legal in case of a grave breach of an erga omnes obligation; on this, see C. Dominicé, ‘A la recherche des droits erga omnes’, Droit du pouvoir, pouvoir du droit: Mélanges offerts à Jean Salmon (Bruylant 2007) 364–366. See also the detailed examination of the subject in C. J. Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005) chapter 6, 249–251 for the conclusions.

  265. 265.

    Hayashi, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Non-Members’ (n 205) 752–759, presenting the measures taken by the tuna RFMOs, CCAMLR, NAFO and NEAFC. On port state measures as a method to fight IUU fishing see for example Swan, ‘Port State Measures to Combat IUU Fishing: International and Regional Developments’ (n 40). For more on port state measures and CDS, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 2.-3.

  266. 266.

    R. Rayfuse, ‘Building sustainable high seas fisheries through certification processes: issues and perspectives’ (2009) 35 Océanis 93, 98–99.

  267. 267.

    Stokke, ‘Trade Measures and the Combat of IUU Fishing: Institutional Interplay and Effective Governance in the Northeast Atlantic’ (n 41) 343.

  268. 268.

    Molenaar, ‘Port State Jurisdiction: Towards Comprehensive, Mandatory and Global Coverage’ (n 40) 244–245.

  269. 269.

    Molenaar, ‘Participation, Allocation and Unregulated Fishing: The Practice of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (n 26) 473.

  270. 270.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 23; Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 50.

  271. 271.

    Flothmann and others (n 224) 1236.

  272. 272.

    Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 248–249; on this see supra Chapter 3 D. I. 2. c).

  273. 273.

    In 1994 Canada enacted legislation applicable to straddling stocks on the high seas and gave powers to its national authorities to enforce them towards some vessels not flagged in Canada. Hence it appears to have been a fully assumed strategy (Churchill and Lowe, The law of the sea (n 14) 306; Longhurst (n 53) 146–147; L. Lucchini, ‘La loi canadienne du 12 mai 1994: la logique extrême de la théorie du droit préférentiel de l’Etat côtier en haute mer au titre des stocks chevauchants’ (1994) 40 Annuaire français de droit international 864; D. Vanderzwaag, ‘Canadian Struggles with Freedoms of Navigation and Fisheries: a Short “Legal Cruise”’ in E. Franckx and P. Gautier (eds), The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Vessels: New Developments in the Fields of Pollution, Fisheries, Crimes at Sea and Trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Bruylant 2010) 32). On the ICJ case thereabout (Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment on Jurisdiction, 4 December 1998, I.C.J. Reports 1998 432), see for example J. Pfeil, ‘Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada)’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com.

  274. 274.

    Vincent, Droit de la mer (n 101) 228.

  275. 275.

    Vanderzwaag, ‘Canadian Struggles with Freedoms of Navigation and Fisheries: a Short “Legal Cruise”’ (n 273) 31.

  276. 276.

    International Law Association (ILA), ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference): Final Report’ (2004) 12–13.

  277. 277.

    International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with Commentaries’ 2011.

  278. 278.

    It had a Committee working on this topic from 1996 to 2004 (ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (1996–2004)’ http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/9 accessed 6 July 2015), culminating with its 2004 Report (ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference)’ (n 276)) and attached Resolution (ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference): Resolution No. 1/2004’ (2004)). It has currently again a working group addressing it (ILA, ‘Study Group on the Responsibility of International Organizations (Sofia Conference): Report’ (2012)).

  279. 279.

    It is worth noting the travaux préparatoires (R. Higgins, ‘The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-Fulfilment by International Obligations of their Obligations towards Third Parties’ (1995) 66-I Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 251) as well as the Resolution of 1995 (Institut de Droit International, The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-fulfilment by International Organizations of their Obligations toward Third Parties 1995, Resolution – Session of Lisbonne).

  280. 280.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 2; see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  281. 281.

    Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (n 277) articles 3–4; M. Bettati, ‘Création et personnalité juridique des organisations internationales’ in R.-J. Dupuy (ed), Manuel sur les organisations internationales – A Handbook on International Organizations (2nd edn Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1998) 58; P. Sands, P. Klein and D. W. Bowett, Bowett’s law of international institutions (6th edn Sweet & Maxwell 2009) 523–524; H. G. Schermers and N. Blokker, International institutional law: Unity within diversity (5th edn Nijhoff 2011) §1583.

  282. 282.

    Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §1139, 1579; Schermers argues that another basis to justify that international organizations are bound by CIL is that all their member states are, and that they cannot transfer competences in order to evade their obligations (H. G. Schermers, ‘The legal bases of international organization action’ in R.-J. Dupuy (ed), Manuel sur les organisations internationales – A Handbook on International Organizations (2nd edn Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1998) 402–403).

  283. 283.

    Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, 20 December 1980, I.C.J. Reports 1980 73, 89–90 §37: “International organizations are subjects of international law and, as such, are bound by any obligations incumbent upon them under general rules of international law, under their constitutions or under international agreements to which they are parties.” See also Schermers (n 282) 404–405.

  284. 284.

    On ultra vires acts, see for example E. Cannizzaro and P. Palchetti, ‘Ultra vires acts of international organizations’ in J. Klabbers and A. Wallendahl (eds), Research Handbook on the Law of International Organizations (Edward Elgar 2011) 365–397; J. Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (Cambridge University Press 2009) 53, 56–57, 59. On the powers granted to international organizations, according to their founding treaties and implied powers, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  285. 285.

    There is a presumption of an action being intra vires if it “warrants the assertion that it was appropriate for the fulfilment of one of the stated purposes of the” international organization (Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, 20 July 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962 151, 168; see also ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference)’ (n 276) 26; Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 215, 218–219). An argument could always be developed that the action reflects the parties’ will and/or subsequent practice (Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 254).

  286. 286.

    P. W. Birnie, ‘Are Twentieth-Century Marine Conservation Conventions Adaptable to Twenty-First Century Goals and Principles?: Part I’ (1997) 12 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 305, 326.

  287. 287.

    A. Gillespie, ‘Forum Shopping in International Environmental Law: The IWC, CITES, and the Management of Cetaceans’ (2002) 33 Ocean Development and International Law 17, 37.

  288. 288.

    Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 82.

  289. 289.

    Ibid.

  290. 290.

    Sands, Klein and Bowett (n 281) 524.

  291. 291.

    Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (n 277) general commentary §5.

  292. 292.

    Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 273, 285–288; Sands, Klein and Bowett (n 281) 518, 526–531.

  293. 293.

    I. Brownlie, ‘State responsibility: the problem of delegation’ in K. Ginther and K. Zemanek (eds), Völkerrecht zwischen normativem Anspruch und politischer Realität: Festschrift für Karl Zemanek zum 65. Geburtstag (Duncker & Humblot 1994) 300; ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference)’ (n 276) 18.

  294. 294.

    J. d’Aspremont, ‘Abuse of the Legal Personality of International Organizations and the Responsibility of Member States’ (2007) 4 International Organizations Law Review 91, 95; Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 279; Sands, Klein and Bowett (n 281) 529.

  295. 295.

    P. Sturma, ‘The Responsibility of International Organizations and their Member States’ in M. Ragazzi (ed), Responsibility of international organizations: Essays in Memory of Sir Ian Brownlie (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013) 318. Another related point is whether member states are obliged to contribute to reparations of an act of the organization by simple virtue of their membership to it (Higgins, ‘The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-Fulfilment by International Obligations of their Obligations towards Third Parties’ (n 279); Institut de Droit International, Resolution on the Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-fulfilment by International Organizations of their Obligations toward Third Parties (n 279) are both of the opinion that membership alone does not create such liability. On this Resolution see I. Brownlie, ‘The Responsibility of States for the Acts of International Organizations’ in M. Ragazzi (ed), International Responsibility Today: Essays in Memory of Oscar Schachter (Brill 2005) 355–362. On the relation between international organizations and theirs members in terms of liability, see Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §1585–1588). This question is also addressed in general terms in Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (n 277) article 40(2), although the actual consequences of this provision remain unclear.

  296. 296.

