Dear Chris,
I think this list is an excellent idea and commend you for doing the
necessary preparation for it. I also like your website very much and feature
the link to it on my own site: www.InternationalLawHelp.com.
I certainly agree that the entry into force of the Straddling Stocks
agreeement is a milestone of some note and may go a way toward addressing
two of the inherent weaknesses of the LOSC (or UNCLOS as we yanks typically
refer to it:)). That is, the management of straddling fish stocks and the
problem of "free-riders".
I would like to raise another issue. I recently spoke at a conference where
the impact of the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) Cases was discussed. While
there may be an instinct to conclude that the force in law of the Straddling
Stocks agreement might have led to a different result (laying aside Japan's
status in the treaty for a moment) would the fact of the Straddling Stocks
agreement have really changed the result in the SBT Cases? Even though
Article 30 the Straddling Stocks agreement incorporates by reference Part XV
(Settlement of Disputes) under LOSC, this includes LOSC Article 282. LOSC
Article 282 specifically defers to regional or bilateral agreements for the
purpose of dispute settlement. Therefore, isn't the combined force of both
UNCLOS and the Straddling Stocks treaty in the area of dispute settlement
only as strong as the dispute settlement provisions of the most applicable
regional agreement?
I welcome any discussion on this point.
Cheers,
Howard S. Schiffman
At 12:11 AM 12/12/01 -0000, you wrote:
>Dear list-members (again!)
>
>As I mentioned in my previous message, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement enters
>into force today and this appears to me an appropriate starting point for
>the OceanLaw discussion list. It hardly needs to be said that this is a
>highly significant event for international fisheries and a major step
>forward (even if long overdue). At the same time, however, there remains a
>number of concerns, not least (for me) the continued non-participation of
>certain States/entities - in particular Japan and the European Union.
>
>Another interesting issue is the one raised by Andrew Serdy in an article in
>"Int-Fish Bulletin". In this article, he argues that the agreement should
>have entered into force some time ago, because of the ratifications of
>Luxembourg and Italy (later withdrawn) and the United Kingdom (never
>counted). This article is available freely at:
>www.oceanlaw.net/bulletin/sample/focus/2001/22.htm. I am sure Andrew (who is
>a list member) will not mind me encouraging everyone to read this article
>and to share any views they have on this issue.
>
>I am keen to encourage some discussion on the list, so please feel free to
>share any views/comments you have on any of the issues raised in this
>message. Also, in order to develop some sense of "community" it would be
>interesting if you could provide a short sentence or two about your
>background, so we have an idea of who we are communicating with.
>
>Chris
>
>______________________________________________
>
>Chris Hedley LLB E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Editor, OceanLaw Tel: +44 707 432 3000
>www.oceanlaw.net Fax: +44 870 705 2343
>
>Resources on OceanLaw:
>
>Int-Fish Bulletin: new monthly current affairs journal on fisheries, marine
>mammals and other marine life conservation
>
>Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law: the web's leading resource
>for marine living resource law, policy and management - more than 1000 pages
>of information
>
>OceanLaw Mailing List: a discussion list open to anyone with an interest in
>marine living resource law and management and related law of the sea issues
>
Howard S. Schiffman, J.D., LL.M.
Adjunct Assistant Professor
New York University
School of Continuing and Professional Studies
[log in to unmask]
(718) 258-7253 (phone/fax)
www.InternationalLawHelp.com
|