Utilizing existing legal frameworks to implement fisheries management in the arctic
As climate change contributes to accelerated melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, areas that were previously off-limits to fishing will become accessible. While there are currently no internationally-agreed fishing regulations in the high seas of the Arctic, there is an effective moratorium on co...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Report |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
MarXiv
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/hrb8g https://marxiv.org/hrb8g/ |
| Summary: | As climate change contributes to accelerated melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, areas that were previously off-limits to fishing will become accessible. While there are currently no internationally-agreed fishing regulations in the high seas of the Arctic, there is an effective moratorium on commercial fishing thanks to the non-binding “Oslo Declaration” (Declaration concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean, from July 2015). The author investigates existing legal mechanisms which could be used to regulate an international Arctic fishery should commercial fishing begin.Currently, the Arctic Five (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States) plus Five (Iceland, the EU, China, South Korea, and Japan) are negotiating an agreement for fisheries management in the Central Arctic Ocean. The draft text, which has not reached consensus yet*, surprisingly does not seek to establish a regional fisheries management organization for this area. But, the Arctic 5 + 5 have agreed “to continue the moratorium on fishing on the high seas of Central Arctic until there is scientific evidence concerning sustainable fishing in the area.”The draft agreement further states, “the parties shall take measures consistent with international law to deter the activities of vessels entitled to fly the flags of non-parties that undermine the effective implementation of this Agreement.” But what measures ‘consistent with international law’ could member states adopt? |
|---|