    Sands, Klein and Bowett (n 281) 529–530; S. Yee, “Member Responsibility’ and the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations: Some Observations’ in M. Ragazzi (ed), Responsibility of international organizations: Essays in Memory of Sir Ian Brownlie (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013) 331.

  297. 297.

    On this, see K. Nakatani, ‘Responsibility of Member States towards Third Parties for an Internationally Wrongful Act of the Organization’ in M. Ragazzi (ed), Responsibility of international organizations: Essays in Memory of Sir Ian Brownlie (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013) 294–301.

  298. 298.

    Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (n 277) commentary on article 48 §1.

  299. 299.

    Ibid. articles 58–59.

  300. 300.

    Ibid. 61(1).

  301. 301.

    Ibid. articles 19, 48, 63; see also ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference)’ (n 276) 30.

  302. 302.

    Salmon for example considers that if an international organization has legal personality, then its member states cannot, reasonably, be held responsible for its actions (in Higgins, ‘The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-Fulfilment by International Obligations of their Obligations towards Third Parties’ (n 279) 336, as presented in Bettati (n 281) 580).

  303. 303.

    Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (n 277) article 61(2) and commentary on part V at 90 §3.

  304. 304.

    N. Blokker, ‘International Organizations and Their Members: International Organizations Belong to All Members and to None’ (2004) 1 International Organizations Law Review 139, 144.

  305. 305.

    Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 274; Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §44; N. D. White, The law of international organisations (2nd edn Juris Publishing – Manchester University Press 2005) 30–32; d’Aspremont (n 294) 91.

  306. 306.

    Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §44A.

  307. 307.

    D’Aspremont argues in favour of a joint responsibility of the member states using excessive control over decision-making and of the international organization but rather envisions the problem of a few member states controlling the decision-making process rather than the decision-making process in itself being questioned in its capacity to produce decisions attributable to the international organization (d’Aspremont (n 294) 92, 101, 103, 109–111, 116–117).

  308. 308.

    Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 262.

  309. 309.

    Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §1584.

  310. 310.

    Blokker (n 304) 149; I. Österdahl, ‘International organizations – institutions and organs’ in J. Klabbers and A. Wallendahl (eds), Research Handbook on the Law of International Organizations (Edward Elgar 2011) 178; Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §44.

  311. 311.

    White, The law of international organisations (n 305) 31.

  312. 312.

    Blokker (n 304) 144.

  313. 313.

    Ibid. 149.

  314. 314.

    Higgins, ‘The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-Fulfilment by International Obligations of their Obligations towards Third Parties’ (n 279) 254.

  315. 315.

    Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 274.

  316. 316.

    See supra Chapter 3 B. II. 5.

  317. 317.

    Committee on Fisheries, ‘Strengthening FAO Regional Fishery Bodies’, presented at the Twenty-second Session of the Committee on Fisheries (Rome, 17–20 March 1997) COFI/97/4 (Rome 1997); J. Swan, ‘Regional Fishery Bodies and Governance: Issues, Actions and Future Directions’ FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 959 (Rome 2000) 5–7.

  318. 318.

    Harrison (n 65) 236.

  319. 319.

    ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference)’ (n 276) 5.

  320. 320.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 12–13.

  321. 321.

    Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 298.

  322. 322.

    ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organisations (Berlin Conference)’ (n 276) 26.

  323. 323.

    Merrills (n 120) 169–170.

  324. 324.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 30(1); Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 392.

  325. 325.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 30(2); Merrills (n 120) 192.

  326. 326.

    Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 392 (reference omitted).

  327. 327.

    SEAFO (SEAFO Convention (n 188) article 24(4)); SIOFA (SIOFA Agreement (n 188) article 20(1)); SPRFMO (SPRFMO Convention (n 188) article 34(2)); WCPFC (WCPFC Convention (n 188) article 31). For more on RFMOs’ dispute settlement mechanisms, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 3.

  328. 328.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 297(3)(a); Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 401.

  329. 329.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 297(3)(b)(c) and annex V articles 7(2) and (14).

  330. 330.

    Merrills (n 120) 172.

  331. 331.

    Churchill, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?’ (n 124) 389.

  332. 332.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 7(4) and Part VIII.

  333. 333.

    Ibid. article 7(5).

  334. 334.

    The “Volga” Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) (n 221) §75–80; Churchill, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?’ (n 124) 409–410; D. R. Rothwell, ‘The Contribution of ITLOS to Oceans Governance through Marine Environmental Dispute Resolution’ in T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum (eds), Law of the sea, environmental law and settlement of disputes: Liber amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Nijhoff 2007) 1016–1019.

  335. 335.

    H. Tudela, ‘La protection du milieu marin et la pratique de la pêche devant le Tribunal international du droit de la mer’ in O. Lecucq and S. Maljean-Dubois (eds), Le rôle du juge dans le développement du droit de l’environnement (Bruylant 2008) 362–364.

  336. 336.

    J. M. van Dyke, ‘Giving teeth to the environmental obligations in the LOS Convention’ in A. G. Oude Elferink and D. R. Rothwell (eds), Oceans Management in the 21 st Century: Institutional Frameworks and Responses (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004) 171–172; Rothwell, ‘The Contribution of ITLOS to Oceans Governance through Marine Environmental Dispute Resolution’ (n 334) 1023.

  337. 337.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 292(3).

  338. 338.

    Churchill, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?’ (n 124) 404.

  339. 339.

    Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Award (New Zealand v. Japan, Australia v. Japan) (n 118) 1390 §57–59, based mostly on the reasoning that, since the dispute settlement under CCSBT article 16 requires states’ consent for further procedure, this regime is removed from UNCLOS Part XV compulsory dispute settlement; see Tanaka, The International Law of the Sea (n 14) 394–396.

  340. 340.

    A. Boyle, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration’ (2001) 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 447, 451; J. Peel, ‘A Paper Tiger which Dissolves in the Rain? The Future for Resolving Fisheries Disputes under UNCLOS in the Aftermath of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration’ (2002) 3 Melbourne Journal of International Law 53; C. Romano, ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute: Hints of a World to Come…Like It or Not’ (2001) 32 Ocean Development and International Law 313, 331. For a more neutral analysis of this award’s implications, see for example B. H. Oxman, ‘Complementary Agreements and Compulsory Jurisdiction’ (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law 277.

  341. 341.

    On this case, see Morgan (n 109) 543–548; Tudela (n 335) 358–359.

  342. 342.

    Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 464. Only ICCAT and NAFO have no dispute settlement provision at all (McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 441); see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 3.

  343. 343.

    ITLOS, ‘Chambers’ http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=19 accessed 6 July 2015.

  344. 344.

    S. Rosenne, ‘Reflections on Fisheries Management Disputes’ in R. Casado Raigón and G. Cataldi (eds), L’évolution et l’état actuel du droit international de la mer: Mélanges de droit de la mer offerts à Daniel Vignes (Bruylant 2009) 835; Sands and others (n 44) 172; Tudela (n 335) 359. See ICJ, ‘List of Cases referred to the Court since 1946 by date of introduction’ http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2 accessed 6 July 2015; ITLOS, ‘List of Cases’ http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=35 accessed 6 July 2015.

  345. 345.

    Amongst others: The M/V “Saiga” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment on prompt release, 4 December 1997, ITLOS case n°1; Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures (n 116); The “Volga” Case (Russian Federation v. Australia) (n 221).

  346. 346.

    In Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitral Award (New Zealand v. Japan, Australia v. Japan) (n 118), the Arbitral Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction; the ICJ reached the same conclusion in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) (n 273); and the Swordfish case was suspended since the parties found a provisional arrangement in 2001 and removed from the list of cases in 2009 as a more structured framework for cooperation was agreed upon (Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Union), Order, 16 December 2009, ITLOS case n°7).

  347. 347.

    SPRFMO Convention (n 188) article 17(2).

  348. 348.

    Ibid. article 17(5).

  349. 349.

    The Objection by the Russian Federation to a Decision of the Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, Findings and Recommendations, 5 July 2013, Review Panel – Permanent Court of Arbitration, 4 §3, 14–15 §53.

  350. 350.

    Ibid. 12 §50.

