Illegal Southern Ocean Fishing And Prompt Release: Balancing Coastal And Flag State Rights And Interests
A feature of the new law of the sea introduced by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), 1 was the capacity for coastal states to assert vast maritime claims over waters adjacent to their coastlines. A continental shelf could be claimed out to a minimum of 200 nau...
| Published in: | International and Comparative Law Quarterly |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
2004
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.1.171 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0020589300067488 |
| Summary: | A feature of the new law of the sea introduced by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), 1 was the capacity for coastal states to assert vast maritime claims over waters adjacent to their coastlines. A continental shelf could be claimed out to a minimum of 200 nautical miles, 2 while the newly recognized Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) also extended out to 200 nautical miles. 3 The continental shelf had previously been recognized under the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 4 and so the extension of coastal state sovereign rights over the seabed and subsoil was consistent with already existing law of the sea principles. However the EEZ, which gave to coastal states sovereign rights over the living and non-living resources of the sea-bed and adjacent waters, 5 was a new initiative of the LOS Convention and represents one of the most significant contemporary expansions of state sovereignty. By contrast with the extended continental shelf, which did not affect any significant pre-existing activities on the sea-bed, the new EEZ had a major impact upon fishing activities. As coastal states around the world eagerly proclaimed EEZs, waters previously considered high seas areas available for fishing 6 were now within the reach of state fisheries’ jurisdiction and control. The result has been that under contemporary international law those waters available for the exercise of the high seas ‘freedom’ of fishing, 7 have gradually been reduced. This new regime, in combination with parallel initiatives to regulate some aspects of high seas fishing activities, has meant that ‘legal’ fishing on the high seas is now subject to extensive regulation. |
|---|