PS336
Fall Semester 2005
Week 13 Outlines
Monday, November 9 - The Law of the Sea Treaty of 1982
Richard Nixon ----
We must decide "whether the oceans will be used rationally and equitably and for the benefit of mankind or whether they will become an area of unrestrained exploitation and conflicting jurisdictional claims in which even the most advanced states will be losers." Quoted in Barry Buzan, Seabed Politics, 1976, p.113
I. Key Provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) (ratifications) - 149 countries as of Sept. 20, 2005
-territorial waters out to 12 miles
-contiguous zone out to 24 miles
-exclusive economic zone (EEZ) out to 200 miles (list of countries) (map of maritime boundaries of the world)
Complications in drawing baselines
-right of transit passage through international straits (less than 24 miles wide)
-"parallel system" for seabed (common heritage of mankind)
-new institutions
International Seabed Authority (including an International Enterprise)
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
(Japan/China/Taiwan dispute over the Sinkaku Islands)
II. Key Provisions of Revised Section XI on the Seabed (the final exam will not ask abut these specifics)
-Four-chambered voting procedure for ISA Council---a majority of any of the
following can block a decision
(1) four major minerals consumer/importing states
(2) four of eight states with the largest investments in deep sea mining
(3) four major minerals exporting countries
(4) a group of developing countries
-countries pay a one-time $250,000 exploration and application fee rather than $1
million a year
-Initial operations of The Enterprise will be through joint ventures with national/private
companies
-In the ISA, US and other industrialized countries will have a role commensurate with
economic interests
-Fund will be created to assist developing countries affected by a drop in mineral prices
-Amendments are binding only on the states that explicitly accept them
III . The United States and the Law of the Sea
Nixon and Carter Administrations (negotiated the original treaty)
Reagan administration (reconsidered, then rejected the treaty)
Clinton Administration (signed and referred to the Senate for ratification)
Bush Administration (recommends ratification of the treaty)
Reasons:
*The United States would be in a stronger position invoking a treaty's provisions to which it is party, for instance in a bilateral disagreement where the other country does not understand or accept those provisions.
* While we have been able to rely on diplomatic and operational challenges to excessive maritime claims, it is desirable to establish additional methods of resolving conflict.
* The Convention is being implemented in various forums, both those established by the Convention and certain others (such as the International Maritime Organization). While the Convention's institutions were not particularly active during the past decade since the Convention entered into force, they are now entering an operational phase and are elaborating and interpreting various provisions. The United States would be in a stronger position to defend its military interests and other interests in these forums if it were a party to the Convention.
* Becoming a party to the Convention would permit the United States to nominate members for both the Law of the Sea Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission. Having U.S. members on those bodies would help ensure that the Convention is being interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with U.S. interests.
* As a party, the United States could get the legal certainty with respect to its continental shelf claim beyond 200 miles that will facilitate activities in those areas by the U.S. oil and gas industry.
* Becoming a party to the Convention would strengthen our ability to deflect potential proposals that would be inconsistent with U.S. interests, including freedom of navigation. It is worth noting that the Convention will be open to amendments beginning next November.
Beyond those affirmative reasons for joining the Convention, there are downside risks of not acceding to the Convention. U.S. mobility and access have been preserved and enjoyed over the past 20 years largely due to the Convention's stable, widely accepted legal framework. It would be risky to assume that it is possible to preserve indefinitely the stable situation that the United States currently enjoys. Customary international law may be changed by the practice of States over time and therefore does not offer the future stability that comes with being a party to the Convention.
Wednesday, November 9 - The Management of Global Fisheries
I. Fisheries and the Fishing Industry
Major families of commercially caught marine fish
1. herring, sardines, pilchards, anchovies
2. salmon (andromous species)
3. cod
4. tuna and mackerel
5. bottom flatfish fish - halibut, flounder
6. Invertebrates - lobster, scallop, shrimp, krill crabs
7. Mammals (whales, seals, sharks)
The technology of fishing
- gillnets, drift nets, purse seines (for pelagic species)
- trawls, longlines (for demersal species)
Coastal and distant water fishing fleets
-factory fleets
Overharvesting and decline of marine fisheries
Report FAO Fisheries Department-2004
In 1999, 4 percent of the stocks appeared to be underexploited, 21 percent were moderately exploited, 47 percent fully exploited, 18 percent overexploited, 9 percent depleted and 1 percent recovering. (from 2000 FAO Report on Fisheries and Aquaculture)
Global study (animation) announced in 2003 concludes that numbers of large ocean fish have declined by 90% over the past 50 years.
The growth of the aquaculture industry (fish farming)
II. The International Law of Fishing
Customary law of the high seas
Extended unilateral claims to fishery zones
(Examples)
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
North Pacific Fur Seal Commission
North Sea Commission
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
International Whaling Commission
Law of the Sea Treaty (1982)
coastal states have exclusive right to manage fisheries in 200 mile EEZs
UN Moratorium on High Seas Drift Nets (1991)
Convention on Highly Migratory and Straddling Stocks (1995) (ratifications - 56 as of Sept. 2005, including the US, Canada, and Spain)
-Reaffirms responsibility of nations that fish the stocks to cooperate in preserving them
-Fishing nations responsible for accurate figures on catch, conducting scientific
research, and eliminating overfishing and excess capacity
-Adopts "precautionary approach"
-Denies access to nations not members of regional fishery commissions
-Significantly strengthens enforcement, especially responsibilities of the flag states
-Disputes to be resolved by peaceful means