  351. 351.

    Ibid. 8–10 §25–45.

  352. 352.

    Ibid. 21 §83–86.

  353. 353.

    Ibid. 23–24 §98–100.

  354. 354.

    Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan; New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March 2014, ICJ 66–68 §228–233, 71–72 §247.

  355. 355.

    Ibid. 70 §245.

  356. 356.

    Ibid. 33 §86, 41 §127.

  357. 357.

    Ibid. 41–42 §127.

  358. 358.

    Ibid. 53–54 §181, 57 §194.

  359. 359.

    Ibid. 59 §201, 62 §210.

  360. 360.

    Ibid. 59 §201–202, 61 §209.

  361. 361.

    Ibid. 63 §216, §219, 64 §222.

  362. 362.

    Ibid. 9 §1.

  363. 363.

    Ibid. 29 §69.

  364. 364.

    ITLOS Statute does not provide for an explicit competence to give an advisory opinion in general matters (in opposition to the ones related to the deep-seabed, UNCLOS (n 11) article 191), but its Rules do. The Tribunal had to address some of the issues of jurisdiction brought up by intervening states (See arguments inter alia from China (People’s Republic of China, ‘Written Statement: Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission’ (26 November 2013) 24–24 §53–55); Australia (Australia, ‘Written Statement: Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission’ (28 November 2013) 6–14 §11–39); the United Kingdom (United Kingdom, ‘Written Statement: Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission’ (28 November 2013) 4–20 §6–35); the USA (United States of America, ‘Written Statement: Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission’ (27 November 2013) 2–9 §8–27)).

  365. 365.

    Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), Advisory Opinion (n 235) 60–67.

  366. 366.

    Ibid. 25 §87, 50 §179, 54 §200, 55 §204.

  367. 367.

    M. Fitzmaurice notes that environmental law cases are still the ‘poor relative’ (‘The International Court of Justice and International Environmental Law’ in C. J. Tams and J. Sloan (eds), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford University Press 2013) 353); see also Sands and others (n 44) 151.

  368. 368.

    Rothwell, ‘The Contribution of ITLOS to Oceans Governance through Marine Environmental Dispute Resolution’ (n 334) 1024; for a nuanced assessment of the ICJ’s contribution to environmental law, see for example J. E. Viñuales, ‘The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Environmental Law: A Contemporary Assessment’ (2008) 32 Fordham International Law Journal 232, 232–258.

  369. 369.

    See supra Chapter 4 A. IV. 3. a)-b).

  370. 370.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 252.

  371. 371.

    Ibid.

  372. 372.

    See supra Chapter 4 A. II. 5.

  373. 373.

    Rosenne, ‘Reflections on Fisheries Management Disputes’ (n 344) 843–844.

  374. 374.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 252.

  375. 375.

    M. Bothe, ‘Compliance’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §45.

  376. 376.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 212; Bothe (n 375) §45; P. Okowa, ‘Environmental Dispute Settlement: Some Reflections on Recent Developments’ in M. D Evans (ed), Remedies in International Law: The Institutional Dilemma (Hart Publishing 1998) 166–167.

  377. 377.

    R. R. Churchill and G. Ulfstein, ‘Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law’ (2000) 94 American Journal of International Law 623, 644–645.

  378. 378.

    Ibid.

  379. 379.

    ‘Annex to the United Nations Charter: Statute of the International Court of Justice’ (Statute of the ICJ) 1945, 1 United Nations Treaty Series xvi article 63; ‘Annex VI of UNCLOS – Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ (Statute of ITLOS) 1982 article 32.

  380. 380.

    Statute of the ICJ (n 379) article 62; Statute of ITLOS (n 379) article 31; Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 252–253.

  381. 381.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 253.

  382. 382.

    Churchill and Ulfstein (n 377) 644–645; E. Louka, International Environmental Law: Fairness, Effectiveness, and World Order (Cambridge University Press 2006) 128.

  383. 383.

    Louka (n 382) 128.

  384. 384.

    U. Beyerlin and J. Grote Stoutenburg, ‘Environment, International Protection’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §86; Churchill, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Relating to Fisheries: Is There Much in the Net?’ (n 124) 418. On the general reasons explaining this reluctance, such as the inadequacy of international litigation for multilateral treaty obligations, see A. Boyle, ‘Environmental Dispute Settlement’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §3–5; Bothe (n 375) §45; Churchill and Ulfstein (n 377) 629, 644.

  385. 385.

    Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 480.

  386. 386.

    International organizations can request advisory opinions. The list is however very limited in the case of the ICJ (‘Charter of the United Nations’ (n 60) article 96; International Court of Justice, ‘Organs and Agencies of the United Nations Authorized to Request Advisory Opinions’ http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=2&p3=1 accessed 6 July 2015) but appears less strict in ITLOS, especially since the request of the SRFC for an advisory opinion was granted. On this, see supra Chapter 4 A. IV. 3. c) aa).

  387. 387.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 251–252 which states, in relation to on the Statute of ITLOS (n 379) article 20(2), that “[i]n consensual proceedings brought before the ITLOS (but not in compulsory jurisdiction cases) the range of potential parties may include not only international organizations, NGOs, and private parties but also entities of uncertain status, such as Taiwan.”

  388. 388.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 252; I. Brownlie, International law at the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations: general course on public international law (Recueil des Cours vol 255, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995) 103.

  389. 389.

    P. Okowa, ‘Issues of Admissibility and the Law on International Responsibility’ in M. D Evans (ed), International Law (3rd edn Oxford University Press 2010) 472.

  390. 390.

    Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) – second phase, Judgment, 5 February 1970, I.C.J. Reports 1970 3, 36 §46; Tams (n 264) 29–31.

  391. 391.

    Boyle, ‘Environmental Dispute Settlement’ (n 384) §6; Fitzmaurice, ‘The International Court of Justice and International Environmental Law’ (n 367) 354; A. Kiss and D. Shelton, Guide to International Environmental Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007) 15.

  392. 392.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 233; M. Fitzmaurice, International Protection of the Environment (Recueil des Cours vol 293, Kluwer Law International 2002) 166.

  393. 393.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 233; K. Zemanek, ‘New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations’ (2000) 4 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1, 10.

  394. 394.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 253; R. Wolfrum, ‘Enforcing Community Interests through International Dispute Settlement: Reality or Utopia’ in U. Fastenrath and others (eds), From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma (Oxford University Press 2011) 1132.

  395. 395.

    Dominicé (n 264) 359.

  396. 396.

    J. Delbrück, ‘“Laws in the Public Interest” – Some Observations on the Foundations and Identification of erga omnes Norms in International Law’ in V. Götz, P. Selmer and R. Wolfrum (eds), Liber amicorum, Günther Jaenicke – Zum 85. Geburtstag (Springer 1998) 18; see also Dominicé (n 264) 360–361 on the Barcelona Traction dictum; Gaja (n 256) 120–122.

  397. 397.

    The ILC does not differentiate them on the basis of the source (Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 48 §6, 8); nor does the Institut de Droit International, Resolution on the Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law 2005 (n 264) article 1; see Tams (n 264) 120–123, but also Beyerlin and Grote Stoutenburg (n 384) §78.

  398. 398.

    Gaja (n 256) 123; Tams (n 264) 36–37. In Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, the Court addressed the question of obligations erga omnes partes according to article IX of the Genocide Convention: “any State party to the Convention may invoke the responsibility of another State party with a view to ascertaining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations erga omnes partes” (Questions relating to the obligation to prosecute or extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, 20 July 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012 422, 450 §69).

  399. 399.

    Tams (n 264) 125.

  400. 400.

    Ibid. 125–127.

  401. 401.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 48 §10; Institut de Droit International, Resolution on the Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law 2005 (n 264) preamble.

    Amongst those who explicitly mention the protection of areas beyond national jurisdiction (such as the high seas) as well as of the (marine) environment and/or the conservation of biodiversity as being community interests, hence with erga omnes effects, are U. Beyerlin and T. Marauhn, International Environmental Law (Hart Publishing; Verlag CH Beck 2011) 287–288; Delbrück (n 396) 27–28; Fitzmaurice, ‘The International Court of Justice and International Environmental Law’ (n 367) 357–358; Kiss and Shelton (n 391) 15; E. M. Kornicker Uhlmann, ‘State Community Interests, Jus Cogens and Protection of the Global Environment: Developing Criteria for Peremptory Norms’ (1998) 11 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 101, 102; M. Ragazzi, The concept of international obligations erga omnes (Oxford University Press 2000) 155–162; Sands and others (n 44) 149; Y. Shigeta, ‘Obligation to Protect the Environment in the IC’s Practice: To What Extent Erga Omnes?’ (2012) 55 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 176, 201–202; Wolfrum, ‘Enforcing Community Interests through International Dispute Settlement: Reality or Utopia’ (n 394) 1333–1335.

  402. 402.

    J. Brunnée, ‘International Law and Collective Concerns: Reflections on the Responsibility to Protect’ in T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum (eds), Law of the sea, environmental law and settlement of disputes: Liber amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Nijhoff 2007) 38; Tams (n 264) chapter 4.

  403. 403.

    Delbrück (n 396) 31–36.

  404. 404.

    Fitzmaurice, International Protection of the Environment (n 392) 168; Wolfrum, ‘Enforcing Community Interests through International Dispute Settlement: Reality or Utopia’ (n 394) 1137–1139.

  405. 405.

    Tams ((n 264) chapter 5, in particular 197) even if he argues in favour of a right for all states to have standing in cases of violations of erga omnes obligations, also recognizes that there is, so far, no definite answer.

  406. 406.

    It is worth noting that the Institute of International Law, in its Resolution on the subject, declared that a non-injured state can claim cessation of the violation as well as performance of the obligation (Institut de Droit International, Resolution on the Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law 2005 (n 264) article 2) as well as has standing to bring a claim “[i]n the event of there being a jurisdictional link between” the two states concerned (ibid. article 3; on which Dominicé (n 264) 366). This additional condition simply clarifies that the competence of the Court does depend on such a link, not on the erga omnes nature of an obligation.

  407. 407.

    J. R. Crawford, ‘State Responsibility’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §43–46.

  408. 408.

    Sands and others (n 44) 148–149; E. B. Weiss, ‘Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century’ (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law 798, 801–808. The GATT dispute settlement panel appeared to point against the possibility of an actio popularis when it rejected the USA’s claim of extra-jurisdictional protection of dolphins on the high seas (Restrictions on Imports of Tuna (Mexico v. United States), GATT Panel Report circulated not adopted, 3 September 1991, DS21/R – 39S/155, (1991) 30 ILM 1594 §5.32. as presented in Sands and others (n 44) 150). The findings were slightly more open in the Shrimp-Turtle case (United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand v United States of America), WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Appellate Body Report Adopted, 6 November 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R §133, but avoided clarifying the point by claiming that the turtles were of a specific interest for the USA since they were regularly to be found in USA waters.

  409. 409.

    Brunnée, ‘International Law and Collective Concerns: Reflections on the Responsibility to Protect’ (n 402) 39.

  410. 410.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) article 42(b).

  411. 411.

    Ibid. article 48(1)(b); on see this Beyerlin and Grote Stoutenburg (n 384) §78; Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 233–234; Crawford, ‘State Responsibility’ (n 407) §46; Institut de Droit International, Resolution on the Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law 2005 (n 264).

  412. 412.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 42 §2.

  413. 413.

    Special Rapporteur Ago, ‘Report on State Responsibility’ (1976) II Yearbook of the International Law Commission 3, 29; Ragazzi (n 401).

  414. 414.

    The ILC articles, as they are regularly referred to by courts, seem to reflect CIL (Crawford, ‘State Responsibility’ (n 407) §65).

  415. 415.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 48 §12.

  416. 416.

    J. R. Crawford, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Law of State Responsibility’ in C. J. Tams and J. Sloan (eds), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford University Press 2013) 74.

  417. 417.

    Weiss (n 408) 805.

  418. 418.

    “[T]he equivalent of an ‘actio popularis’, or right resident in any member of a community to take legal action in vindication of a public interest […] is not known to international law as it stands at present” (South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) – second phase. Judgment, 18 July 1966, I.C.J. Reports 1966 6, 47 §88).

  419. 419.

    J. R. Crawford, ‘The General Assembly, the International Court and self-determination’ in V. Lowe and M. Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings (Cambridge University Press 1996) 587–588.

  420. 420.

    Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) – second phase (n 390) 32 §33.

  421. 421.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 233.

  422. 422.

    H. Fox, ‘Jurisdiction and immunities’ in V. Lowe and M. Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings (Cambridge University Press 1996) 234.

  423. 423.

    Tams (n 264) 112–114, 180, on the Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Judgment, 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974 253 and Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974 457.

  424. 424.

    Tams (264) 180–182, on Judge Petrén’s separate opinion, as well as Judges Castro, Onyeama, Dillard, Jiménez de Aréchaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, and Judge ad hoc Barwick’s dissenting opinions.

  425. 425.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 48.

  426. 426.

    Zemanek, ‘New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations’ (n 393) 11–12.

  427. 427.

    Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004 136, 199–200 §154–160.

  428. 428.

    Case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (new application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment on jurisdiction and admissibility, 3 February 2006, I.C.J. Reports 2006 6, 32 §64, 52 §125.

  429. 429.

    Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 42) 4; Stokke, ‘Trade Measures and the Combat of IUU Fishing: Institutional Interplay and Effective Governance in the Northeast Atlantic’ (n 41) 341–342.

  430. 430.

    As defined in the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (n 90) 8.

  431. 431.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 10.

  432. 432.

    M.-C. Cordonier Segger, ‘Sustainable development in international law’ in D. Armstrong (ed), Routledge Handbook of International Law (Routledge 2009) 356.

  433. 433.

    UNGA, Letter dated 13 February 2015 from the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to the President of the General Assembly, A/69/780 Annex – Outcome of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdiction and Co-Chairs’ summary of discussion §1(e). On the past discussions in the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group (‘Co-Chairs’ summary of discussions, advance and unedited, 1 April 2014 http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversityworkinggroup/documents/Advance%20and%20Unedited%20BBNJ-AHWG-7.pdf accessed 6 July 2015) in relation to the commitment made in The Future We Want – endorsed in UNGA Resolution A/RES/66/288 27 July 2012 (Document adopted at Rio + 20) §162. In that document, states had indeed agreed to decide before the 69th session of UNGA (September 2014) whether and how to move forward on the question of a new Implementing Agreement. See E. Druel, R. Billé and J. Rochette, ‘Getting to yes? Discussions towards an Implementing Agreement to UNCLOS on biodiversity in ABNJ’ (2013) 10 Biodiversity http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/PB1013_ABNJ%20IA_druel%20bille%20rochette.pdf accessed 6 July 2015; D. Freestone, ‘Protecting Our Oceans: New Challenges, New Solutions An Overview of This Issue’ (2006–2007) 7 Sustainable Development Law and Policy Review 2, 4; S. Hart, ‘Elements of a Possible Implementation Agreement to UNCLOS for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (Gland 2008) IUCN Marine Series 4 https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/edocs/EPLP-MS-4.pdf accessed 6 July 2015.

  434. 434.

    Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 419–420.

  435. 435.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 662.

  436. 436.

    N. Matz, ‘Chaos or Coherence? – Implementing and Enforcing the Conservation of Migratory Species through Various Legal Instruments’ (2005) 65 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 197, 210–212.

  437. 437.

    On this issue and the tentative to solve it through the ‘fully subscribed’ quota argument see A. Serdy, ‘Postmodern International Fisheries Law, or We Are All Coastal States Now’ (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 387, 390.

  438. 438.

    For example IATTC (Antigua Convention (n 188) article V); SEAFO (SEAFO Convention (n 188) article 19); SPRFMO (SPRFMO Convention (n 188) article 4); WCPFC (WCPFC Convention (n 188) article 8); in general, see McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 437.

  439. 439.

    M. Prost and P. K. Clark, ‘Unity, Diversity and the Fragmentation of International Law: How Much Does the Multiplication of International Organizations Really Matter’ (2006) 5 Chinese Journal of International Law 341, 343–344.

  440. 440.

    Hafner, ‘Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law’ (n 69) 859.

  441. 441.

    J. Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press 2003) 238. For a general framework of cooperation between regimes, see O. S. Stokke, ‘The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work’ FNI Report 14 (Lysaker 2001) http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R1401.pdf accessed 6 July 2015.

  442. 442.

    D. K. Anton, “Treaty congestion’ in contemporary international environmental law’ in S. Alam and others (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (Routledge 2013) 651–666; R. Caddell, ‘International Law and the Protection of Migratory Wildlife: An Appraisal of Twenty-Five Years of the Bonn Convention’ (2005) 16 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 113, 148; B. L. Hicks, ‘Treaty Congestion in International Environmental Law: the Need for Greater International Coordination’ (1998–1999) 32 University of Richmond law review 1643, 1643–1674.

  443. 443.

    Stokke, ‘The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work’ (n 441) 13–16.

  444. 444.

    N. Yagi, ‘High Seas Fisheries Today: Challenges and Remedies Under the Global Economy’ in D. Vidas and P. J. Schei (eds), The World Ocean in Globalisation: Climate Change, Sustainable Fisheries, Biodiversity, Shipping, Regional Issues (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) 213–216.

  445. 445.

    Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 413.

  446. 446.

    Ibid. 420; on the parallel idea of a world environmental organization, see F. Biermann, ‘The Emerging Debate on the Need for a World Environmental Organization’ (2001) 1 Global Environmental Politics 45, 45–55; F. Biermann, ‘Reforming Global Environmental Governance: The Case for a United Nations Environment Organisation (UNEO)’ (2011) http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/WEO%20Biermann%20FINAL.pdf accessed 6 July 2015; S. Charnovitz, ‘A World Environment Organization’ (2002) 27 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 323, 323–362; A. Mahiou, ‘De quelques incertitudes institutionnelles et normatives en matière d’environnement’ (Le droit international face aux enjeux environnementaux, Aix-en-Provence, 4–6 June 2009) 88–91; A. Najam, ‘The Case Against a New International Environmental Organization’ (2003) 9 Global Governance 367, 367–384.

  447. 447.

    M. W. Lodge and others, ‘Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: Report of an independent panel to develop a model for improved governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations’ (Chatham House 2007) x.

  448. 448.

    Najam (n 446) 367–369.

  449. 449.

    McLachlan (n 68) 286. On the difference between apparent and genuine conflicts, see Pauwelyn (n 441) 272. The former may sometimes be solved through interpretation while the latter cannot.

  450. 450.

    L. Boisson de Chazournes and M. M. Mbengue highlight a difference between mutual supportiveness as a conflict avoidance goal based on the principle of “normative cohesion” and harmonization as a method “linked to the ‘presumption against normative conflict’”: the former, as it is based on an objective appreciation, cannot be put aside by states, while the latter, as it is subjective, can be put aside if states so wish (‘A ‘footnote as a principle’ Mutual supportiveness and its relevance in an era of fragmentation’ in H. P. Hestermeyer and others (eds), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011) 1617, 1622–1623).

  451. 451.

    McLachlan (n 68) 286; on this subject see ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 69) 206–544 §410–480.

  452. 452.

    ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 69) 25–27 §37–40; C. W. Jenks, ‘Conflict of Law-Making Treaties’ (1953) 30 British Yearbook of International Law 401, 427–429.

  453. 453.

    Pauwelyn (n 441) 240–241 about the Case concerning the right of passage over Indian territory (Portugal v. India), Preliminary objections, 26 November 1957, I.C.J. Reports 1957 125, 142.

  454. 454.

    VCLT (n 199) article 31(3)(c); J. Klabbers, ‘Beyond the Vienna Convention: Conflicting Treaty Provisions’ in E. Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press 2011) 203.

  455. 455.

    Jenks (n 452) 427–429. This author refers to a statement in Oppenheim’s treatise: “[i]t is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something reasonable, something adequate to the purpose of the treaty, and something not inconsistent with generally recognised principles of International Law, nor with previous treaty obligations towards third States. If, therefore, the meaning of a stipulation is ambiguous, the reasonable meaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable, the more reasonable to the less reasonable, the adequate meaning to the meaning not adequate for the purpose of the treaty, the consistent meaning to the meaning inconsistent with generally recognised principles of International Law and with previous treaty obligations towards third states” (L. Oppenheim, International Law – A Treatise: Vol. I – Peace, edited by Lauterpacht (7th edn H. Longmans, Green and Co. 1948) 858–859 (references omitted).

  456. 456.

    Boisson de Chazournes and Mbengue (n 450) 1619.

  457. 457.

    Shrimp Turtle case (n 408) §128; ILC, ‘Fragmentation of international law’ (n 69) 223–224 §443; Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 2) 199.

  458. 458.

    Shrimp Turtle case (n 408) §130, 132; Pauwelyn (n 441) 245.

  459. 459.

    McLachlan (n 68) 303 about Shrimp Turtle case (n 408) §132.

  460. 460.

    Shrimp Turtle case (n 408) §130; Young, Trading Fish, Saving Fish (n 2) 199.

  461. 461.

    P.-M. Dupuy, ‘Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties: Between Memory and Prophecy’ in E. Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press 2011).

  462. 462.

    R. Wolfrum and N. Matz, ‘The Interplay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity’ (2000) 4 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 445, 474. One cannot go beyond the “clear meaning of the words” (C. J. Borgen, ‘Resolving Treaty Conflicts’ (2005) 37 George Washington International Law Review 573, 639, n 219; see also Pauwelyn (n 441) 245–246).

  463. 463.

    B. H. Oxman, ‘The duty to respect generally accepted international standards’ (1991–1992) 24 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 109, 113–114, 141–143; J. Sommer, ‘Environmental Law-Making by International Organizations’ (1996) 56 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 628, 654–656.

  464. 464.

    W. van Reenen, ‘Rules of Reference in the New Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular in Connection with the Pollution of the Sea by Oil from Tankers’ (1981) 3 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3, 13–16.

  465. 465.

    Harrison (n 65) 166.

  466. 466.

    Such as in UNCLOS (n 11) article 94(5).

  467. 467.

    Harrison (n 65) 171–179; Oxman, ‘The duty to respect generally accepted international standards’ (n 463) 148–158; van Reenen (n 464) 8–12.

  468. 468.

    Conclusion n°2 as presented in E. Franckx (ed), Vessel-source Pollution and Coastal State Jurisdiction: The Work of the ILA Committee on Coastal State Jurisdiction Relating to Marine Pollution (1991–2000) (Kluwer Law International 2001) 107. This topic has indeed been addressed by the Committee on coastal State jurisdiction relating to marine pollution of the ILA and presented in three reports (First Report, Helsinki, 1996; Second Report, Taipei, 1998; Final Report, London, 2000), as presented in Franckx (ed), Vessel-source Pollution and Coastal State Jurisdiction (n 468) respectively at 11–31, 45–52, 105–132; see also D. König, ‘Marine Environment, International Protection’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com §14.

  469. 469.

    A. Boyle and C. Chinkin, The Making of International Law (Oxford University Press 2007) 219; Harrison (n 65) 166; R. Wolfrum, ‘IMO Interface with the Law of the Sea Convention’ in M. H. Nordquist and J. N. Moore (eds), Current Maritime Issues and the International Maritime Organization (Kluwer Law International 1999).

  470. 470.

    UNCLOS (n 11) articles 61(3), 119(1)(a).

  471. 471.

    Harrison (n 65) 225.

  472. 472.

    Proposal by six Eastern European States, see ibid. 224–225.

  473. 473.

    Ibid. 225.

  474. 474.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 10(c).

  475. 475.

    Harrison (n 65) 226 (reference omitted).

  476. 476.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 30(5).

  477. 477.

    Lugten (n 145) 12–14.

  478. 478.

    Longhurst (n 53) 12.

  479. 479.

    Ibid. 64–65.

  480. 480.

    Morishita, ‘What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?’ (n 49) 25.

  481. 481.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 92.

  482. 482.

    Longhurst (n 53) 161.

  483. 483.

    P. M. Haas, ‘When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process’ (2004) 11 Journal of European Public Policy 569, 576.

  484. 484.

    D. Butterworth, ‘Science and Fisheries Management Entering the New Millennium’ in M. H Nordquist and G. Moore (eds), Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Kluwer Law International 2000) 45.

  485. 485.

    Cochrane, ‘Complexity in fisheries and limitations in the increasing complexity of fisheries management’ (n 151) 921.

  486. 486.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 29.

  487. 487.

    Schrank (n 180) 300.

  488. 488.

    Butterworth (n 484) 39.

  489. 489.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 7.

  490. 490.

    A. Gillespie, ‘The Precautionary Principle in the Twenty-First Century: A Case Study of Noise Pollution in the Ocean’ (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 61, 66–67.

  491. 491.

    United Nations, Agenda 21 – The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio (1992) chapter 17 §17.22.

  492. 492.

    United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 Conference on Environment and Development, principle 15.

  493. 493.

    A. Wiersema, ‘Adversaries or Partners? Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Wildlife Treaty Regimes’ (2008) 11 Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 211, 218.

  494. 494.

    M. Fitzmaurice, Contemporary issues in international environmental law (Edward Elgar 2009) 8; Sands and others (n 44) 218. Or they simply note the preference of North America for the former term, as in EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (European Communities v United States of America), WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Appellate Body Report Adopted, 13 February 1998 WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R §43, 60, as mentioned in D. Vanderzwaag, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides’ (2002) 33 Ocean Development and International Law 165, 166; P. Sands, Principles of international environmental law (2nd edn Cambridge University Press 2003) 218.

  495. 495.

    S. M. Garcia, ‘The Precautionary Principle: its Implications in Capture Fisheries Management’ (1994) 22 Ocean and Coastal Management 99, 103–104; S. Marr, The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea: Modern Decision Making in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2003) 17–18; Vanderzwaag, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides’ (n 494) 166.

  496. 496.

    J. B. Wiener, ‘Precaution’ in D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée and E. Hey (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press 2007) 604–606. For a separation in two categories, see Fitzmaurice, Contemporary issues in international environmental law (n 494) 8–9.

  497. 497.

    Wiener (n 496) 601–602, 607; Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 487. According to P.-M. Dupuy, it has not yet reached the sufficient precision and consistency in general international law to show the necessary opinio juris (‘Le principe de précaution et le droit international de la mer’ in Mélanges offerts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec (ed), La mer et son droit (Pedone 2003) 205–206). Of another opinion, Sands and others consider that the precautionary principle “reflects a principle of customary international law” (Sands and others (n 44) 228) and J. Cameron and J. Abouchar declared, already in 1991, that it “is emerging as a principle of customary international law” (‘The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment’ (1991) 14 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 1, 21). On the currently unsettled legal nature of the precautionary principle, see for example Fitzmaurice, Contemporary issues in international environmental law (n 494) 1, 4, 19, 27–31.

    No international court has clarified its legal nature or content yet (Dupuy, ‘Le principe de précaution et le droit international de la mer’ (n 497) 219–220). The parties’ arguments referring to the precautionary principle have not been addressed by any court, such as in Request for an examination of the situation in accordance with paragraph 63 of the Court’s judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) case (New Zealand v. France), Order, 22 September 1995, I.C.J. Reports 1995 288; Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures (n 116). In Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (n 133) also, Hungary made reference to this principle but the Court, in its majority, did not mention it specifically, only addressing at 78 §141 the need for “vigilance and prevention” in protecting the environment. See Dupuy, ‘Le principe de précaution et le droit international de la mer’ (n 497) 216–217; Fitzmaurice, Contemporary issues in international environmental law (n 494) 10–22; Sands and others (n 44) 223–226. The WTO jurisprudence is not more illuminating (see for example the EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (European Communities v United States of America) (n 494) §120–125; Fitzmaurice, Contemporary issues in international environmental law (n 494) 22–25; Sands and others (n 44) 226–227).

  498. 498.

    L. Boisson de Chazournes, ‘Precaution in International Law: Reflection on its Composite Nature’ in T. M. Ndiaye and R. Wolfrum (eds), Law of the sea, environmental law and settlement of disputes: Liber amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Nijhoff 2007) 28; N. de Sadeleer, ‘Le rôle ambivalent des principes dans la formation du droit de l’environnement: l’exemple du principe de précaution’ (Le droit international face aux enjeux environnementaux, Aix-en-Provence, 4–6 June 2009) 64–66.

  499. 499.

    In the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures (n 116), ITLOS spoke of the need of ‘prudence and caution’ (§77) and of the existence of scientific uncertainty (§80) but refrained from using the term precautionary principle – at the exception of Judge Treves who did so in his Separate Opinion (§8–9). On this, see Fitzmaurice, Contemporary issues in international environmental law (n 494) 10–14; Kwiatkowska (n 116) 23; Vanderzwaag, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides’ (n 494) 169–170. This Order was about provisional measures, which are, by nature, precautionary, as Judge Treves declared by stating that “[t]he precautionary approach can be seen as a logical consequence of the need to ensure that, when the arbitral tribunal decides on the merits, the factual situation has not changed” (Separate Opinion Judge Treves (§9); Marr (n 495) 147–148). As for Sands and others, they consider that this case reflects a practical application of the principle (Sands and others (n 44) 421). In The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional measures, 3 December 2001, ITLOS case n°10 §75, ITLOS found the precautionary principle inapplicable to the facts of the case. In the Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, I.C.J. Reports 2010 14, 71 §164, the ICJ pointed out that “while a precautionary approach may be relevant in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the [1975 Uruguay River] Statute, it does not follow that it operates as a reversal of the burden of proof”. Finally, in Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber), Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS case n°17 §122, 125–135, ITLOS noted “the obligation to apply a precautionary approach” and pointed out that the precautionary approach is becoming CIL. On a general overview of the ICJ and ITLOS case-law related to the precautionary approach, see S. Boutillon, ‘The Precautionary Principle: Development of an International Standard’ (2001–2002) 23 Michigan Journal of International Law 429, 452–456; J. Zander, The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice (Cambridge University Press 2010) 37–39.

  500. 500.

    Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 124.

  501. 501.

    UNGA, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 8 December 2006 – Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 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, and related instruments, 6 March 2007, A/RES/61/105 §5; Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995) articles 6.1, 6.2, 7.2.3; D. Freestone, ‘Principles Applicable to Modern Oceans Governance’ (2008) 23 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 385, 389.

  502. 502.

    Marr (n 495) 135–136.

  503. 503.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 6 and annex II; Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 109; D. Freestone, ‘International Fisheries Law since Rio: the continued Rise of the precautionary Principle’ in A. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development – Past Achievements and Future Challenges (Oxford University Press 1999) 149.

  504. 504.

    Orellana, ‘The Law on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks: ITLOS Jurisprudence in Context’ (n 38) 489.

  505. 505.

    McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 435; Sands and others (n 44) 415. For more on the precautionary approach in RFMOs, see supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  506. 506.

    UNGA, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 8 December 2006, A/RES/61/105 (n 501) §70; Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 113.

  507. 507.

    A. Trouwborst, ‘The Precautionary Principle and the Ecosystem Approach in International Law: Differences, Similarities and Linkages’ (2009) 18 RECIEL 26, 34; Vanderzwaag, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides’ (n 494) 175.

  508. 508.

    D. A. Russell and D. Vanderzwaag, ‘Ecosystem and Precautionary Approaches to International Fisheries Governance: Beacons of Hope, Seas of Confusion and Illusion’ in D. A. Russell and D. Vanderzwaag (eds), Recasting Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangements in Light of Sustainability Principles: Canadian and International Perspectives (Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development vol 8, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010) 61–68.

  509. 509.

    Dupuy, ‘Le principe de précaution et le droit international de la mer’ (n 497) 218.

  510. 510.

    E. Franckx and K. van den Bosche, ‘The Influence of Environmental Law on the Development of the Law of the Sea: CITES and the International Law of Fisheries’ (2011) 54 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 218, 230.

  511. 511.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 24.

  512. 512.

    R. Kearney and others, ‘Questionable interpretation of the Precautionary Principle in Australia’s implementation of ‘no-take’ marine protected areas’ (2012) 36 Marine Policy 592, 593; Tanaka, ‘The Changing Approaches to Conservation of Marine Living Resources in International Law’ (n 31) 314.

  513. 513.

    McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 436; Wiener (n 496) 607–608; Zander (n 499) 17–26.

  514. 514.

    N. de Sadeleer points to the three types of risks which can be identified: definite ones where the causal links between an activity and a negative consequence are proven, uncertain ones where such links are possible, and hypothetical ones which are not based on any scientific foundation (Environmental Principles – From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (Oxford University Press 2002) 91–226 in particular 155–162). Uncertain risks are the ones which require the precautionary approach while the first type of risks is to be dealt with through the preventative approach and the latter is not to be faced by a precautionary approach because a minimum scientific knowledge of the possibility of a risk is needed, as presented in Boisson de Chazournes (n 498) 22–23.

  515. 515.

    B. Dickson, ‘Precaution at the Heart of CITES?’ in J. Hutton and B. Dickson (eds), Endangered Species-Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES (Earthscan 2000) 40; Marr (n 495) 220.

  516. 516.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 10.

  517. 517.

    J. Jacquet, ‘Beyond food: fish in the twenty-first century’ in V. Christensen and J. MacLean (eds), Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2011) 121–122.

  518. 518.

    Garcia, ‘The Precautionary Principle: its Implications in Capture Fisheries Management’ (n 495) 99, 121–122. Said in other words, the precautionary principle should apply to the environmental sector, as well as to the socio-economic sector (F. González-Laxe, ‘The precautionary principle in fisheries management’ (2005) 29 Marine Policy 495, 497).

  519. 519.

    Wiener (n 496) 606, 609.

  520. 520.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 346. For a presentation of the main criticisms, see A. Rengifo, ‘Protection of Marine Biodiversity: A New Generation of Fisheries Agreements’ (1997) 6 RECIEL 313, 315–316.

  521. 521.

    Kaye (n 107) 194; Louka (n 382) 359; F. Orrego Vicuña, The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries (Cambridge University Press 1999) 87–88.

  522. 522.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 158–159.

  523. 523.

    The precautionary approach in the UNFSA is reactive and not one that would risk causing a ban on fishing (D. Freestone, ‘Implementing Precaution Cautiously: the Precautionary Approach in the Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement’ in E. Hey (ed), Developments in International Fisheries Law (Kluwer Law International 1999) 293; Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 24–25; Vanderzwaag, ‘The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides’ (n 494) 173). The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries ((n 501) articles 6.5, 7.5) also takes a rather soft approach in the call for a precautionary approach. The FAO Technical guidelines on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries further show the rejection, by fishing nations, of a reversed burden of proof: “although the precautionary approach to fisheries may require cessation of fishing activities that have potentially serious adverse impacts, it does not imply that no fishing can take place until all potential impacts have been assessed and found to be negligible” (FAO, ‘Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introduction’ FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 2 (Rome 1996) 7 §7(b)).

  524. 524.

    Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (n 501) article 7.5.

  525. 525.

    CCAMLR, ‘CCAMLR’s Management of the Antarctic’ (Hobart, Australia 2001) http://archive.ccamlr.org/pu/E/e_pubs/am/man-ant/e-management.pdf accessed 4 July 2015, 6.

  526. 526.

    It is not clear what the general legal status of sustainable development is (Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 125; Cordonier Segger (n 432) 371–372) but, in the fisheries field, the MSY comprises the dual goals of development and sustainability.

  527. 527.

    McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 430.

  528. 528.

    See supra Chapter 4 A. II. 4. b).

  529. 529.

    D. D. Caron, ‘The International Whaling Commission and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission: The Institutional Risks of Coercion in Consensual Structures’ (1995) 89 The American Journal of International Law 154, 159–163.

  530. 530.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 12; Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (n 163) 140.

  531. 531.

    Burke, ‘Unregulated High Seas Fishing and Ocean Governance’ (n 162) 241.

  532. 532.

    Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (n 163) 139–140.

  533. 533.

    Burke, ‘Unregulated High Seas Fishing and Ocean Governance’ (n 162) 241.

  534. 534.

    Polacheck, ‘Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries’ (n 163) 140.

  535. 535.

    Stokke, ‘Governance of High Seas Fisheries: The Role of Regime Linkages’ (n 207) 161. This is for example the procedure in CCAMLR (CCAMLR Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee, rule 3); or NAFO (NAFO Convention (n 188) article X(1)). CCBST’s practice, a contrario, should be mentioned in that its Scientific Committee shall make recommendations by consensus (CCSBT Convention (n 117) article 9(2)(d)).

  536. 536.

    Gjerde, ‘High Seas Fisheries Governance: Prospects and Challenges in the 21st Century’ (n 25) 227.

  537. 537.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 39.

  538. 538.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 10(j).

  539. 539.

    McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 427.

  540. 540.

    Ibid. 429–430. It is interesting to note that some RFMOs, such as SEAFO, couple the double weakness of consensus and opting out (SEAFO Convention (n 188) articles 17, 23). For more on voting procedures and opting-out possibilities in RFMOs, see Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  541. 541.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 105.

  542. 542.

    Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law (n 284) 206–208; Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §771–772.

  543. 543.

    Garcia, ‘The Precautionary Principle: its Implications in Capture Fisheries Management’ (n 495) 114; Schermers and Blokker (n 281) §785; Warner (n 43) 126.

  544. 544.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 92.

  545. 545.

    Burke, ‘Unregulated High Seas Fishing and Ocean Governance’ (n 162) 241.

  546. 546.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 228.

  547. 547.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 10(a).

  548. 548.

    Henriksen, Hønneland and Sydnes (n 12) 37–39.

  549. 549.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 228–229.

  550. 550.

    Ibid. 229.

  551. 551.

    SEAFO Convention (n 188) article 23(1)(c)-(g), clarifying that the reasons for non-acceptance have to be provided and alternative CMMs prescribed.

  552. 552.

    CCSBT does however have a unanimity rule (CCSBT Convention (n 117) articles 7–8); IATTC has a consensus rule (Antigua Convention (n 188) article IX); and so does SIOFA (SIOFA Agreement (n 188) article 8).

  553. 553.

    WCPFC Convention (n 188) article 20.

  554. 554.

    SPRFMO Convention (n 188) articles 16–17, annex II. Such procedure took place in The Objection by the Russian Federation to a Decision of the Commission of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (n 349); for more on this, see supra Chapter 4 A. IV. 3. c) aa).

  555. 555.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 230–231.

  556. 556.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 8(3).

  557. 557.

    Ibid. article 11.

  558. 558.

    McDorman, ‘Implementing Existing Tools: Turning Words Into Actions – Decision-Making Processes of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)’ (n 37) 425–426; Molenaar, ‘Participation, Allocation and Unregulated Fishing: The Practice of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (n 26) 469–472; see supra Chapter 4 B. I. 2. a).

  559. 559.

    T. Bjorndal, ‘Overview, roles, and performance of the North East Atlantic fisheries commission (NEAFC)’ (2009) 33 Marine Policy 685, 687; Molenaar, ‘Participation, Allocation and Unregulated Fishing: The Practice of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’ (n 26) 459.

  560. 560.

    Burke, ‘Unregulated High Seas Fishing and Ocean Governance’ (n 162) 241.

  561. 561.

    Chairman of the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, ‘Statement made by the Chairman of the Conference at the Conclusion of the General Debate on 15 July 1993’ 21 July 1993, A/CONF.164/12 2(g); Orrego Vicuña, The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries (n 521) 202.

  562. 562.

    The various references to the establishment of sub-regional or regional fisheries organizations are found in UNCLOS (n 11) articles 61, 63 and 118 as well as in the UNFSA (n 37) in particular articles 8–9.

  563. 563.

    Respectively WCPFC (WCPFC Convention (n 188) article 8) and SPRFMO (SPRFMO Convention (n 188) article 4); see van Bohemen (n 192) 243–244; van Dyke (n 336) 175–176.

  564. 564.

    On this, see for example World Ocean Review, The Future of Fish – The Fisheries of the Future 2013 (n 144) 12–23, 105–107.

  565. 565.

    Tanaka, ‘The Changing Approaches to Conservation of Marine Living Resources in International Law’ (n 31) 305.

  566. 566.

    Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (n 50) 46.

  567. 567.

    T. J. Pitcher and others, ‘An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries’ (2009) 33 Marine Policy 223, 223.

  568. 568.

    FAO, ‘Fisheries Management 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries’ FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 4 Suppl. 2 (Rome 2003) 6.

  569. 569.

    Molenaar, ‘Marine Mammals: The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations’ (n 50) 46.

  570. 570.

    Morishita, ‘What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?’ (n 49) 19.

  571. 571.

    Frid, Paramor and Scott (n 165) 463.

  572. 572.

    See supra Chapter 3 B. II. 1.

  573. 573.

    Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 113.

  574. 574.

    UNFSA (n 37) article 5(d)-(h).

  575. 575.

    Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (n 501) articles 6.1, 6.2, 7.2.3.

  576. 576.

    UNGA, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 8 December 2006, A/RES/61/105 (n 501) §5; Freestone, ‘Principles Applicable to Modern Oceans Governance’ (n 501) 389.

  577. 577.

    Tanaka, ‘The Changing Approaches to Conservation of Marine Living Resources in International Law’ (n 31) 305–306.

  578. 578.

    Pitcher and others (n 567) 224.

  579. 579.

    Russell and Vanderzwaag (n 508) 42–56.

  580. 580.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 59; Garcia and Cochrane (n 150) 316; Tanaka, ‘The Changing Approaches to Conservation of Marine Living Resources in International Law’ (n 31) 306–307.

  581. 581.

    FAO, ‘Fisheries Management 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries’ (n 568) 22 §1.4.7.

  582. 582.

    Morishita, ‘What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?’ (n 49) 19.

  583. 583.

    Cochrane, ‘Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?’ (n 101) 10; Churchill and Lowe (n 14) 282.

  584. 584.

    Juda and Burroughs (n 34) 26.

  585. 585.

    S. A. Murawski, ‘Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource management’ (2007) 31 Marine Policy 681, 681. In some cases progress can be noted, such as the North East Atlantic, where an ecosystem approach is to be implemented in the next decade or so. However, whatever improved scientific advice this means, no real improvement will be noted if decision-makers continue not to take seriously into account the scientific previsions and advice provided to them (Frid, Paramor and Scott (n 165) 467–468).

  586. 586.

    Bothe (n 375) §129–139; Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 227; R. Rayfuse, ‘To Our Children’s Children’s Children: From Promoting to Achieving Compliance in High-seas Fisheries’ (2005) 20 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 509, 510.

  587. 587.

    M. L. McConnell, ‘Observations on Compliance and Enforcement and Regional Fisheries Institutions: Overcoming the Limitations of the Law of the Sea’ in D. A. Russell and D. Vanderzwaag (eds), Recasting Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangements in Light of Sustainability Principles: Canadian and International Perspectives (Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development vol 8, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010) 74; W. W. Taylor, M. G. Schechter and L. G. Wolfson, Globalization: Effects on Fisheries Resources (Cambridge University Press 2007) 25–26.

  588. 588.

    A. J. Bederman, ‘CCAMLR in crisis: a case study of marine management in the southern oceans’ in H. N. Scheiber (ed), Law of the Sea: The Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2000) 190.

  589. 589.

    Burke, The New International Law of Fisheries (n 15) 308 (reference omitted).

  590. 590.

    Ibid. 311.

  591. 591.

    Calley (n 48) 114–121; Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 301–303.

  592. 592.

    Bowman, Davies and Redgwell (n 67) 147; Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 302.

  593. 593.

    Churchill, ‘Legal uncertainties in international high seas fisheries management’ (n 184) 233–234.

  594. 594.

    As opposed to how it is now (Freestone, ‘Problems of High Seas Governance’ (n 75) 116–117). See Committee on Fisheries, ‘The Global Record of Fishing Vessels Refrigerated Transport Vessels and Supply Vessels (Global Record)’, presented at the Thirty-first Session (Rome, 9–13 June 2014) COFI/2014/Inf. 12/Rev.1.

  595. 595.

    Lodge and others (n 447) xi.

  596. 596.

    Compliance Agreement (n 241) article III; UNFSA (n 37) articles 18–19.

  597. 597.

    Rayfuse and Warner (n 24) 416–417.

  598. 598.

    Calley (n 48) 147–150; Le Gallic and Cox (n 231) 692–694.

  599. 599.

    FAO, International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IPOA-IUU) 2001 §21.

  600. 600.

    Ibid. §66.

  601. 601.

    Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 42) 1.

  602. 602.

    Recommendation by ICCAT regarding Belize and Honduras Pursuant to the 1994 Bluefin Tuna Action Plan Resolution 1996.

  603. 603.

    Calley (n 48) 30–35; Riddle (n 48) 285–286. For another example, see the measures in NEAFC (Stokke, ‘Trade Measures and the Combat of IUU Fishing: Institutional Interplay and Effective Governance in the Northeast Atlantic’ (n 41)) and in general, see Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 42) viii.

  604. 604.

    Flothmann and others (n 224) 1236.

  605. 605.

    Calley (n 48) 141–147.

  606. 606.

    Flothmann and others (n 224) 1236.

  607. 607.

    Molenaar, ‘Port State Jurisdiction: Towards Comprehensive, Mandatory and Global Coverage’ (n 40) 245.

  608. 608.

    Lack, ‘Catching On?’ (n 42) 8–9; Rayfuse, ‘Building sustainable high seas fisheries through certification processes: issues and perspectives’ (n 266) 98–99.

  609. 609.

    Riddle (n 48) 282–283.

  610. 610.

    Ibid. 284.

  611. 611.

    L. A. Chaves, ‘Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: WTO-consistent Trade related Measures to Address IUU Fishing: AUS:IUU/2000/16’ (Background paper for the Expert Consultation on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Organized by the Government of Australia in Cooperation with FAO, 2000) http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y3274E/y3274e0i.htm#bm18 accessed 6 July 2015, Executive Summary.

  612. 612.

    Yagi (n 444) 212.

  613. 613.

    N. D. White, ‘Separate but Connected: Inter-Governmental Organizations and International Law’ (2008) 5 International Organizations Law Review 175, 194.

  614. 614.

    Gjerde, ‘High-seas Fisheries Management under the Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (n 74) 298.

  615. 615.

    Ibid. 299.

  616. 616.

    UNCLOS (n 11) article 297(1)(c); Tudela (n 335) 357–358.

  617. 617.

    Articles on the Responsibility of States (n 242) commentary on article 42 §12.

  618. 618.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 253–254; M. Fitzmaurice, ‘Environmental protection and the International Court of Justice’ in V. Lowe and M. Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings (Cambridge University Press 1996) 314.

  619. 619.

    Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell (n 9) 254.

  620. 620.

    Louka (n 382) 76.

  621. 621.

    J. L. Garrison, ‘The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Debate Over Sustainable Use’ (1994) 12 Pace Environmental Law Review 301, 308, 374–379; A. H. Hoel, ‘Political uncertainty in international fisheries management’ (1998) 37 Fisheries Research 239, 241, presenting the three tasks in the management of living resources, that are the need for a knowledge base, the task of regulating fisheries by the adoption of CMMs and the enforcement of the adopted regulations.

  622. 622.

    A. C. J. Vincent and others, ‘The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade’ (2014) 15 Fish and Fisheries 563.

  623. 623.

    Ibid. 585 (references omitted).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Solène Guggisberg

Authors
  1. Solène Guggisberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guggisberg, S. (2016). Chapter 4 Structural and Governance Issues. In: The Use of CITES for Commercially-exploited Fish Species. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23702-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation